A Midsummer Night's Dream (1999) User Reviews

Gorgeous film not bad Shakespeare adaptation

[dfranzen70 · 7/10 · 20 February 2000]

There have been many adaptations of Shakespeare plays over the last decade or so, most of them aimed squarely at younger viewers. You know the drill: The director picks out rocking, hip tunes to spice up the soundtrack and some hot, young stars to broadly interpret the Bard's work.

That's not the case here. Kevin Kline gets to ham it up as Nick Bottom, the base mechanical with delusions of thespian grandeur, and Michelle Pfeiffer gets to show off her own acting chops as Titania, the Queen of the fairies. Okay, so maybe a little knowledge of the play itself would help the average viewer, but if you're not a fan of the play, you can still witness some absolutely sumptuous camerawork and some funny, funny scenes - many of them dealing with the spellbound Bottom, who's been turned into a jackass. Stanley Tucci underplays (somewhat surprisingly) his role as the mischievous Puck, and even Callista Flockhart turns in a solid performance as one of four human (non-fairy) lovers.

Good and Bad

[Taigan · 6/10 · 1 June 1999]

To begin with, I confess that in any production of MSND I see I'm focusing almost entirely on the Rude Mechanicals (here, Kevin Kline and co.) For the most part, I thought they were great. But I, like many others, was put off by the focus on Nick Bottom. This is not supposed to be a three-dimensional character, let alone a sympathetic one. He was designed to be a joke, even his name (Bottom. Ass. Donkey, get it?) Where it went right was showing just how out of their league the poor slobs were. From the cutaway to the "Green Room" where these few men in street clothes are surrounded by acrobats, fire-eaters, etc, to the huge Opera house audience.

Then the play itself was masterfully executed. I was a little put off by Peter Quince shouting out the "right" lines from offstage, (that's not in the play), but it did help make clear some jokes. I loved how they made the Moon's part improved. Most of all, I loved what they did with "Thisbe" at the end! I've never seen it done that way before and if you asked me, I would have said it wouldn't work. But it was great! My only problem was that they should have then cut the Duke's derisive line "Wall and Lion are left to bury the dead." It detracted. As for the rest, nothing that hasn't been said already. Calista Flockhart was appropriate, Stanley Tucci was amusing, Michelle Pfeiffer delivered her lines with feeling, yet the feeling seemed disconnected from what she was saying. The bicycle theme lost me, and I'd like to see at least one production of MSND actually set in ancient Athens. Overall a good film. You should see it, but maybe wait till it's the second-run theaters.

Delightful--Shakespeare for Dummies

[grandfunkfan · 7/10 · 3 December 2005]

I somehow managed to get through high school without being forced to read most of the classic stories that so many students dread and fear based on hand-me-down horror stories from siblings and friends. Later in life, natural curiosity drove me on several occasions to force myself to enjoy the great works of literature. Usually I was so lost in trying to translate the jargon or the author's intent, that I could never enjoy the story. My choice of watching A Midsummer Night's Dream was inspired by a recent trip to Barnes & Noble. As planned, I met my 14-year-old daughter at the checkout line carrying my usual stack of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Mystery stories, while she had chosen for her reading pleasure several Shakespearean works. I told her that I was very pleased with her fondness of reading. Regardless of the material, reading is generally better, i.e., thought provoking, than watching a movie. This delightful movie, however, made it possible to enjoy the Bard's magnificent story telling ability without a translator. There was sufficient Shakespearean dialogue to make me pause the DVD a few times for thought, but generally the story flowed with enough vitality to entertain as the thoughts and inspirations of human foibles were driven deeper into my subconscious for later analysis. The only shortcoming is I can't say, "I liked the book better than the movie."

Charming Fairy Dust

[mermatt · 14 May 1999]

Though some critics have dumped on this film, I was charmed by it. The movie literally sparkles. The settings are full of rich colors and magical lighting. The romantic classical music is all well chosen to help induce the hypnotic or dreamlike qualities. And the cast is an utter delight.

This is a fluffy cloud of fairy dust -- just as Shakespeare intended.

Although difficult to translate, has some nice touches

[tickletoe · 7/10 · 29 March 2005]

There probably aren't that many films that break most of the rules and succeed, but this one makes a strong effort. Let's see...

1) It's wordy. Of course, it's Shakespeare.

2) It has too many characters. See above.

3) It has no clearly identifiable main character. Huge defect in the eyes of Hollywood. How did it ever get produced?

4) It's arty. With Shakespeare, it's either arty or PBS/BBS drab. Let's settle for arty in that case.

Despite all these "handicaps," some of the directorial touches actually succeed. First, the translation to Tuscany circa 1900 takes advantage of that era's interest in fairy lore, romantic music, and the technology (like bicycles and phonographs) that was rendering fairy lore quaint. We are invited to see the fairies themselves encounter the technology that would obsolete them. Despite the translation of setting, the textual references to ancient Athens remain, and the viewer is--it is implied--requested to accommodate.

More importantly, this version contains the most sensitive treatment of the "mechanics," the common working men staging a play for the Duke, that I have ever seen. Nick Bottom retains his buffoonery, but a more sensitive side is brought out as he rejoins his fellows after the "dream." The production of "Pyramus and Thisby" contains a huge surprise that I won't spoil here. Certainly worth the price of admission for any fan of the bard who's seen most previous film versions of the play within the play.

The casting has its pluses and minuses. In general, the Brits fill their parts well, but the Americans are a step behind. Calista Flockhart wrestles with her words as if speaking a foreign language, and Stanley Tucci, although a great actor, does not give the impression that he can travel 50,000 odd miles per hour. We need more contrast between Puck and Rupert Everett's subdued, thoughtful Oberon. Finally, Michelle Pfeiffer, although a beautiful woman, does not give the impression of a force of nature. Rich housewife is closer to the mark. The exception to the rule is Kevin Kline, who distinguishes himself even above Robin Williams as a comic actor with the potential for serious depth.

Definitely worth checking out as the most accessible and competent Midsummer on film.

Class movie with no popcorn

[ThunderKing6 · 6/10 · 30 March 2021]

I remember watching this for those redundant class assignments. It was good just felt like a dysfunctional movie in which I didn't learn anything from during the skool daze.

The scenery was good. It felt more like a play than a movie. It's not horrible and it's not that boring. However, it's a movie and class assignments that we can do without because it teaches nothing.

What can be learned? Like i said nothing

Verdict: you may have a dream while watching this product.

Not for all

[iwatcheverything · 7/10 · 4 January 2004]

Yes Shakespear is not for us all. Ahh but for the ones who have some culture in their lives this movie is a treasure. I am a big fan of films made after works of Shakespear. Kenneth Branagh makes some of the best. This was still a masterpiece of work I thought. It did have it's problems. You must know about the play before watching it or get lost. Then again why would you watch a movie when you either do not like Shakespear or can not understand him. If you watched it like that then of course you would not like the film. If you are a fan or are looking to gain culture, check this film out soon. Right now I got it for less than you can rent it.

Average Film

[anadasilva-66176 · 6/10 · 21 September 2018]

In my opinion, I found the movie quite average. First, when I've seen that it was written by William Shakespeare I was expecting more from this movie but I wasn't really 'amazed' with it. The background of this film suppose to be in Athens, Greece but their outfit and all felt like they were in England and in my opinion, it didn't have any Elizabethan vibes. The forest didn't seem like a magical forest and I couldn't really get this sense of magical throughout the film. There were some amazing and famous actors in this film but there acting was quite disappointing for being too melodramatic. The love triangle was not well explained in the movie as it was in the script. A positive point about this movie is that they used the same as it was in the script so when you read it is quite fun to follow each line.

One Movie Buff's Opinion

[danielhalton · 10/10 · 12 December 2004]

I have seen criticism of this movie saying that the language should have been changed to our post-modern English instead of being the original late-middle/early modern English that Shakespeare used. But those who say that miss the point that what makes these plays so magnificent IS the language that Shakespeare used, and to change it would be to ruin the movie.

Anyways, the acting is marvelous, as it should be from such a cast as this. Michelle Pfeiffer plays the part of Titania with the utmost perfection. Kevin Kline as Nick Bottom is equally as good, and the two end up having a chemistry that is unmistakable (even if he is an ass at this point).

The directing is also great - almost as good as the acting, if not as good. Costumes, sets, everything with exception of there being headlights on the bicycles, is perfect. Michael Hoffman truly pulled of a great feat with this movie, and I would recommend it to anyone.

Also, on a side note, if you have trouble understanding the language, though it be English, watch the DVD and turn on the subtext.

If I've offended...

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 29 April 2007]

I remember that when "A Midsummer Night's Dream" came out, many critics considered it a weird version of Shakespeare's play. I didn't see anything particularly wrong with it. Granted, they did change some things (namely moving the setting about 300 years ahead of the original play's setting), but there's nothing bad about that. I probably should admit that one thing which I've never quite understood about the play is whether or not one of the stories portrayed is supposed to eclipse the others. The one that most sticks in my mind is Nick Bottom getting turned into a donkey (especially thanks to Kevin Kline's neat interpretation of the role).

So, while I wouldn't consider this movie the ultimate masterpiece (particularly in a year that saw "The Sixth Sense", "American Beauty" and "Being John Malkovich"), it's a fairly edifying experience. It's a little strange to see Calista Flockhart as Helena, given that she's best known as Ally McBeal, but she still does OK with the role). So overall, I do recommend the movie. Also starring Michelle Pfeiffer, Stanley Tucci, Rupert Everett, Christian Bale and David Strathairn. To paraphrase the cast: the "Fish Called Wanda" thief, Ally McBeal, Catwoman, Walter Winchell, a certain character actor, Batman and Edward R. Murrow.

To think. After Bottom gets turned into a donkey and has a fling with Titania, she says that she was enamored an ass. No matter how you look at it, he always sounds like a posterior.

Patchy but fun

[Ripe Peach · 1/10 · 24 February 2001]

This is a rather muddled production, with an erratic tone and (in the video version I have seen) poor sound mixing. Michelle Pfieffer in particular seems uncomfortable making long speeches, and David Strathairn as Theseus seems to be in a different movie. Also, Dream has always been a hard piece to film, being over long with many subplots and changes of pace (plus that Shakespeare favourite, a play within a play).

That said, there's much to like here. The sets and camera work are sound - there's a nicely judged fun and sexy undertone to the whole production, the fairy scenes being particularly aesthetically pleasing.

Stanley Tucci plays Puck tolerably well, neither too comic nor too ironic. Rupert Everett makes a powerful, sensitive Oberon, and Kevin Kline aquits himself well as comedic support (and he would be well advised to stick to such part rather than embarrasing himself in straight pieces like The Ice Storm). The minor players make a good fist of things, and the surprise of the piece is Callista Flockhart who is unexpectedly convincing and winning as Helena, especially considering that I can't stand her portrayal of Ally McBeal.

Not great, but not at all bad either, and it's easy to do this play very badly indeed.

Excellent Job of a Difficult Task

[tvsterling · 9/10 · 25 July 2004]

I'm a professional live theatre stagehand. People who are too centered on movies will have a hard time with this picture. If you could see the original first run performance of this play in Elizabethan England you would think you had stumbled into an over-costumed poetry reading. If the movie is hard to follow try & imagine what viewing that play would be like. It is the measure of Shakespeare's greatness that now 400 years later & in a medium born of photography that this greatest of fantasies still rings true. Try to show some respect; Shakespeare defined modern English. In comparing the lines to the original I thought that the adaptation was sensitive & well thought out. Simplified to fit the film medium but not sacrificing any of the truly great lines that actors drool over. The fairy world sets seemed cramped to me & reminded me of Cocteau's Beauty & the Beast. I personally found the setting of the movie in turn of century Italy kind of fun. Resetting Shakespeare in times & places other than he wrote is pretty much standard practice. The bicycles & the phonographs were amusing to me & generated some fun business for the actors. Kevin Kline was excellent as the ass. He got you to sympathize not pity or deride. In fact the whole amateur troop was memorable. Stanley Tucci was the quintessential Puck. Calista Flockhart threw everything including the kitchen sink into her part. Don't accuse her of overacting though; you'll only give away that you have never been deeply in love. Michelle Pfeiffer was radioactive beautiful, probably fatal closer than ten feet. Rupert Everett maintained perfect believability in a difficult part which is essentially support for Puck. As an answer to anyone who thought that things were a bit oversexed. The Renaissance was all about the rediscovery of the fact that people are noble & beautiful, not sinful & ugly. Shakespeare was one of the greatest products of the Renaissance. The movie is true to those Renaissance ideals. To sum up; a class act & class acts are not for everybody.

Maketh me sicketh

[Figgiedan · 6/10 · 19 July 2000]

Is it just me, or are more and more films nowadays being made using "classic" text? I am SO sick of Shakespeare remakes that I was probably a bit biased going into seeing "Midsummer Night's Dream." I thought "Shakespeare in Love" was totally over-rated and this film was just another thankless retread that should've just remained unseen. Kevin Kline and Stanley Tucci are ok, but there's something to be said about "STARS" doing Shakespeare. Stick Ian McKellen in there and it's almost like Shakespeare, stick Ally McBeal in there and it's a friggin joke. Please go read the play, help me gain back some of the magic that Shakespeare has lost throughout the dark 1990's. 6 out of 10 - an F. -Kris

I know Shakespeare. This is NOT Shakespeare.

[cupcake-8 · 1/10 · 18 May 1999]

I'm a trained actor too, and I know Shakespeare. This is NOT good Shakespeare. Prancing around melodramatically, overacting, and slapstick comedy are signs that the actors and director do NOT understand the subtleties of Shakespearean dialog. Midsummer is actually a deep play, a very dark and poignant satire. This version is just plain junk.

*Grins*

[darthsnoopy · 6 April 2003]

Wow... that person who gave it "zero stars out of ****" is a little confused... though not without entertainment value. His comment "Shakespeare would have been apalled" is laughable. why? Because most of his whining was about the plot itself. Does he not realize that Shakespeare WROTE the play A Midsummer Night's Dream, and that that makers of the movie followed the original play TO THE WORD, except for a few dialogue cuts that didn't affect plot? And then he went on to whine about how frivolous and silly the plot is...

you know what? All of Shakespeare's comedy plots are silly and frivolous. That's the point. Remember, in his time, he wasn't an intellectual mastermind... he was an entertainer for the masses. He gave the playgoers what they wanted in his plays, whether comedy, tragedy, or history- and what they wanted was love, mistaken identity, gratuitous violence, a few laughs, and to be entertained. Yes, he was a great playwright. One of the first, in fact, to really give changeability to his characters. Most writers of his time used purely stock characters. Good guys, bad guys, drunk guys, slutty chicks, virtuous chicks, idiots, smart guys... but never 3-dimensional characters. This is what Shakespeare changed. He created 3-D, CHANGEABLE characters.

And don't start on "Oh, you are being shallow". Shakespeare DID put a lot of deeper meanings and metaphore into his plays- but that DID come secondary to entertainment. And even his great plays like Hamlet and Macbeth, with some serious psychological "WTF???" going on, were pretty contrived. I mean, the end of Hamlet involves four dead bodies on the stage, mostly due to mix ups (Hamlet gets stabbed by Laertes' poisoned sword, they keep fighting and manage to switch swords, Laertes gets stabbed with his OWN sword, the queen drinks the poisoned wine meant for Hamlet, then warns him, and he stabs the king AND makes him drink the poisoned wine. Nevermind Ophelia's previous suicide because Hamlet was pretending to be insane, Polonius getting stabbed by Hamlet because Hamlet thought he was the evil king, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern dying in Hamlet's place when they were sent to get him killed, and of course, the death of Hamlet's own father by having poison poured in his ear) So don't start bashing the filmmakers. You said the only good thing they did was the atmosphere... but really, that's all that was left up to them- the presentation. The play was already written, the characters already created, the plot already silly and Chick Flick-y. Sorry. That idiotic "Shakespeare would be apalled" thing just bothers me. I mean, he wrote the fricking thing. So, the only conclusion I can draw from this inane and snooty review is that, like many others, the complexity of the play and its many subplots confused the hell out of you (May I say something about attention spans here??), so you tried to turn it around and blame it on someone else because you're too much of a dolt to figure out what's going on.

Ok, having ranted- I'll make this brief. A Midsummer Night's Dream is like a comedy-chick flick with the added advantage of a cool atmosphere and Shakespeare's poetic dialogue. It's a funny romantic comedic fantasy. If you like that sort of thing, see it. If you don't, then don't. And for God's sake, if you can't understand that dialogue, don't blame it on the filmmakers. There ARE people out there who DO understand it, you know.

worth the wait

[widescreenguy · 7/10 · 30 August 2008]

a very long wait. 43 years to be exact.

this was the first Shakespeare play I studied in high school and I HATED it. all the mincing fairy dancing and twinkle toes. wretched stuff for a 14 year old eager to take on the growing challenges of life.

sigh.

when this one was released, I thought good grief, why couldn't they do *anything else*.

and then this year with nothing better to do I took in a free live performance at the university (it was a midsummer night) and they did such a good job that I finally rented this production and was blown away by it.

goes to show in the hands of decently professional and intelligent people it can bring out the best and be a true representation of the genius of Shakespeare.

I hope some day all those stiflingly boring and bitter high school teachers can be FORCED to sit through some of the better film versions of Shakespeare to see that it can be presented in such a way as to not WRECK the enjoyment and entertaining elements of Shakespeare's works.

Path of this movie had difficulty running smoothly

[Lil'Girl · 7/10 · 20 May 1999]

I personally didn't mind the movie. It was for the most part mildly entertaining but it certainly wasn't great Shakespeare.

The movie, I suspect, lacks conviction and chemistry between actors. It was quite difficult to have any real sympathy with any of the main characters as they often went as quickly as they came. Choosing to set the film in the nineteenth century was rather bizarre especially with all the references to Greek mythology.

For more energetic Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing wins hands down.

Wake me when it's over

[smck · 6/10 · 23 May 1999]

If you've never seen "A Midsummer Night's Dream," this is probably as good an introduction as any.But it's a bit heavy-handed, not particularly funny, and downright ponderous at times. Rupert Everett and Michelle Pfeiffer are most successful and seem to be having a terrific time as the king and queen of fairies; elsewhere the likes of John Sessions, Max Wright, Sam Rockwell, Roger Rees and Gregory Jbara make the most of their limited screen time. The lovers are a bit bland (and a miscast Calista Flockhart would have made a much better "Hermia") and Stanley Tucci is..uh..puckish (if nothing else) as "Puck" but the real disaster is the "Bottom" of Kevin Kline. It would appear to be the perfect match, but it is a wearisome, uninventive performance. This is supposed to be FUN!

Sigh. ANOTHER update.

[Spleen · 6/10 · 13 December 1999]

Okay, I'll bite: why late 19th century Tuscany? Even if Hoffman had no particular reason to suppose that his change of setting was for the worse (and I think it is, if only because it renders the fairies' references to `the Athenian' completely mystifying), he should PRESUME that his change is for the worse, unless he has good positive reason to think that it's for the better. Shakespeare's original setting is always the default setting. When will twentieth century directors, stage AND screen, get this through their thick skulls?

Now that I've said that I should add that the Tuscan photography is lovely. But the midsummer night's dream itself is all studio work, and it looks cluttered, and confused, and ugly, ugly, ugly. Any HINT of enchantment has been removed. To make matters worse, this is clearly an accident - they were so obviously TRYING to make the forest look beautiful, or at the very least striking, by night. I spent most of the time trying to suppress sympathetic embarrassment. To make matters worse STILL, the forest the characters see during the day is manifestly NOT the same forest they spend the night in. This is a more serious flaw than you might think. We never see a commonplace forest transformed: instead we see a commonplace forest, then a lousy studio set, then the forest again.

We're never allowed to forget that this is taking place in the 1890s. Bicycles and phonograph records litter the landscape. But I'm glad to see that this Tuscan town is so conservative a backwater that everyone is still whistling the music from `La Traviata'. Period opera music would be Puccini and Mascagni - but why bother with those two, when we have Verdi?

This is, as I've said, a weak and rather odd play of Shakespeare's, and I'm not sure Hoffman knew why he wanted to bring it to life. I get the feeling he doesn't know what to do with either his cast or his material. Kevin Kline does very well, mostly, although he needed to be tamed; but Calista Flockhart - bah. Still, I don't quite have the heart to say that the resulting movie is bad.

Surprisingly faithful adaptation

[Liza-19 · 10/10 · 19 October 2004]

As a general rule, I normally don't post comments unless I have enough time to write a thorough review, and have given it much thought before hand. I'm sorry, but even though it's 2am, I can't bear to go to sleep and let the review before me just sit there. Obviously the reviewer before me seems to have no idea that the complicities that arise from the various plots go back to Shakespeare himself - and it is a great achievement by this film to manage to keep all the plates spinning and all the stories interesting.

I am amazed by this film. I am a life-long Shakespeare fan and it's great to see a faithful American production. The British/American cast all worked fantasically well together - Christian Bale, Anna Friel, Dominic West, and Calista Flockheart were all perfectly cast as the four lovers. The fairies and the actors both worked very well to frame the story - and the director has managed to keep it both visually unique and incredibly entertaining.

I'm not quite sure why they decided to change the location from Greece to Italy, but in an age where Kenneth Branagh is trying to make a 1940s musical out of Love's Labour's Lost, I say, the changes could be a lot worse. All in all, this is a very impressive adaptation. I'm just happy to see that Shakespeare hasn't lost his appeal to modern audiences.

Shakespeare lite--very lite

[daved-3 · 6/10 · 15 June 1999]

The film has some nice elements, an etherial look and some nice casting (Kevin Kline, Michelle Pfeiffer). It also has some incredibly bad casting (Stanley Tucci as Puck? David Strathairn as Theseus?)and some fine cast members who are wasted (Roger Rees and Bill Irwin). It's not up to the standards of Branaugh's Much Ado About Nothing, but what is? Enjoyable, but slight.

Neither smart nor inspiring.

[filmfan-21 · 1/10 · 7 May 1999]

Who greenlighted this thing, Kevin Kline? I wouldn't be surprised, seeing how the movie focuses almost entirely on him, at the expense of the play's more interesting younger characters. In this age of inspired young, smart, sexy Shakespeare films, this "A Midsummer Night's Dream" is neither smart nor inspiring. Here, while horribly mismatching the ages of the story's characters (Helena is older than Oberon!), the director squanders a great opportunity to adapt the play for today's audience. And what's up with this 19th century thing? Let's hope the next version of the "Dream" is better.

Visually stunning, a little stilted, but a must see!

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 26 May 2009]

A Midsummer Night's Dream is a very complicated play, and can get very silly at times, and this film is surprisingly faithful to the play. Yes, there was an attempt to partially modernise it, therefore the script wasn't as good as it could have been. The film itself is lovingly designed, with lavish costumes, stunning sets(my favourite being the wood set) and handsome cinematography. The music was lovely with clever use of music by the likes of Mendelssohn and Verdi. I thought the acting was very good indeed, Kevin Kline stealing the show as Bottom, most of the time hilarious, especially in the play scene, when we are shown what a bad actor Bottom really is. Michelle Pfeiffer is lovely also, and Rupert Everett is very charming also as Oberon. Callista Flockhart convinces also as Helena, and Stanley Tucci has a ball as Puck. The direction is competent, but my only other criticism is that the film is a little overlong. Overall, I genuinely enjoyed this film, not as good as Much Ado About Nothing(with Kenneth Branagh) or Macbeth (with Jon Finch), so I will happily award it 8/10. Bethany Cox.

shakespearean entertainment at its finest

[maisieskelton · 6/10 · 21 September 2018]

Good film, with a good adaptation of Shakespeare's midsummer's night dream. Using famous young actors, such as michelle pfeiffer and Kevin Kline, to create a modern twist on the original play. The film is based on the idea of changing love triangles, through using magic to manipulate the relationships. Fairies use certain love potions to manipulate how characters feel toward each other, although the use of comedy allows them to make mistakes. Therefore, the plot is predictable through knowing that there will be a happy ending. The use of magic in the play, makes it more entertaining. The emotions of the characters remained the same throughout the play and no climax was involved. The names of the characters as well as what they look like, is extremely similar making it very hard to understand who is who. The use of unrequited in the film, is repeated constantly throughout the plot making it predictable and less exciting. The film could only be watched once or twice, as it is so predictable that the plot becomes boring. Although, the use of comedy and special effects are good for its time, allowing the plot to thicken.

I hoped for something better

[David-277 · 1/10 · 7 May 1999]

I SO wanted to like this film... but I just could not bring myself to enjoy it. Tedious, slow, overdone, and childish. Thumbs down, sadly.