The Tempest

Wow this is one of those movies that I am completely baffled about the low ranking on here. I agree with some of the critiques that the sound mixing could have been better but overall the film was gorgeous, overall well acted and very understandable for such a difficult play.

Someone mentioned poor special effects...I thought they were wonderful. Clearly the big money goes to plenty of trite blockbusters leaving little for pieces of art and beauty such as this. But what they lacked in money they made up for in creativity....I absolutely loved the rendition of the spirit Ariel. There was plenty of gorgeous scenery both real and mixed with CGI.

Julie Taymor never disappoints me and this is no exception!

In casting Helen Mirren as Prospera, director Julie Taymor adds an interesting spin to this Shakespeare adaptation.

Also CGI effects help make more sense of the story.

On the downside, film versions of the bard's plays rarely work perfectly (with the honourable exception of Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet) and unless you know the play already, the action here is pretty hard to follow. Also, it's a bit strange seeing comic genius Alan Cumming in a straight role.

Ultimately though, the main joy of the movie is Dame Helen. She does bitterness superbly. I loved the scene when Miranda first meets Ferdinand - Mirren's ironic commentary added a whole new dimension to the play for me.

I also loved Tony Conti as the aged senator Gonzalo. His performance is so masterful it puts his character at the forefront of the story for once - no bad thing.

Overall I think Shakespeare fans will really enjoy this film. Other people may be left a little bored and bewildered.

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.

Julie Taymor (Frida, Titus) sets her sights on the Bard's final masterpiece, recasting Prospero as Prospera (Hellen Mirren) and letting the magic and romance loose in this very different take on The Tempest.

First, what works? Hellen Mirren does, rather unsurprisingly, and the art direction of photography are consistent with the vision of the woman who gave us Titus back in 1999. Kudos as well to the ever-watchable David Strathairn and Djimon Hounsou.

What annoys? Now we enter very subjective ground. This beautiful, deceptively simple play is turned into an amped up to the max, loud and frantic film. The electric guitar whines are painfully out of place, and Russell Brand, never guilty of subtlety on a good day, will make you claw your own eardrums out. It's almost as if Taymor had forgotten we were right there with her cast, right behind the camera, instead of sitting 50ft back in a packed theater.

This has proved an incredibly divisive film, and I feel split right down the middle on it. I admire Titus, in my mind one of the best Shakespeare adaptations in history, but whereas Taymor's turbocharged visuals and loud, often trashy use of sound and effects served as a perfect illustration for Shakesepare's bonkers gore-fest, it diminishes the more mature, heartfelt qualities of this play. The Tempest is a great playwright's swan song, the work of an aging, mature artist. Why would you give us an overly loud, ADD-afflicted MTV version?

Ultimately, this frustrating missed opportunity makes you wonder, did Taymor have her Shakespeare mixed up all along. Rather than give us "the stuff that dreams are made of", she serves us "a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

I am not a fan of male characters in Shakespeare being played by women, although it is only fair when you remember that when first written, all parts were played by men. However, I thought Helen Mirren did a brilliant and believable piece of work. At least the text had been adapted to reinforce the fact that she was female and we weren't expected to believe that she was Prospero and not Prospera. I thoroughly enjoyed this screen adaptation and although scenes that I looked forward to were cut out e.g., the Goddesses at the feast, the CGI was very clever. I thought that it was a mistake to make the casting of Caliban an African man, although he was disguised with scales and what looked like vertiligo. The purists see this play as about man's fear of anything different,(the other) and this plays into the post colonial criticisms by making the man black. Although Ben Wishaw did a sterling job as Ariel, it was a bit disconcerting to see his thin body running around naked. Especially at the beginning when he had to lie about with his leg discretely crossed in case he revealed anything he shouldn't. However, having acted in this play and seen several versions this was one of the best.