mstoll-39568 "A Midsummer Night's Dream" has many good and bad aspects to the film. While we criticized the acting of some characters, we adored general appearance of the set, although some parts could have been improved. In our opinion, some of the acting (e.g. Nick Bottom's) was a little unbelievable and silly at some points in the movie. This could be due to the fact that we thought Kevin Kline didn't quite fit the role. We didn't enjoy Nick Bottom's crew of actors as well, because - like Kevin Kline - their acting wasn't very believable either. When they were supposed to cry it sounded a lot like laughing to us. Lysander (Dominic West) and Demetrius (Christian Bale) on the other hand did a great acting job. Their expressions were very genuine and their acting believable. While Dominic West fit the role, Christian Bale would've fit the role of a "London Street Boy" more. The actors playing Titania and Oberon were fine but they did not live up to our expectations. We did not think that Oberon should have looked as young as he did in the movie. As we read the book we imagined Oberon to be older, have strands of grey hair and be a little bit brauder. Despite all those flaws he did have some scenes where he did a great job at expressing the characters feelings, for example when he freed Titania from Pucks spell. Despite the part where Titania got very overdramatic, she also lived up to our expectations. Her makeup and the costume was designed very well, the flowers in her hair and the flowy white dress really portrayed her very well. We believe that the Fairies and their aspects were well portrayed but their visual aspects were not always as imagined. For example we were not so happy with the fact that Puck had three horns. We believe though there was still much effort put into the costumes. The fairies' costumes were well designed. Puck was very good at expressing his character's feelings. He was very humorous and joyful during his scenes. Puck was very well acted by Stanley Tucci. He had a very fantasy-style look for his character. All in all the Fairies were well portrayed. In the movie, Helena and Hermia were well portrayed as good friends, but Helena wasn't half as crazed as she was in the book. The friendship between the two could've been portrayed a little bit more stronger. In the book, they are described as life-time friends, yet in the movie they just seem to be good friends. The script for Hermia and Helena was directly taken out of the book making their roles understandable in the movie. Acting wise, it was nothing special and nothing terrible. The music was well chosen and the costumes were lovingly designed. The movie in general was entertaining. Also, the movie had a good early modern language. Watching the movie, that follows the main storyline and the plot of the book, makes it a bit more modern, than reading the book. Now to the settings: The forest is a dark and mystical place where fairies are at home. The vegetation is dark and sets the mood for the events in the forest. There are a couple paths leading through the forest, but otherwise it is mostly untamed. The lair of the fairies is colorful and bright, a place of merriment and joy. The vine-covered floating bed contraption of Titania lets the skills of the fairies shine. After their ordeal in the forest, the main characters return to the castle, a stone and mortar building of great magnificence. The sculptures contribute to the elegance and glory of the palace and help accurately portray the way it might have been. Though the castle was romantic and realistic, the set seemed fake in the forest. Some parts were quite obviously not real, which is a disappointment because it otherwise could have been taken as a real forest. Some props were also seemed a bit cheap, yet this can be overlooked because of the overall good impression. Overall, the setting and set is well thought through. Every part seems to have been created with care and thought and creates a well put together impression. All in all the movie was a pretty decent portraying of this Shakespeare play.

Johan Dondokambey The story rolls in nicely. Trying to retain the nature as a play, the dialog retains the old English grammatical and vocabulary, though I don't think that it is the exact dialog from the play. What I like better is that, still in the spirit of retaining the feel of the original play, the main part of this movie is shot on a set that seem to be made for a stage, not shot at an outdoors location as what it would be inferred from the story. The costumes and props also hold this true, having them elaborate costume just as eye candies without having them interact realistically. For instance, the wings on the fairies looked just as glued parts on the costumes without having any complex effects on them. It's nice to see many great talents acting here. I like how this is one Christian Bale's previous works before the bigger titles. Other names as big as Pfeifer, Flockhart, West, and Marceau also did a good job, and for sure pumped the hype for curiosity over this movie.

Armand it is not easy to surprise with a Shakespeare adaptation. and this film is a courageous act in this sense. but, scene after scene, it becomes more. the secret - deep respect for text, the splendid performance, the interesting solutions for each detail. but basic virtue is the science of director to create a pure Shakespeare adaptation and the new location is a piece who has its perfect role. than, the balance between impressive cast and the play. and, sure, the flavor of exemplary old fashion show. for a Shakespeare admirer, it could be a delight. for the common public , good remember and new occasion to discover an unique universe. for the young viewer - victim of internet and not very close by book, maybe, a form of revelation. that is the splendid gift of film - to be useful more than charming. to recreate emotion who has , in few moments, the status of magic.

William Brown (wdbrown) Let me begin by saying that this is a beautifully acted, filmed and produced version of one of my two favorite Shakepespeare comedies. the other one being "Twelfth Night." That being said, however, I have to caution against anyone regarding this as a totally faithful adaptation. Having performed in and directed "A Midsummer Night's Dream," I think I am on fairly firm ground when I ask, "Where the Hell did Bottom's wife come from?" She is not in Shakespeare's script, and the inclusion of her only serves to make Bottom an even more pathetic character than he already is. Kevin Kline provides an tender, touching portrayal, but the character is not Shakespeare's.I have seen other criticisms and comments and I must take issue with those. I know it is easy to denigrate Shakepeare's language saying it is antiquated, too old, but to replace Shakespeare with a modern translation would be to lose the beauty of his words, and the wonder of his symbolism. I suggest these critics and reviewers get a little more education. I enjoy clever plays with scenery or time. Transplanting the time of the story to near turn of the century 1900, was effective. Changing the setting from Greece to Italy was convenient for filming and didn't detract from the story, but didn't necessarily add anything either.In conclusion, this is still an enjoyable film. But it is no more William Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream" than Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was Bram Stoker's.