rsternesq Count me in too. I saw this as a kid and still recall with great pleasure that it was my introduction to Shakespeare and has lead to a lifetime love. As was the case for several other films of plays, the clever camera work was a definite plus. Loved making Ariel a sprite by playing with size. Having him ride on Prosperos shoulder certainly worked for me. What a lovely conceit! It made the scenes between them as magical as they were meant to be. Calaban is a bit of a monster but one with Burton's voice. All in all, even thinking about it and the wonderful cast brings a smile to my face. I visited the site and wasn't surprised to see the high rating and generally positive reviews. I feel exactly the same way. Well done all around and a wonderful introduction for kids that lingers on the mind and in the heart as well.

Ed This TV production is highly abridged but gives a good idea of the play. The actors come from every part of the acting spectrum from the Shakespearian actor Maurice Evans and the Welsh actor and Elizabeth Taylor husband (twice) Richard Burton to the comedian Tom Poston.It strikes me that, though Mr. Evans perhaps had a more musical sense of the lines than Michael Hordern in another production I reviewed, the results of loving your voice too much approaches bombast. I could easily imagine a much more introverted approach in character with a man like Prospero who was a private practitioner of the magical arts not a public one. (Especially in a film or video production where projection is not so important.)In short, a very old-fashioned oratorical approach which this video preserves well.In keeping with a 1960 version of the play, Roddy McDowell who plays Ariel is, like David Dixon in the other version, not overdressed but he wears briefs and not a thong like Mr. Dixon. He seems to me much more comfortable in the part and reads his lines more convincingly.All the more reason I wonder why Tom Poston as Trinculo was encouraged to camp it up (with a lisp in his case.) and this is true of some of the other characters as well.Lee Remick was fine as Miranda but I thought Pippa Guard was even better in the other version. And William Bassett in briefs and a sort of Roman top for some reason was perhaps overly "manly" and here also I preferred Christopher Guard, who was more poetic, in the other version. Richard Burton as Caliban was fine as well.The "masque" towards the end with Juno, Ceres etc. was cut to shreds but Lehman Engel's music was more than adequate. The sets were also quite serviceable.Perhaps I might add a paragraph or two concerning the part of Ariel and the "girlie-man" comment by another reviewer: This is not off the mark since Ariel is supposed to be sexually neutral. In Shakespeare's day, he would have undoubtedly been played by one of the boy actors who also did the women's parts. More recently, it has been done by adult male actors who are sexually ambivalent to some extent, at least in appearance. (Roddy McDowell was certainly a gay man but I really don't know anything about David Dixon in the other version I reviewed.) The part has also commonly been played by women.

Jim Colyer Hollywood has never done justice to William Shakespeare's The Tempest, and it is this 1960 TV version which I recommend to this day. It is short, to the point and has an amateurishness about it although the cast is superb. The lovely Lee Remick is in the role of Prospero's daughter, Miranda. Richard Burton plays the evil Caliban. If it were up to me, I would have cast Burton as Prospero. Burton was a heavyweight and would have brought a dignity to the character which is otherwise lacking. Roddy McDowell fits the part of Ariel. He prances around like one of Arnold's "girlie-men." The Tempest is one of Shakespeare's most likable plays. There is something comforting about its island setting, the storm and an old man working his magic to ensure his daughter's future. We know beforehand that good will triumph over evil.

RubyJ29 I saw this on TV when it came out. I would have been 6 years old. I was enchanted, and to this day, The Tempest is still my favorite Shakespeare play, which I credit to this production. No, you wouldn't want it to be your only experience of the play, as the previous post points out. But if you get a chance to see it, give it a look. It's a good introduction, and a good way to "get your feet wet" if you feel challenged (as I confess I often do) by more authentic presentations of Elizabethan drama.