A Midsummer Night's Dream (1968)

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Admirable film.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

I saw this film in streaming video from a print that looks as if it had been decaying in somebody's dank basement for the past 40 years. The color was washed out, lacking depth. But this Royal Shakespeare Theatre Company production, directed by Peter Hall, contains amazing performances by Diana Rigg, Helen Mirren and Judi Dench (as Helena, Hermia and Queen Titania) when all three were young and beautiful but already capable of displaying the talent that subsequently carried them to fame. Ian Richardson as Oberon and Ian Holm as Puck are also outstanding, as is Paul Rogers as Nick Bottom, the weaver. Despite the poor quality of the film itself, you will surely wait a lifetime to see a version of Midsummer Night's Dream in which Helena and Hermia are dominant players, and you may never see a Titania as sexy as gorgeous or as outright sexy as Judi Dench. The entire play-within-a-play by the "rude mechanicals" is as good as any I've ever seen, and Rogers is marvelous as Bottom.

This spectacular film is currently experiencing a rebirth on cable TV this month, I've seen it listed several times, in its' completed version, without having the aggravation of commercials or editing. When viewed in it's entirety, you'll gasp and squeal with delight at how so many of these budding young English Shakespearean actors became legends in their chosen field decades later.. A fresh and youthful Judi Densch is spectacular, along with the always sexy David Warner, but Diana Rigg's performance is the one that hammers home the reason why this stunning and statuesque actress was the darling of the 60's and 70's in the acting community in Britain. I'm sure so many of these performers, who'd already made a name for themselves in the Shakespeare community later became absolute legends in film and stage. I was hoping to see a youthful Alan Rickman or Maggie Smith, but beggars can't be choosers... Highly recommended and if you get a chance to watch it on the Hi-Def channels on cable, take the phone off the hook and stock up on the mead...

After seeing this film, I find that I can both praise it as the best in existence, or toss it down and trample upon it. As it stands, I neither love it devotedly, nor do I despise it.There are a few items on which I must comment, and I pray you give me leave to do so. First and foremost, the acting. Ian Holm radiated sheer Puckishness in his role as Robin Goodfellow. As a young man, he was more reckless and boyish than I've ever seen him. (Although that thing with the tongue was a little weird... but still. He was great.) Judi Dench, also, was magnificent as Titania. Although I would've preferred her to be... um... wearing more clothing... or at least SOME clothing. But regardless, she was wonderful. Paul Rogers was pure Bottom from top to... well. Yes. Some of the acting, however, I found to be purely horrid. Diana Rigg (Helena) and Helen Mirren (Hermia) in particular. They rarely put emotion into their voices, and merely spoke in monotone. When they did insert emotion, it was overblown. And besides, they seemed to have only one emotion TO insert - that of "on the verge of tears, oh-what-shall-I-do, poor-little-rich-girl" acting. Ludicrous and not befitting of the character at all.Another thing I must mention is the lighting. You could SEE the lights through the trees. Not very professional - I must admit that for the first twenty minutes I was sure that it was an independent film. The camera angles were also rather ridiculous, and the constant shaky-camera effect gave me a headache and made me not wish to look at the screen.Another thing (though perhaps this is just me being difficult), but did the fairies really have to be green? Really? I found it rather strange, difficult to distinguish the actors from the greenery, and I believe that Ian Richardson may have been allergic to the makeup. Or even if he wasn't, SOMETHING was making his eyes turn red, and whatever it was gave me the creeps.All in all, however, it wasn't too bad. I laughed my head off several times. The donkey was well done (I liked the use of prosthetics), and the children playing the fairies seemed to know their roles wonderfully, and they played very well. I wouldn't recommend it to non-Shakespeare fans, but if you like Shakespeare, I think you'll like this.

THere are three British dames in this film adaptation: Dame Judi Dench, Dame Diana Rigg and Dame Helen Mirren. While the cast is outstandingly directed by Sir Peter Hall, the costumes appear to be weak and cheaply made. When Titania played by Dame Judi Dench kisses a horses' behind, you can see his eyes. The costumers dressed Titania as a green fairy which was just painted on like silly. The William Shakespeare play is a festive comedy for the light-hearted and entertainment of its audience. It's not an expensive production but it's worth watching to see three Dames in their younger days. Everybody in the cast has been part of the Royal Shakespeare Company and are veteran actors by now. THe play does entertain and I can poke fun at the cheap costumes and lack of expense towards the production. It's nice to see Dame Judi Dench before she was ever a Dame. Not even an O.B.E. in this 1968 production. She appears to enjoy playing the role. Dame Helen Mirren is also cast as the young Helena who seeks to be in love. I probably got the names wrong but it's Shakespeare, who can remember?