MovieChat Forums > A Midsummer Night's Dream (1999) Discussion > Why did critics dislike this movie?

Why did critics dislike this movie?


I can understand some of it may have been due to Michelle Pfieffer, but why so much negativity?

reply

Well, I definitely sympathise with the critics because I really, really disliked this film, mainly due to its terrible cast. Compared to the stunning performances of A Midsummer Night's Dream I have seen on stage, the actors in this film were a huge disappointment - living proof that Hollywood names do not equate good acting, and whoever cast this film was touched in the head. Dominic West and Christian Bale both seemed very wooden and superficial, Rupert Everett could not carry the role of Oberon, and Stanley Tucci was no Puck either. Kevin Kline wasn't bad. But the female performances, apart from Sophie Marceau's, I thought were appalling. Calista Flockhart was the worst - she gabbled all her lines (which no Shakespeare veteran would dream of doing), constantly wore a stupid wide-eyed expression over her face and said so cheerfully "I'll make a Heaven of Hell to die upon the hand I love so well" that I was ready to throw something at the screen. She is not made for anything deeper than Ally McBeal; she should certainly be let nowhere near a Shakespeare play. Anna Friel was a disaster, and Michelle Pfieffer didn't impress me at all. I could go on and on about the acting ... if they had cast decent actors I might have liked it. My other criticism is that they might have set the action in Greece rather than Italy, considering how the play is set in Athens and the fact is constantly referred to in the play! So I think it's very easy to dislike this film. I'm sure some people will like it, and I probably would have liked it if the cast had been able to act their parts. All we can do is pray for another better adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream in ten years time - I think it's a play with endless screen potential and it's such a shame this cast (or rather, the casting director) botched it up so completely.

reply

I didn't hate the acting, but I was certainly a bit disappointed in it. It's one of my favourite of the Bard's plays and I was looking forward to seeing a big production, but this was just a bit too luck-lustre.

If you want to compare this to a good film of a Shakespeare play, try the 1996 production Twelfth Night: Or What You Will.

reply

Have you seen the 1968 version? That was fantastic, it had Diana Rigg, Helen Mirren, Ian Holm and Judi Dench wearing only a couple of carefully placed plowers and green body paint. Need I say more!

reply

Or I think the director's not good enough to handle this movie, even thought he actually got some good actors in hands, kevin kline, michelle pfeiffer, they are all talented actors/actresses in hollywood indeed, and it could be really good to use them right, instead of a slightly disappointed movie like now.

reply

Haha bravo! No I haven't seen it but I'm curious, now!

reply

Michelle Pfeiffer isn't the film's biggest problem. The whole cast was a problem. Even Kevin Kline is badly terrifying as Bottom. The film also has the cheesy look to it and the play in the end wasn't even that funny.

reply

Agreed. It wasn't funny at all. And I hated that fairy who came along to Puck and said a whole mouthful in American drawl, ending in "I do wander everywhere." And so she doth. Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

reply

[deleted]

I didn't mind the acting, but I hated the setting. 1800s just doesn't work...especially when they're found naked in the field. In the 1800s that was so taboo Lysander would likely be shot...in ancient Athens, not so much.

reply

I blame the director for much of the problem. Generally I like Kline's work, but this was too much. Bottom was a silly pompous ass (pun intended) and this version made him far too sympathetic. I don't understand teh ending either. The DVD is currently for sale in the discount bin at Wal-Mart, if that says anything.

Panic, chaos, and disorder: my work here is done.

reply

[deleted]

Well, I liked it, and I must say, some of the critics did too. (Never generalize; you can find plenty of good reviews in the "External Reviews" section of the page for this film if you bother to look instead of dumping on the movie. Roger Ebert also liked it.) It's true that Calista Flockhart sounded too much like Ally McBeal, and the Italian setting didn't make sense when everyone was talking about Athens, but overall, the acting was miles ahead of the 1935 version with James Cagney, Olivia de Havilland, Dick Powell (!?!), and Mickey Rooney.

reply

I hated it because of the chop job they did on the text of the play. Plus the direction was dull dull dull. I don't think they understood what the play is about.

She's a mother. It's a sick, sick bond. Think of yours; think of mine. It's unwholesome.

reply

Roger Ebert liked the film. And don't give me, "Well, the moron likes everything." He does not. Maybe some people didn't care for the interpretation and the deletion of certain lines.

reply

Personally I am astonished at the low rating (6.3) of this 'Perfect 10' masterpiece. There is no better version out there; all the cast are superb and everything about the style works tremendously well, too. I can frankly only marvel at the abominably poor taste of people who don't like this movie. Shakespeare would have been overjoyed to see it.

reply

I loved it. The magical setting in the forest, the fairies, the dialogue and the acting. I sometimes wonder how people can be so harsh with actors' performances. I didn't see anything wrong with them, nor did Roger Ebert, James Berardinelli who both liked this version. I believe that some critics hate the fact that American actors instead of British thespians perform Shakespeare plays.

reply

[deleted]

I didn't know there were any who hated the film. I thought it was very good.

reply