gcsman "...like the baseless fabric of this vision, the cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, the solemn temples, the great globe itself ... shall dissolve and, like this insubstantial pageant faded, leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep." What actor or actress wouldn't give their eye teeth to deliver those lines? No other writer in the English language can conjure up such transcendently strong, evocative language. The Tempest was the last play that Shakespeare wrote entirely by himself, and it's hard to avoid the feeling that this was the master's farewell flourish. If you haven't seen this movie, it's absolutely worth it. Ignore the negative posts; I have no idea what their problem is. I rate this as among the best Shakespeare adaptations specifically for the screen, along with Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" and Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing" and a very few others. When this movie was released there was predictably a minor flap about the central character of the old magician/sage Prospero (here, Prospera) being played by a woman. But it turns out to be no problem at all; with some extremely small adjustments to the text, everything works just fine, including the parent/child relationship (Prospera/Miranda) which is now mother/daughter. And Helen Mirren, one of our greatest living actresses, sells it. Converting Shakespeare to film carries both advantages and risks, but one advantage is an extra dimension of nuance: with effective use of close-ups the actors can act with subtle facial expressions as well as with dialog and body language. And Mirren does this very effectively indeed -- watch her face carefully in every one of her scenes. This movie also doesn't shy away from the full text; it's delivered clearly and for anyone not so familiar with Shakespeare's wording this is as good a place to start as any. Another advantage of film is the ability to use special effects, which this movie uses especially for the airy spirit Ariel (an excellent Ben Whishaw) and for the final "vision" sequence. These work well, they add to the overall feel of the play, and (avoiding the risk) they're not overdone. Compared with other Shakespeare plays the list of characters is relatively small, and although there's no doubt this is Helen Mirren's film, the rest of the cast is uniformly good. Felicity Jones is a really nice and convincing Miranda, Djimon Hounsou gives a strongly portrayed version of the conflicted Caliban, and the shipwrecked nobles (David Strathairn, Alan Cumming, Chris Cooper, Reeve Carney, Tom Conti) are uniformly good. The biggest problem area with The Tempest (as a play) is with the "fools" (the comic relief, here played by Alfred Molina and Russell Brand): relative to other plays they just aren't that funny and they seem to be just a distraction to the main story, but to their credit Molina and Brand pull off just about the best versions of them that I've seen.Kudos to director Julie Taymor for giving us this. She's someone with genuine vision and is no stranger to Shakespeare either -- see her eccentrically powerful version of Titus Andronicus ("Titus" 1999, with Anthony Hopkins) as one other example.

paul2001sw-1 Recently, I watched, and loved, the seven BBC adaptations of Shakespeare's plays about the Wars of the Roses. By contrast, this film of 'The Tempest' is poor fayre. Partly it's because of actors who seem ill-equipped for speaking Shakespearian lines: Russell Brand is the most obvious target, though the truth is that several cast members seems almost equally bad (Helen Mirren, though, and Alfred Mollina, are predictably good). Perhaps it's because of the film's arbitrary and inconsistent use of special effects and it's back-and-forwards transitioning between Tudor orthodoxy and a more modern staging: both approaches can work with Shakespeare, but this one just seems a mess. But maybe the bard too deserves some stick: there are some famous lines ("Oh brave new world, that has such people in it!") but the plot is pretty simple: Prospero (or, in this re-gendered version, Prospera) gets her revenge on her enemies through the deployment of supernatural devices: her hapless foes never stand a chance. Shakespeare's customary tendency to punch down with his humour is also on display: for all his literary brilliance, a lot of Shakespearian comedy takes the form of, in effect, chav jokes. Maybe there's something more in the script that got lost in adaptation. But this really isn't the bard at his best.

Mrs.D The movie had potential, but it turned out rather awkward in this re- telling. Very recognizable actors in every role, some of them tried really hard to make it work, probably just poorly directed in that respect? Odd music choices throughout. Plus, I don't think I've ever seen worse screen manipulation or graphics. Some scenes look like they were straight up "photoshopped". To be honest, I think Syfy channel tries harder than this. Dialogue was a bit hacked up and hard to follow (hard to hear even at times). I've read the play twice in original play form (olde English), so I know what they are supposed to be saying, that had nothing to do with it, just didn't work. Shakespeare would roll in his grave if he saw this with his name on it methinks.

Robert J. Maxwell I only caught the last quarter hour or so, and can't comment on the rest of it, but what I saw wasn't too shabby.Helen Mirren is pretty convincing as the magician. I don't care if Prospero underwent a sex change operation or not. It's a little surprising to see such echt-Hollywood types as David Strathairn and Chris Cooper tackling WS's often difficult prose and arcane references. Felicity Jones, as Miranda, is a knockout, regardless of her lines.And, as Caliban, Djimon Hounsou has some extremely funny moments being chased by dogs leaving trails of fire, his eyes bugging out like Mantan Moreland's. "Feets, don't fail me NOW!" The visual effects treat Ariel very nicely, suggesting his lightning-quick speed in a way that's hard to describe. He sort of leaves fading images of himself behind as he fulgurates away.Besides, it's always a pleasure to hear lines that are part of our common lexicon, or used to be. "We are such stuff as dreams are made on." Cripes, even Humphrey Bogart quotes it, or misquotes it, in "The Maltese Falcon." And it's great to sense the irony behind Miranda's, "O brave new world, that has such people in't," as she is introduced to a couple of scalawags -- even if the actress kind of throws the lines away.But I can't give it a higher grade because I'd really need to see the whole thing. Man, think about it. A sorcerer on an island, a monster, a sprite -- and an invitation to lather the viewer with a Niagara of horrifying special effects. I can imagine it now. A CGI volcano erupts. The modern city of New York descends from the heavens. Achilles and his myrmidons rise up from their graves and shrug the earth from their shoulders. Well, why the hell not? Mirren is a magician, isn't she? And we have the world of CGI at our disposal.However, the effects may not have been overdone in this instance, though the temptation was surely there. Anyway, judging from what I saw of it, it's enjoyable. I wish the island were a little less dark and chilly looking, but that's carping.