MovieChat Forums > The Tempest (2011) Discussion > Why the miserable critical reception?

Why the miserable critical reception?

posted 11 years ago by tohu777
11 replies | jump to latest

I didn't like Taymor's Frida, myself; and absolutely hated Across the Universe. But the generally negative, disapproving critical reception to this film doesn't seem to me at all indicative of the quality of the film. This is likely another good example of the "Heaven's Gate" effect of critic/reviewer pile-on, where joining the consensus means more (to rather insecure movie reviewers) than judging the work at hand by definite aesthetic and technical criteria.

The Tempest isn't at all what critics suggested--it's actually very good, enjoyable, inventive, imaginative (even compares well with Peter Greenaway's version of the play, Prospero's Books). This is the woman who made Titus, after all...

[–] Mhjm6 11 years ago

Who knows, box office or reviews mean nothing when it comes down to your own opinion. This and Titus are both great.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ace_Spade 9 years ago

Well, while I certainly can't speak to every critic's opinion (they are, after all, just opinions, albeit from "experienced hands", for what that's worth), I can give mine.

The Tempest is a visual arresting film, as you note. It's aesthetic works: colours, costumes, music, and camerawork. I also liked all of the the performances immensely. Of course the script is great (Shakespeare delivers), although I'm not wild about the alterations Taymor felt she had to make to line up Prospero's story with a female interpretation and, indeed, a few times over the course of the movie, I found myself missing some of the paternal themes which had been replaced needlessly with maternal ones (not that those aren't good or valid, just that they aren't the core of the Tempest).

So, I can conclude that critics didn't like one of two things:

1. I found the film dragged. I don't know why. It just felt a bit disjointed. The best way I have to describe it is that Taymor seems to really care about Prospera as a character and Caliban as a character and Ariel as a gateway to special effect heaven, but she doesn't seem to give a rat's hindquarters about the storylines, especially not Miranda/ Ferdinand, the royal courtiers, or the two fools. Those scenes are "off" and are two-thirds of the material. So, whether it's paced poorly or whether Taymor just didn't give a rip about several of the plotlines, I do find the film drags.

2. They might have been uncomfortable with the only black man in the cast being the demihuman savage who is enslaved by Prospera. While Caliban is hardly the only villain (Cumming and Cooper are white guy villains), having him be the enslaved buffoon villain might have made postmodern critics squirm a bit. I did, too, though I actually liked this element because it felt like Taymor giving a subtle hint towards colonialism as a sub-sub-theme, and I think it worked.

I would guess more that number one is true: many critics probably came away thinking, "It's a well-made movie, but I just didn't connect with it. Oh, well...2 1/2 stars."

[–] Prismark10 9 years ago

I think visually it was a great film but it was too uneven and the text never really captivated me.

It's that man again!!

[–] Ace_Spade 9 years ago

Uneven is a great way of putting it.

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

I didn't like Taymor's Frida, myself; and absolutely hated Across the Universe.

THE TEMPEST: 3/10
ACROSS THE UNIVERSE: 4/10
FRIDA: 7/10

This is likely another good example of the "Heaven's Gate" effect of critic/reviewer pile-on, where joining the consensus means more (to rather insecure movie reviewers) than judging the work at hand by definite aesthetic and technical criteria.

Are you serious?

[–] Kabumpo 7 years ago

I loved all of Taymor's films. I think your 3 and 4 ratings are ridiculous, but that's just me.

[–] CremersAlex 7 years ago

I agree with you, Kabumbo. Then again, we probably like Taymor for her cinematic language while some others accidentally like one of the stories.

Alex

[–] Jones70 (6195) 5 years ago

I thought it was pretty good mainly cause of helen mirren.

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

I saw it unexpectedly on television. Maybe twice. I like these sorts of efforts, even when they seem a bit high-brow / high concept. Would like to see it again or even own it. Better than the breezy Much Ado (1993).

[–] rudeboymurray (3241) 4 years ago

It's not close to the film that Taymor's Titus is, but on its own terms this is a fairly beguiling adaptation of my personal favourite Shakespeare play. Mirren heads a splendid cast and it has a haunting, magical feel which befits the material.