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.
Add a Review
-
NJMoon25 December 2010In Julie Taymor's latest endeavor characters fly around supernaturally, balance on dangerously high precipices, and sing and jive to vaguely rock underscoring. Is this "Spiderman: Turn Off The Dark"? Nope - "The Tempest", Taymor's film adaptation and direction of Shakespeare's version of "Survivor: Prospero's Island". Except here Taymor's main gimmick isn't bringing cartoon characters to life (as she did so memorably in "The Lion King" on stage) - it is casting Helen Mirren as Prospero (here re-named Prospera). Pronouns are altered in Taymor's self-adapted screenplay: father become mother, sir becomes madam; but oddly master avoids becoming mistress and duke isn't swapped with duchess. Taymor parcels out the use of CGI special effects, mostly reserving their impact for Ben Wishaw's flighty and always naked Ariel. Locations are lovely and rugged at once - evoking a sort of sci-fi landscape where magic can happen. But the film's slavish linguistic adaptation (save pronouns) is also its undoing. In Shakespeare's Old Globe words painted the picture - no scenery, no costuming and few embellishments. In a film, these are in abundance, often making Shakespeare's non-stop verbalizing redundant and after a while - numbing. There are terrific performances here, but they'd be much more magical on stage. That is, provided the actors' health insurance is paid up.
-
kinolieber2 October 2010but impossible to understand. Saw this at the New York Film Festival tonight and must assume that the soundtrack was unfinished because I was able to understand about half of the dialog. It sounded like a mono mix, so maybe it was a temporary soundtrack or was projected incorrectly. The opening scene: completely unintelligible. Nearly every word spoken by Djimon Hisou: completely unintelligible. Hope they fix this because there is much to admire in the film: Helen Mirren's marvelous performance (most clearly spoken and reproduced), the great Ben Wishaw as Ariel, the beautiful music, magical settings, visual effects and the beautiful costumes.
-
gradyharp19 September 2011William Shakespeare's THE TEMPEST is probably his last play, written in 1610-11, and as such it has some of the more eloquent passages of soliloquies of any of his works. In the original version the story is set on a remote island, 'where Prospero, the exiled Duke of Milan, plots to restore his daughter Miranda to her rightful place, using illusion and skillful manipulation. The eponymous tempest brings to the island Prospero's usurping brother Antonio and the complicit Alonso, King of Naples. There, his machinations bring about the revelation of Antonio's low nature, the redemption of Alonso, and the marriage of Miranda to Alonso's son, Ferdinand.' Enter Julie Taymor and the imaginative play becomes even more so with her deft re-writing and direction and use of visual effects. In Taymor's versions 'the main character is now a woman named Prospera. Going back to the 16th or 17th century, women practicing the magical arts of alchemy were often convicted of witchcraft. In Taymor's version, Prospera is usurped by her brother and sent off with her four-year daughter on a ship. She ends up on an island; it's a tabula rasa: no society, so the mother figure becomes a father figure to Miranda. This leads to the power struggle and balance between Caliban and Prospera; a struggle not about brawn, but about intellect.'
Taymor and Shakespeare together make the important character of Ariel, Prospera's obedient sprite, a thing of magic: Ben Wishaw darts and floats and flies about apparently in the buff in a most ingenious fashion, delivering his lines in perfect Shakespearean cadence (his 'Full fathom five thy father lies... ' is exquisite). The transformation of Prospero to Prospera is magical with Helen Mirren once again proving that she is an incomparably fine actress (one great moment is her delivery of the lines 'Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits and are melted into air, into thin air: And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Ye all which it inherit, 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.')
THE TEMPEST is an odd assortment of magic, treachery, young love, silly comedy, and odd goings on, but filled with a cast such as Taymor has selected it jumps alive with passion and glee. Caliban is Djimon Hounsou, Miranda is Felicity Jones, The King of Naples is David Strathairn and his son Ferdinand is young Reeve Carney, Prospera's brother Antonio is Chris Cooper and his sidekick Sebastian is Alan Cumming, and the two actors assigned to the buffoon roles are Albert Molina and Russell brand. Gonzalo is Tim Conti. This tightened Tempest works well though one wonders how much of the opening scenes' shipwreck (due to Prospera's calling upon the tempest) adds to the overall story. Yet in Taymor's vision it all comes together beautifully. The sung portions of the play and the musical sore in general are from the intelligent pen of Elliot Goldenthal. Recommended!
Grady Harp -
OttoVonB3 September 2012Julie 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". -
ihrtfilms27 April 2011Shakespeare's last play The Tempest tells the tale of a sorcerer Prospera and her daughter who have been cast off and banished and find themselves on a barren island where she takes Caliban as her slave. Many years later she creates a tempest to wreck the ship carrying those that banished her and the survivors of the ship find themselves on the island including the kings son who falls for Prospera's daughter. Throw in a spirit slave who helps Prospera bring the newcomers to her and the slaves of the King who side with Caliban to destroy Prospera and you have a real blend of genres. Julie Taymor brings another Shakespeare play to the big screen after her magnificent version of Titus. The Tempest is really a blend of drama, romance, fantasy and comedy and with it's supernatural and magical elements it's quite a story to bring to the big screen. Changing the lead of Prospero to a female role, makes little difference and Helen Mirren as Prospera is very good, but performance wise she is the only standout with the rest of the cast going through the paces; and casting Russel Brand as the jester does not bring enough light relief and makes me wonder since when did Russel Brand become an actor? Taymor tries to makes this as natural as possible, but that's difficult to achieve with it's fantastical elements and many of the these moments fail, including the spirit Ariel, whose appearances are like Caspar The Ghost and only when he appears as a sign of madness to the king and his men as a dark ominous bird does the fantasy finally work. The film also feels stilted at times and for something that contains so much fantasy and magic it feels for the most part bland and dull and bad use of music, much of which sounds like something from a bad rock music doesn't help achieve anything. Interesting use of landscapes and Mirren's performance are worthy elements but that's not enough to redeem the film, which with Taymor at the helm doesn't work nearly as well as her previous efforts.
-
dbborroughs19 December 2010Friends of mine have been amazed at how long I can talk about the short comings of this film. Their reaction when I finish my diatribe has been to say " I guess you really don't like it".
No, no I don't.
What happened to Julie Taymor the master of cinema who did Frida, Titus and Across the Universe? Watching this film I was struck by the feeling that it was made by someone completely unfamiliar with the medium. That isn't the case, since she did the films I just mentioned.
I'm not sure exactly what happened, but something did. Some where along the way she made a film that seems so technically inept as to not really be viewable.
Having assembled a cast that on paper should have worked she's proceeded to make a film where everyone seems to be alone on screen. For me it was as if she had cut together performances from different films.
Having changed the male lead to a woman she failed to change all of the language and periodically you get lines of dialog that just play wrong.
There are frequent mismatched shots as objects move around, bottle tops appear and disappear and characters seem to be taking readings from different takes or set ups.
I shouldn't have been noticing all the mistakes, I should have been surfing on the plot and the dialog, but Taymor never manages to create any sort of magic. (And any magic is supplied by cheap visual effects.) I don't know. I had such high hopes for the film, but nothing came together. In a weird way the film is best summed up by Ben Whishaw's Ariel who is required to play the part naked- however is forced to go through the most ludicrous gyrations to cover up his privates (The audience I saw this with was roaring with each uncomfortable twist).
2 out of 10 for the performances that work on their own terms- one just wishes that they had been brought together to actually resemble a film. -
Quinoa198410 December 2010The Tempest shows a filmmaker just itching to let loose her turbulent, big-splash-of-a-canvas vision of Shakespeare onto the screen, and the itch, for better or worse, is scratched sufficiently. This is a work that takes the delightfully and eerily dark take on the Bard that Taymor had before with Titus and suffuses it with the computer-generated surreal landscape of Across the Universe. Whether you can really dig into Taymor's films or not, to varying degrees for some, at the least it's hard to ignore her artistic prowess, of pushing the envelope of what might be acceptable or just what is "normal" and stretching the boundaries until you wonder what boundaries are even for in the first place - that is, you wonder so that people like Taymor or Terry Gilliam can break them, f*** them about, and give audiences something different with the acting and the mood of the piece while, oddly enough, staying true to at least the original spirit of the source material (Beatles, Frida Kahlo, the Bard).
This time her Tempest is almost nearing all over the place visually, but luckily it's anchored on one of Shakespeare's most underrated works ; it's one of my personal favorites from him actually, a work drenched in fantasy and ideas of late 16th century God's law and man in the high and low areas of class, meaning those who have it (i.e. explorers) and those that don't Djimon Hunsou's native character. The big change to anyone who has read the play is that Prospero is now Prospera, played with big emotions and big movements of poise and stamina by Helen Mirren. Oh she's a force to be reckoned with, as a star and as a character that she's playing, and she's a practitioner of alchemy. This might already be subversive - in that time and era women like that were branded witches right away, but here it's something that is not only encouraged but flaunted - but then comes more 'colorful' though normal elements of explorers, washed up on the shore, and part of the King's army of sorts (Alfred Molina and Chris Cooper make up some of this bunch).
There's also a love story thrown in the mix between the two youngest members of the cast, actors whom, I'm sorry to say, I don't remember their names as they are kind of forgettable due to the script and Taymor's direction of them. I get the sense that among the rest of what she has to work with this is either the thing she's least concerned with, or she botched this part of the film. I didn't really buy any of this young-love stuff, not the interactions or the dippy acting, or even (to go back to the source if it's that) Shakespeare's dialog. This and a few other odd moments, such as a few scenes with CGI (some of it, though not all of it, with Ben Whishaw's spirit character Ariel who is up there with the clouds and the smoke of air) do detract from the quality of the rest of the film.
The rest of it, I should add, is a lot of fun, and extraordinary to take in. Djimon Hunsou makes his Caliban a terrifying but oddly sympathetic character, one who will do bad things and can- the scar on his face says 'Don't mess with me, Whitey' pretty clearly, even if it's said in old-school Bard speak- but has also been damaged over time. There is some depth there that isn't with some of the other supporting characters, as interesting as they are and acted as well as they are. Among the lot that I've mentioned and who are really excellent in scenes that just need plenty of good close-ups and not too much music, Molina, Cooper and a magnetic David Straitharn take up really good chunks of screen time.
The oddity here is Russell Brand. Appearing as himself, or what I can figure is him"self" after playing a similar crazy rock-and-roll type in Judd Apatow comedies, here he's kind of the Fool character, Trinculo, and it was kind of delightfully bizarre to see him here doing his thing with such gusto and humor. Maybe that was Taymor's intention, as with Mirren as Prospera in a way, to give this work that is centuries old and dealing with the aspect of Post-Colonial theory a modern uplift and change up the nature of the characters without taking too much away from their roots. But more to the point, one of the strengths of the film and that Taymor connected with is that Prospera's an artist in her own right, only with magic, and may be reckless with her 'art' but will go to the lengths that she will do to her will. An extreme example, but I have to wonder if what Taymor is doing here, as all over the place and great and not-so-great as it is, in its broad strokes its a really raw expression of her own art through this flawed ex-member of royalty.
Taymor's work is an "acquired taste" as the euphemism goes, another way of saying "go in at your own risk". The wild takes on set-pieces like the ship-crash, the trippy-hallucinogenic visions of characters, and the eccentric acting turn the Tempest into a curious delight, but you need to expect something like that. This is Shakespeare for the Modern Museum of Art group, not for stuffy intellectuals looking for Masterpiece theater. For its faults, some of them crucial, its alive and throbbing and that's good to have in this Awards season. -
and those are pearls that were his eyes"........just to remind us that Mr W Shakespeare wrote some of the greatest words ever conceived by a human being,because mostly they are mangled by the cast of the latest version of "The Tempest" which has clearly been fashioned for the "Harry Potter" generation with just a touch of"Kevin and Perry" introduced into the character of Ariel and a soupcon of stand - up provided by the ineffably smug Mr R.Brand. There is little point in dwelling on the gimmicky re - imagining of Prospero as Prospera which might find some support in Camden and Highgate or places where The Sisterhood gather to stick pins in images of Jim Davidson but may be seen for what it is - a desperate effort to offer Shakespeare in a "modern" and "relevant" context,ignoring the fact that each audience will find both those qualities from their own interpretation. Predictably enough only Miss H.Mirren speaks the Bard's words with any assuredness. Other cast members seem to think overacting is the default mode when faced with a script that requires one to understand and interpret the lines rather than parrot them. There are not many reasons to be thankful for old age,but I am grateful that I saw Gielgud's Prospero at Drury Lane in 1957. That night,on a small stage in a smokey,over - heated London theatre,magic was in the air. When I think of "The Tempest" it is that I return to.
-
Richard-Nathan15 January 2011As I get older, I have more and more trouble hearing the dialog in films. Do people now know how to mix sound anymore, or am I going deaf in my old age? When filming Shakespeare, I would think it would be particularly important to record the lines so that you can hear what the actors are saying, but I had trouble hearing about 30% of the dialog. Or maybe the speakers in the theater where I saw the film were bad.
As to the rest of the film, I thought it worked for the most part, although I didn't care for the actor playing Ferdinand. He seemed more like a stable boy than a prince.
SPOILER ABOUT THE ENDING: I did not think the ending worked, but I'm not sure what I would have done differently. Instead of having Prospera say the epilogue, she had it sung over the closing credits. The film ended with Prospera throwing her staff off a cliff toward the sea, where it shatters on the rocky shore. It seemed an abrupt ending. -
osloj7 October 2010I saw The Tempest (2010 ) at the Berlin International Film Festival. It was a terrible film.
Julie Taymor is not a very proficient film director, of course she has talent to make a few segments stunningly beautiful, as if in a play or a theatrical performance, but the severity of William Shakespeare's play is lost in a muddled and fabricated palette of inconsistently stupid and vapid CGI. William Shakespeare does not need elaborate and idiotic fake graphics to tell his stories. His words are as powerful as when they were written.
Stick with the superb Ran (1985) by Akira Kurosawa. It sill holds up after all these years. -
shiva777-9-15384919 September 2011Wow 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! -
MRavenwood7 December 2010I freely admit that I did not sit through the whole thing. I was being driven mad by "comfortable" stadium chairs that felt like the 9th hour in coach on a non-stop to Cairo after the Trinculo scene. BTW, not a Russ Brand fan (who plays Trinculo), so I shaved a star for that bit of weak casting, add it back in if you are at all charmed by him. Since he always plays himself, I had no use for his hammy interpretation. Great to see Chris Cooper thrown in; lovely surprise. The no-kidding cast carries pretty much all the weight. However, the most important thing is the interpretation of the verse and THAT is very good and easy to follow. Again - the credit goes to the director for providing the unified feel for the actors to shoot for.Looks like they put a LOT of greens work into dressing some hillsides and landscapes. I had no trouble hearing the dialog,as another reviewer mentioned but personally found the soundtrack somehow not in the right vibe for me. The didgeridoo particularly seemed the wrong effect to me. A very good interpretation of Shakespeare's story and a very smart idea to turn Prospero into Prospera. More interesting story.
-
house-davis21 June 2016The 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.
-
chaos-rampant10 December 2013The Tempest is not the most riveting drama, the larger realization is after all a certain weariness with it. This is given to us as a magician who halfway through the story abandons his powers of illusion, who after conjuring to him the characters and plotting the story of revenge pauses to reflect on the emptiness of the endeavor. It's still powerful then, because we are all Prosperos alone in our island with the thoughts we conjure up to inhabit.
In Shakespeare's time, the inspiration for Prospero must have likely come from the scandalous topic of John Dee, the communion with spirits and visions through crystals certainly point at that as well as more broadly the notion of a benign magic. Magic since well before Dee and up to Crowley has tried its best to mask in so much hoopla what other spiritual traditions make clear from the start: that man is an embodied consciousness with the ability to direct that consciousness to vision. Shakespeare no doubt understood this was exactly his own art, a rich and complicated magic of conjured vision in peoples' minds.
So if this is to be powerful, you have to adopt a very intricate stance. Show both the power of illusion as vision and, contradictory, the emptiness of it, the fact it is underpinned by an illusory nature of reality. Greenaway masterfully did this in his Prospero film by having Prospero's creation of the play as vision, the vision lush and wonderful, and yet at every turn shown to exist on a stage.
Taymor is too earnest to strike this stance, in fact judging by the cinematic fabrics here she seems unsure of what direction to follow. She is an earthy woman so intuitively builds on landscape, volcanic rock under our feet. Pasolini could soar in this approach judging from his mythic films, her approach is too usual and without awe. The magic is also too ordinary. A few movie effects cobbled together in earnest as something to woo simple souls like Trinculo. Compared to the novel richness of Greenaway this feels like discarded Harry Potter work. And the cinematic navigation is without any adventure, as if Taymor didn't believe there was anything for her to discover outside the play, to conjure up in the landscape itself by wandering to it, so she never strays in visual reflection.
Mirren conveys the reflection as best she can, but that is all here, too little. -
SnoopyStyle12 July 2014Prospera duchess of Milan (Helen Mirren) was cast off with her toddler daughter Miranda by her brother Antonio (Chris Cooper). Antonio subverted her rightful rule after the death of their father. On the island, she enslaves the beast Caliban (Djimon Hounsou) taking control. Twelve years later, Miranda (Felicity Jones) is all grown up. King Alonso (David Strathairn) is sailing back after his daughter and her new husband's wedding with his son Ferdinand (Reeve Carney) and Antonio. Prospera takes revenge by unleashing a tempest to wreck their ship and stranding them on her island.
Julie Taymor does Shakespeare by replacing the main male character with a woman. That's basically the bulk of what I took away from it. Shakespearian scholars will have lots more to debate. For the rest of us, this is an acting and writing exercise. Helen Mirren is one of the best actresses around. It feels different to have a woman as Prospera but not necessarily inferior. It feels less intense but maybe almost as compelling. The special effects are not the most well made. At times, it looks like a good TV movie. Julie Taymor doesn't have the best CGI talents. The sparse Hawaiian location is more compelling. More than the usual Greek islands, these locations project power and isolation. The other actors try their best but the men don't excel. Djimon Hounsou gives a reasonably beastly performance. Felicity Jones is overshadowed by Helen Mirren. Other than the locations, I don't have anything outstanding to stake my review on. -
lukeyanni12319 March 2013I had no choice but to watch this for a class at my college; I watched it on my own time and was supposed to write a review comparing it to the text.For being released in 2010, the CGI was just awful. It makes 70's effects look excellent. And their were so many anachronisms, and poor emotionless forced acting, Just an overall piece of rubbish. Spare yourself. This was the worst adaptation of a Shakespeare I have ever had the displeasure of watching. I found it more hilarious, more out of how soaked in cheese it was than any actual humor. It's racist on a level I cannot believe was carried over to the 21st century. Awful, awful movie. I cannot stress that enough.
-
joeravioli18 January 2016In my mind, Shakespeare's Tempest is the least graceful of all his works that I have experienced. His genre-confused hodgepodge of plots and characters, while proving Shakespeare's genius to an audience which needs no such proof, serves only to render it atmospherically mutilated. It's as if Shakespeare had three, equally tedious slogs, and decided to combine them with the sentiment that the whole would be greater than the sum of its parts.
But with The Tempest, Taymor does the impossible: She takes Shakespeare's debacle and makes it worse. Even as a non-aesthete, one who appreciates bad CGI when bad CGI is due, I found myself plunging through biting aesthetic pain whenever Taymor made the choice to use it. Taymor's failure to capture the already weak atmosphere of The Tempest is simply embarrassing. Each frame is drained of colour, bland as the characters and the story which fill them, and the CGI is curiously funny, although I highly doubt that was what Taymor was going for. Perhaps she sought to bring her own style into the film, but, as demonstrated by her directorial ineptitude in the making of this film, it would probably be better for her to keep a minimal personal influence, letting Shakespeare do the talking instead.
Taymor seeks to win over her audience through a pointless gender swap, adopting the "I'm original" attitude of one whose only originality resides in turning celebrated literature into films. Instead of the magician Prospero, we instead get the magician Prospera, played by Helen Mirren. Wow. Every other character remains the same. Some idiot made the mistake of casting a black guy as Caliban. As makeup-encrusted as he is, that doesn't take away from the fact that the only black guy in this whole movie plays the slave.
In accord with Shakespeare, The Tempest is narratively befuddled. Three separate plots are superficially explored in under two hours. And yet, as each plodding second passes, one could be forgiven for assuming that it is longer. Overall, Taymor's The Tempest was awful, buoyed only by a few performances and the occasional fancy shot. I found myself wanting to die, to sleep.
Ay, there's the rub. -
alexart-13 October 2010The Tempest opens with a shot a sand castle that melts away when water rains down upon it. This shot is probably one of the most interesting ones in the entire film, even if Julie Taymor has so brilliantly made every shot beautiful. It also is a really great shot because it is silent with the exception of the sound of the rain. And that is the major problem with this film. The acting and cinematography are fairly solid, but a good portion of the film is extremely hard to understand due to fast-moving Shakespearian English. Some of the film also ventures into the realm of the bizarre with an odd electric score and overly long special effects sequences. The Tempest is not bad; Julie Taymor could have done better.
The Tempest's somewhat simple, and yet somewhat complicated story follows Prospera (Helen Mirren) and her daughter, Miranda (Felicity Jones). That's right. Taymor changed Prospero's gender for this one. Prospera was banished from Milan, where she was believed to be practicing black magic. Her brother sent her off in a boat with Miranda and she ended up on a deserted island. Prospera plans to bring Miranda back to power in Milan through manipulation and trickery. To begin executing her plan, she summons a storm that brings her brother and the King of Naples to her island. A great supporting cast includes Alan Cumming, Djimon Hounsou, Russell Brand, and Chris Cooper.
It may be impossible for Julie Taymor to compose a beautiful shot. Though I was not a fan of the special effects, everything that was shown was interesting. Stick around for the credits, which are set to shots of books falling through water. This a simple, but specific example of some of Taymor's best work in this film.
The acting is also great in this. Helen Mirren shines as Prospera, a role that could have been made for her 400 years ago by Shakespeare. I have no idea why Taymor decided to change Prospero's gender, but it was all worth it just to see Mirren play her. Djimon Hounsou is also excellent as Caliban, a power-hungry slave that attempts to form a conspiracy to overthrow Prospera. Among one of the biggest surprises is Russell Brand. Brand, who often plays dirty rock stars in movies such as Get Him to the Greek and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, gets (sort of) serious as a drunk who teams up with Caliban.
Unfortunately, the film is rather hard to understand. The sound was horrible, but I am not totally sure that the version I saw was completely finished. Any dialogue in the first five minutes was inaudible because the sound of the waves crashing on the ship was so loud. On top of this, Taymor has written a masterful but difficult script in Shakespearian English. Die- hard Shakespeare fans may be pleased, but most other people will be lost for most of the movie.
Sometimes, directors start making mistakes when they try to get experimental. That is what may have happened with The Tempest. Taymor had so much potential to make a great film, but what came out in the end was a good-looking but tiresome movie. The acting is phenomenal, but the sound is not. The cinematography is great, but the script cannot match it. For Shakespeare fans, The Tempest is a must-see, but for everyone else, it is probably only a rental.
Note: This was seen at the New York Film Festival. The sound may have still been unfinished at this screening. -
glasslens15 September 2013A few years after my original review, I have re-watched some of this film and have tried to be kinder. This is my amended version. I am sorry to still have to be so negative and I'm sure others have enjoyed it, but I can only say what I think.
Whenever I write a review, I always think hard about how to start. But in this case, it is easy. This could have been fairly good, but sadly it is a truly dreadful film. The difference between a good film and a bad film can be a few small things and usually they are the things that destroy the magic. The Tempest of course is all about magic but the film destroys it. Totally. I'm sure the idea was saleable, particularly with the then celebrity Russell Brand in a lead role, but things must have started to go downhill from then on. There must have been times when they wanted to cut their losses and abandon it, but they pressed on hoping the SPFX would rescue it - instead it just made it worse.
Julie Traymor's direction leaves a lot to be desired - she seems to be constantly struggling to hold things together. The use of a female lead is baffling although the actor, Helen Mirren, who normally plays the Queen of England, does a good job and manages to hold the whole tottering mess in some sort of shape. Tom Conti, a fine actor, manages to get through the laughable screenplay with his dignity intact, as does Alan Cumming. Dijimon Hounsou however is the worst Caliban I have even seen, and I have seen quite a few - again a good concept that didn't work. Alfred Molina, again a fine if limited range actor manages to keep his head down and put in a passable performance.
Russell Brand is unspeakably awful as Trinculo - an idiot over-acting if ever their was. Again, good concept but didn't work. Stuart Dryberg's cinematography is patchy. The early exterior shots are useful for a "how not to" at a film school truly some of the worst exterior lighting since Dad's Army. Look at the credits and you'll find a huge crew who managed under Taymore's direction to product a piece of rubbish - why didn't someone speak up for goodness sake? But perhaps they knew but with all that money at stake, just couldn't abandon things. A new director for sure, a lot of re-shoots, a new Trinculo perhaps could have rescued it. But perhaps not.
I have worked on amateur productions of this fine play which have been infinitely superior to this awful film and I would not insult amateurs by describing this as amateur - it is nowhere near that quality. -
The Tempest (2010/I) was directed by Julie Taymor, who also wrote the screenplay. (The play was, of course, written by William Shakespeare.)
There is a long tradition of women playing male roles in Shakespeare's plays. The great Sarah Bernhardt played Hamlet in the 19th Century, and at Stratford, Ontario, Seanna McKenna played Richard III. (I saw McKenna in Richard III, and she was incredible.)
However, for this Tempest, Julie Taymor directs Helen Mirren as Prospera, a woman, rather than Prospero, a man. Mirren is such a superb actor that I think she could have played Prospero, but that isn't what happened.
Changing the gender of the principal character in your story is a risky business. The whole concept of The Tempest is that Prospero was the Duke of Milan. He wasn't Duchess of Milan. On the island where he is marooned, Prospero is lord and master. His relationship with Miranda is one of father and daughter. It's hard to think of Prospero as a woman.
Having seen The Tempest many times, I've come to expect an older male actor playing the role. (The classic Shakespearean progression is Romeo to Hamlet to Macbeth to Lear and Prospero.) So, despite Mirren's skills, I simply couldn't adjust to a woman in the part.
Also, of course, the relationship between father and daughter and mother and daughter is often very different. So, changing Prospero's name to Prospera isn't just a matter of a name. It's made The Tempest into a very different story. And, in my opinion, it's definitely not the story that Shakespeare wrote.
Although I have a high regard for both Helen Mirren and Julie Taymor, I think this was a concept that just didn't work. Directors and actors have always modified Shakespeare according to their thoughts about what the plays mean. You can push and stretch a Shakespearean play a long, long way, and still have it be Shakespeare. However, in this case, it's not Shakespeare, it's Taymor. It's an interesting movie, but It's not the Tempest.
At the time I wrote this review, the IMDb rating for the movie was 5.4. I've never seen a serious film with this low a rating. Apparently, almost no one liked the concept. I gave the film a rating of 7.0. It's not great cinema, but it's better than a 5.4. -
tecnogaming13 February 2012I didn't knew the script nor the works of Shakespeare, nor should I need to know them to review and like a movie.
Being that this one comes from Shakespeare, it's understandable to have similarities with the original work but the language used here is way over the top for me. Reading a novel or watching a live play is one thing, watching a movie is another thing all by itself.
Director didn't care for us viewers as long as it can throw at us as many lines as possible that resemble the original play, problem is that they came out totally wrong, out of place, not believable and with awful acting, except for Helen Mirren who totally rocks and tried her best with the tools given to her, the rest of the cast sucks, CG is nice but the movie as a whole came out like being a tapestry of different ideas put out wrong. This is not a movie, this is a play pretending to be a movie and that sucks to be honest.
The worst parts of this little fiasco are Ariel, making incredible moves to try to hide his penis, which for me is awful, since I prefer to see a penis in an honest acting than trying myself to justify a good "moral" scene, totally unnecessary.
The other aspect of the movie that is totally without justification is the music and sound, since when rock and fantasy genres blend?... Bad sound editing and I mean really bad, some dialogs are really low, some FX are really high and they are not balanced.
Do not waste your time, if you want to know more about this story it is better to go see it in an actual play than try to watch is painful and extremely boring pretense of a movie. -
tcbently6 March 2011In 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. -
cat_ranchero19 May 2012Taking a play out of the theatre is always problematic, I find, because the filmmakers have to find ways to make the piece more cinematic. This was not a bad job really although I'm not all that familiar with the source material. Decent performances all round, but those that stood out (for me) were; Helen Mirren as Prospera, Djimon Hounsou as Caliban, Alfred Molina as Stephano and Tom Conti as Gonzalo.
I always find Shakespearean dialogue a little hard to follow, but I found this one was a bit of an exception. The storyline, although a little complex, was quite easy to follow and I quite enjoyed it. Very stylish costumes and an interesting soundtrack were elements that added to the piece pretty well. Over all though, despite being well shot, all on location, I guess I felt there was something lacking. I guess it's worth a look if you're a fan of the Bard, but otherwise, I may urge you to maybe give it a miss
My score: 5.8/10
IMDb Score: 5.3/10 (based on 2,756 votes at the time of going to press).
MetaScore: 43/100: (Based on 28 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com at the time of going to press).
Rotten Tomatoes 'Tomatometer' Score: 29/100 (based on 82 reviews counted at the time of going to press).
Rotten Tomatoes 'Audience' Score: 28/100 (based on 17,602 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).
You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster. -
Just a small point,I found the following on Wikipedia. "The Tempest premiered at the Venice Film Festival on September 11, 2010 as the festival's closing film. When Disney sold Miramax Films to Filmyard Holdings,LLC , they took over distribution through its division Touchstone Pictures." add to this that the ONLY Official Website for The Tempest is for the DVD/Blu Ray then I think that says it all? When Touchstone got the movie they obviously decided they didn't like it,and decided to only release it on DVD/Blu Ray? I cannot find anywhere (here in the UK) that it has been released for more than a few days. Very disappointing.