rosian

During our visits to Bavaria, we have visited one of his castles (hoping to see the others sometime but only managed to view them from a distance as yet), seen the spectacular stage musical that was put on at the special theatre made for it at Fussen, and I have read a fair bit about him, and I watched this movie enthralled. Ludwig II is a truly fascinating, tortured personality and played so magnificently by Helmut Berger who is so perfectly cast - I couldn't imagine a better performance than this nor a better movie about his life although as I don't understand much German, I haven't had the chance so far to see any other versions.

No-one could ever forget, I think, their first sight of his "fairy tale" castle Neuschwanstein (the Bavarian Kinds were the Swan kings). This castle is well known over the world as the castle on which Disney's fairy tale castle logo is based. Inside it's said to be amazing.

Ludwig inspires, I think, surprise, awe, admiration, and yet much pity and at times considerable annoyance. This highly artistic and yet emotionally troubled man was not fitted to be a King, much as his close relative and friend Empress Elizabeth of Austria was not entirely fitted to be an Empress and the same at times despairing suicidal tendencies and other problems disturbed them both. Both had difficult lives. Yet it's difficult to know if they would have been any happier as nonenties without the money and position to all too often do and spend exactly as they pleased. Ludwig showered Wagner with money, aiding Wagner for a while to produce some of his great work as the composer was often desperate for money. Is that a good way or a bad way to spend your populace's taxes - on someone who was not even Bavarian yet was a genius? Hard to say.

It seems no-one knows for sure whether Ludwig eventually killed himself or was murdered. In the stage musical it is shown as suicide in an incredible scene when nearly all the stage is turned into a real lake into which Ludwig walks slowly to his drowning. At the time we saw this, my husband refused to believe it was really water but must be an illusion. Not so. The Making Of video showed the actor swimming away from the stage lake under water. I haven't been able to find a DVD recording of the show, a great shame, as it would make a fine duo with this superb movie.

I can't comment on the actual movie as I refuse to go to see it as the trailer and raves by gratuitous gore-lovers have put me off completely when I had originally expected to see it. I liked earlier Burton work and most especially anything with Johnny Depp and I was hoping this movie would raise the level of the dreadful Sondheim music which I tried to listen to years ago and gave up on as it was just so boring. But then it's rare for me to appreciate anything this self-satisfied composer Sondheim has produced with the one exception of In the Park with George which was a clever idea and nicely presented visually even though the music was as usual simply awful.

I worked for years in the Fleet Street vicinity so was very well aware of this famous old story. It would have been good to see a movie based on it - but not when it's covered in gratuitous gruesome gore and disturbing scenes which according to the write-ups it is. I would guess even Sondheim managed a few laughs in his stage musical and the gore wasn't meant to be quite so gratuitous? So my one star indicates absolute disappointment.

I'd never see this play before, only the Opera when I was 10 and I didn't remember much of that, not surprisingly.

I'd hesitated a bit over watching this one from the set but as always with Shakespeare I was caught up in it right from the start. I do have a few gripes though. I felt Cressida did just a bit too much wailing when told she must leave Troy and her lover. I don't complain much, as someone else has on this list that they were wearing the wrong clothes etc or that the fighting scenes weren't very realistic. I think the director was trying to show the play as it would appear in Shakespeare's time so it's fine that the clothes are contemporary rather than Ancient Greek (did people of Shakespeare's time know what Ancient Greeks wore?) and we couldn't expect the actors to do lengthy realistic duels. But yes, the duel between Ajax and Hector was unconvincingly coy. Did Achilles really not kill Hector himself but have Hector set upon and murdered by his followers and then profess to having done the killing himself? What exactly happened to Troilus's rival for Cressida or did I somehow fall asleep at the moment whatever happened? And finally, why oh why wasn't Achilles' death included, that so very famous sequence when Paris shoots him with an arrow in the one place he's vulnerable? This is why I ask if the play's unfinished - there's no revenge shown for Hector's death and wouldn't Shakespeare have wanted to include this famous sequence as a fitting finale? But perhaps I can be convinced that Shakespeare's ending is right, that it

I was impressed by all the actors, especially Bernard Whitrow as Ulysses and Charles Gray as Pandarus.

It's a good laugh for us in GB seeing those deadly serious Hollywood War Movies lampooned as they really can get tedious with all that rather excessive at times patriotic heroism. But this movie misses the mark at times too. The jokes aren't often all that hilarious although we in the UK can appreciate these particular jokes probably better than any American viewer because the movie's full of British in-jokes and you can't really expect Americans to spot that many of them or perhaps even find them funny if they do get it.

Someone commented on this database how the American "Eisenhower" had to explain a joke to us to be sure we got it and that this was irritating. I think the intention was to gently guy the American type of humour that does exactly that. I remember being disappointed by those lovely men Bob Hope and Gene Kelly when I saw them joking to American audiences. Why did they need to explain their jokes, I wondered, having got the joke first time, and then these gentlemen would laugh at their own jokes as well. You don't need to repeat English jokes - anyone who doesn't get it first time is told to think about it. You do't laugh at your own jokes, that's very bad form indeed! Americans do it differently, it seems. I expect they guy our type of humour too, finding it unfunny or weird? I remember hearing that Germans feel quite insecure about whether they can understand British humour. From holidays in Germany, I've learned they do humour very well. Such cultural differences help to enhance this movie's punch.

However, I don't think this movie was made to appeal to Americans unless any of them also feel their War Movies can be very over the top and sometimes shamelessly twisting history to suit their market which is not, of course, the UK. That said, the American characters in the story are treated with respect so the American actors are therefore able to give great performances.

I assume Leslie Phillips' English Lord is partly inspired by Lord Haw-Haw. Of course he acts brilliantly as always. I liked the idea that his character brought Hitler into Buckingham Palace. Hitler is played extremely well, as is Borman, but Goering not so well and Goebbels as a comic demon supposed to be the priest marrying Princess Elizabeth and Hitler doesn't really come over. But the idea of Hitler marrying Elizabeth, incarcerating her in an underground palace underneath "half a mile of concrete" to keep her from the shops is a very good joke

I was disappointed that some characters didn't get more opportunities notably lusty Princess Margaret deciding to marry Hugh Heffner - a pity that brilliant idea couldn't have been carried through a bit further. I did get a bit bored with the Churchill-Elizabeth romance although both actors played it well, however I enjoyed the joke slipped in by the King that he'd marry Lilibet off to a Greek.

One major disappointment was the very unkind guying of George VI. Harry Enfield's performance was perfectly performed as a dimwitted old boy not understanding anything much that was going on and moaning about the cost of everything but I felt it was something of an insult to George VI to treat him in this way and it seemed to me the writer must be very anti-monarchy and also not have the least awareness of what kind of man this King was and how much loved and appreciated he was during his sterling help to his people during WW2 and his courage in staying in the Capital throughout the Blitz to be with his suffering people and going out in o the city time and time again after the dreadful nights of the Blitz and the death and destruction. I'm sure it could have been done differently to be funny and yet appreciative in the way the guying of Elizabeth is funny yet kind rather than seeming cruel.

One commentator on this database refers to George VI as George V and suggests no-one will know anything about this king (or did I miss the King being called George V for some reason in the movie?) But plenty of people who lived through the war or who were born soon after aren't in their dotage yet and will know plenty about this shy, nervous man with a debilitating stutter who never wanted to be King but was forced into it by his brother's abdication, and what a splendid job he made of it although it probably drove him to his early death. So thumbs down to the writers for guying him.

On the whole an entertaining movie that'll while away a couple of hours if you watch the extras as well. Not up to the best British standard of comedy but not so bad either. You can particularly enjoy the idea that Hollywood decided that fat old guy wouldn't do for a War Hero who Saved Britain from the Nazis and it must have been an American GI - who else was up to saving the world single-handed? And that this GI outdid even outdid that disgraceful American movie that shows Americans stealing the Enigma machine from the Germans when they weren't even in the war at the time and had absolutely nothing to do with it. "Churchill" in this movie not only steals it almost single-handed but within a few minutes has found out how it works as well, very funny.

Last and not least, note the publicity for this movie. "He's got the tool and he'll finish the job....."

I'd say see this movie but don't expect it to be up to the standard of Best British Comedy.

This has been one of my favourite Shakespeare plays ever since I studied it at school so it's a joy to own at last the Beeb's Shakespeare Collection on DVD.

Through that school study I've always felt an interest in this king and some sympathy for his dilemmas. A king with such flaws and yet such cunning is so much more interesting beside any tough warrior king who goes about fighting aka his more famous and in the past revered namesake Richard I. And surely we can all feel for his love for his wife, and her despair as he is forced in tears to send her away to safety outside England. So it was a joy to see this amazing performance by Jacobi, confirming all my memories of this play as one of the best of Shakespeare. Whilst Jacobi dominated as the electrifying personality Richard, the rest of the cast are also so very good. Being sympathetic to Richard (as I feel Shakespeare was), I always loathed unartistic Bolingbroke and this actor's excellent performance in this version was very satisfyingly hate-able! I am looking forward to seeing how the Beeb deal with his reign as King when he discovers that being King isn't as easy as he'd thought. I could also happily despise York for the chancer he was, keeping on the winning side, so excellently portrayed by Charles Gray in a performance equalling Jacobi's in quality. My one very slight disappointment was in Gielgud's great patriotic speech, This England. We all had to learn this by heart at school as part of the study, and it's still my most favourite Shakespeare speech. It's not easy for any actor, however amazing, to do it just as I want to hear it. So I don't blame Gielgud at all for not grabbing me with his version, how could I blame such a great actor! I just wanted it done a little differently to satisfy my own ideas of how it should be.

I noted when reading up the other comments, a remark that some people had criticised the Beeb's sometimes stark settings. But Shakespeare's plays were performed on a virtually bare stage! The Beeb's versions are positively crammed with scenery and atmosphere which Shakespeare's actors had to create just by their personalities and performance. I didn't see anything stark in the settings in this play. It's a tragedy. You don't expect it to be in a jolly sunlit field!

I was never in the past interested in this play although love Shakespeare and have seen most of his plays now and enthusiastically studied some at school. Something about this story and all the fuss about it seemed to put me off. I never bothered to try to see Hamlet until fairly recently deciding I should at least try to watch it and I borrowed the Olivier version from the library. Well, I struggled with it. Olivier seemed far too old, not only in his looks but in his acting of the part. The play had been enormously cut to fit a more conventional movie length and I think must have missed out too much as I found it difficult to concentrate on it, soon became bored and annoyed by it. I still think Olivier's Henry V is the best version I've seen of that rousing play - tho' admit I haven't rewatched the Beeb version yet and can't recall how it was when first shown.

I heard of the Branagh full length version of Hamlet. Although I enjoyed his Much Ado, I think the Beeb version is far better and I wasn't entirely impressed by his Henry V. But I was off Branagh a bit after seeing his disappointing effort at a musical of Love's Labour's Lost which is a play I like and was so well made by the Beeb.

Finally acquiring the complete Beeb Shakespeare on DVD recently, I soon rewatched one of my most favourite Shakespeare plays, Richard II, and was simply enthralled by Jacobi in the part so was immediately persuaded to watch his Hamlet next. What a revelation this play now is for me! Yes, it is splendid, but I feel it needs an actor you can emphathise with to play Hamlet and this for me is Jacobi. Amazing. Intriguing to note that although he is older than I understand the character Hamlet was, it doesn't show whilst in Olivier it did. Now I note he's also in the Branagh version and had much to do with training Branagh, so I shall have to watch that to see what Jocobi does with Claudius! I'm interested to discover Jacobi has trained Branagh as yes, you can certainly see the influence.

And now I'm going to watch it all over again....

A very clever story that I won't elaborate on as others have done. We enjoyed it first time. Soon after, we visited Vienna for a few days and after buying the DVD of this movie, I remembered it was mostly set in Vienna.

I'd been interested in the Wittelsbach family for quite a while after visits to Bavaria (the Swan King "mad King Ludwig II" etc), and during the Vienna trip I bought a book about the close relatives - the Hapsburgs Kaiser Franz Josef and his wife Sissi. In here was plenty re their children - Sophie, who died very young. The would-be modernist Crown Prince Rudolf who inherited much of his mother's reactionary nature and saw that the stultified Hapsburg court and oldfashioned ways and disregard for the poor of the Hapsburgs and the Court could eventually lead to disaster. After being an agitator for change, and being threatened with arrest for treason if he didn't shut up, and for other reasons concerning his health and love-life to a lesser degree, Rudolf eventually committed suicide. There were two other daughters. Franz Josef's cousin (I think it was) Franz Ferdinand became Crown Prince. It was this Prince who was assassinated at Sarajevo and Franz Josef signed the Articles of War. He died not long after and was succeeded by another cousin who was deposed pretty painlessly towards the end of WW1, just what Rudolf had anticipated would happen if the Emperors didn't change their ways although without any great drama or killing fortunately.

I don't know how the writer of the Illusionist story or the film scriptwriters decided on their characters, but I found it interesting that the movie was set in the period not too long before the 1st World War and the Emperor's picture shown in the movie is clearly Franz Josef late in his life. So Leopold as his fictional second son, the story taking place after Rudolf is dead, this fits in very well with time still for Franz Ferdinand to become Crown Prince after Leopold is dead - another suicide for something like the same reason as his "real brother" Rudolf although Rudolf had no wish to depose his father, only to change his ways. Franz Josef was not at all an unkind or cruel Emperor within the bounds of what was customary at the time in Austria, but of course he had to be firm, took his duties and status as Emperor very seriously, and would not have taken kindly to his son threatening sedition etc.

Notable too that the name of the heroine is Sophie, same as the Emperor's first child. And she's mentioned as being of influence in acquiring the Emperorship of Hungary for Leopold if she marries him. In fact it was Franz Josef's wife Sissi (Elisabeth) who had an enormous influence on the Hungarians, becoming very friendly with their leader and having a much loved home in Hungary that she visited often, and very much with her influence the Hungarians agreed to have Kaiser Franz Josef as their King also (much sooner in time than in the movie), hence the Austro-Hungarian Empire - which also included some of Italy, Czechoslovakia and elsewhere at that time. As for Sophie, that was also the name of Franz Josef's Bavarian Wittelsbach mother.

Rewatching, it was great to see all the Viennese scenes including various places we'd been and pick up on the clever use of names and history to fit in Leopold and the Hungarian issues.

I only leave off one star because I'd have liked to see this movie just a fraction darker. But otherwise, it was really delightful in every way. The concept of the Star was exceptionally original.

My spoiler is in my comments below re the book.

I think others have said it all re the movie, which we will want to see again (and perhaps again!) I'd just mention the book which is charming although slightly too fey in style to be perfect. And it's rather sadder than the movie - with something of the same fate for the Star as Elrond sees for Arwen in Lord of the Rings, the only difference being we don't know what happens to the Star eventually. That said, a very good read, don't miss it!

If you haven't read the books, you will probably enjoy this movie well enough and I'm sure children who haven't read the books will love it. But read the books and find what's almost a different story - surely even younger children will notice the differences?

The main themes are the same, but gone are the dark overtones, the serious and adult aspect of much of the story. Lord Asriel, though brilliantly played by Daniel Craig who has shown what he can really do if allowed, after the disappointing Bond effort... Lord Asriel has lost all his mystery. You are supposed to wonder until late in the third book what he's up to, whether he's good or bad or what..... And we hardly see him.

I wouldn't have cast Nicole Kidman as Mrs Coulter but she plays the part perfectly well so I am not disappointed.

The worst changes are - first, that you are told right at the start by a voice-over for heaven's sake that you are in a different universe and you are told about the familiars, when you should need to take quite some time to work out why Oxford is so strange, the people are so strange, and what these animals are. I can't for a moment believe it was necessary to give away so much of the mystery at the start and it completely ruined the early part of the story for me. And second, that the story is badly dumbed down into "just" a little kiddies' story. It is no longer a dark, very serious as well as enthralling kidult story as in the books, nor mysterious nor very threatening.

I don't call this a bad movie, nor a flop. But the film makers didn't it seems have the guts to make a movie that would reflect the book. I hope the further two movies will show more courage but my guess is they won't. The standard has been set too low in movie 1.

This movie makes you think and remember clues rather than treating you like a moron. I don't have great interest in the topic, being English, although I remember Kennedy well enough and the Bay of Pigs name though not what happened there. I was never convinced that Cuba was that serious a threat but then I was never convinced the Russians wanted to set off a nuclear bomb and that if there were ever nuclear war, it wouldn't be Russians that started it - they were too sensible. It was all macho facing off between great powers to get one up at that level as I think has been demonstrated in recent years to be true. Castro was as I understand it disliked by the US so he went to Russia, the sort of thing that has happened often enough in history?

I wanted to see the movie on account of being impressed by Damon's Bourne movies. I wasn't disappointed. A clever, dense plot keeping my attention. I didn't guess at who the mole was. I've inevitably learned a little more about American history of the period covered.

This is a very enjoyable movie but with other Branagh Shakespeare that I've seen it isn't perfect. There always seems to be "something" lacking. Much Ado was too fluffy - it has some serious themes that Branagh didn't seem to bring out as was concentrating on the "fun" (the BBC version is the best I've seen so far). Henry V was earthy and all the rest of it but for me it was pale beside the Olivier version. This is not because I dislike Branagh's realistic approach, it was good, but because I just don't think Branagh himself can act well enough for the part - but perhaps it is "personal taste". Love's Labour's Lost was a failure, a bit tedious, and weakly acted at times. I watched the Beeb version just after and learned that this actually is a very witty, very clever great play but I wouldn't have known it from the Branagh musical. I haven't seen the Hamlet yet.

Branagh doesn't that I can see act in As You Like It? I was delighted with Kevin Kline's Jaques which he does far better than whoever in the BBC version and he's certainly the star of this play. I was a bit disappointed by Touchstone - wish he had been a more serious character as I think the clowns tend to be - Bolam did it better in the Beeb version. I didn't feel Brian Blessed was right for the banished Duke although OK for the villainous Duke. It was weird that the former looked like a Saxon king whilst the latter was a Japanese equivalent. The Japanese connection was entertaining at times but a bit strange as in spite of the info Branagh has to give at the start to explain the location - there weren't enough Japanese actors to make it work. However, it's a pleasant bit of fantasy with nice acting that should be accessible especially to those who aren't really Shakespeare fans whilst enjoyable if not perfect for those that are!

I was impressed by the acting and the plot is of course excellent. But as one who has seen a good deal of Shakespeare but never, before now, this one, I was disappointed. This is supposed to be his greatest play? I can't believe that - from this movie anyway. I was frequently bored, irritated with Hamlet's sometimes cryptic behaviour, and felt it was too long. First time I've ever been bored by a Shakespeare play or felt it was too long! I was frankly astonished. But I can see Shakespeare's genius is there so I presume the problem is what's left out has damaged what's left.

Shakespeare's plays are never just one plot theme. There are subplots and variety. Before now he has never disappointed me in any way. Hamlet is so long and an enormous amount of it must have been deleted to make this version. The result is certainly focused, so far as I can tell from not knowing what's missing, on the various murders past and to come and Hamlet's bizarre behaviour and dithering etc.

I discovered he was furious with his mother but it's not clear to me whether his mother married the new king willingly, or was coerced, or it was purely political or a sensible move for her protection. Instead of flying off the handle, Hamlet needs to discover her motives and whether she could have refused the marriage. Presumably the complete play fills in these details but this version doesn't that I can see. So I was frequently mystified by Hamlet's bad temper with his mother and worse, with his girl friend whom he treated so disgracefully I was simply furious. Am I meant to feel any kind of sympathy for this guy when he insults a young and seemingly innocent, indeed quite naive (if the acting was portraying the text properly) young woman persistently in lewd language that although it seems normal in those days, clearly was blaming her for faults she didn't possess. One must assume Hamlet was an ignorant, ill-bred and rather stupid youth who saw women as sex objects, no more!

I think the best part is undoubtedly the ghost's appearance and Hamlet's reactions. The Yorick scene disappointed me a bit. After seeing David Bowie's classic and superb Hamlet song in his amazing Serious Moonlight Concert, I really did expect something better from the play. Was that part cut too?

This version drags in the middle - I was simply fed up with Hamlet ranting about insulting people and killing his girlfriend's father. Doubtless I'm meant to be angry with him for dithering about but I needed some more of the text to show me this is not a boring play.

I suppose I'll have to read the play. I don't much want to watch the Branagh version - I've been disappointed in all his Shakespeare movies and him in them with the possible exception of Benedick which suits him so I can't believe his Hamlet will impress me, so I'd rather avoid it. I loathe Mel Gibson and won't ever again watch him in anything after the one time I quickly regretted as he pranced about being heroically pathetic and wallowing in being tortured - urk. Torture happens. Wallowing in depicting it is sick.

There are actors who've done Hamlet that I'd like a lot to see but they aren't on film that I know of. I'll be watching the BBC version in due course - I missed it first time around on TV.

All that said, I think Olivier looked the part and what he had of text to act he acts well. He's too old though. Surely Hamlet is meant to be a very young man who hasn't yet found the strength to know how to carry through revenge, who hasn't learned how to talk to or respect women nor to understand they are constrained by being chattels of men in those days (clearly Shakespeare in this play is indicating how women suffer and Hamlet's a bigoted fool). This version needed to keep up the tension but too often nothing much happens and ranting and raving can be a real turn off.

Where were Rosencrantz and Gildenstein? Not that I know yet what they do in the play but surely it would help to have them and some others to galvanise this movie.

My rating isn't for the story for which I'd give only 6 but for the gorgeous settings and good acting - how the actor could act stupid, selfish Proteus so well is worth watching by itself!

I've been rewatching this wonderful series - and watching for the first time some I missed when they were shown on TV originally. The story is good enough to enjoy tho' not one of the Bard's best by any means. I really couldn't though agree with one reviewer who suggested the lines by the lovers (and therefore I suppose the whole play) should have been played for laughs because I love the language and the style and I really don't want to see any of the plays presented as complete farce. Added to which I don't find the others in the play farcical nor the story itself. The problem lies in Proteus being so intolerable immature, stupid and selfish. But I can imagine the viewer in question becoming frustrated at Proteus' persistent stupidity and wondering if farce might have helped any viewer to calm down rather than want every few minutes to give him a slap for his bad behaviour. Certainly he doesn't suffer enough at the end when he's forgiven, and that means the viewer doesn't feel much pleasure at his redemption. He doesn't seem to deserve it, nor Julia who's suffered quite enough from his ill behaviour. I wonder what her father and mother will think of all this and especially of Proteus, when she finally goes home with her regained lover? But doubtless the Duke will deal with the parents tactfully?

Thank goodness Sylvia has the sense not to listen to nasty Proteus but to realise immediately that he betrayed the trust of his friend and her love. One can accept Proteus can't help his lusts and when forcibly parted from Julia, this very silly young man immediately swoons over another lovely girl who's nearby instead of afar. The worst moment is when he declares all's fair in love but in terms that are thoroughly insulting to Valentine, Julia and Sylvia too.

Valentine banished behaves sensibly and shows he's worthy of Sylvia, hence the Duke forgives him for his attempt to make off with her secretly seeing that was to save her from the unwanted husband the Duke is trying to force on her. Deceitful Proteus though is far too easily forgiven by Julia even though he has hurt her over and over as she, disguised as a page, has to listen to his passionate declarations to Sylvia and dismissal of his past love. A slap across his face (or several during the play) would have done him a world of good. I suppose he's forgiven because humans can't control love - it strikes where it will as Cupid in this production demonstrates now and again. These days people expect a bit more contrition, I think. Still, the actor does his best with his moment of self-discovery and shame.

So, a very satisfying production visually which makes up a great deal for Proteus being such a completely stupid and deceitful twerp and a certain lack of satisfaction at the end. Well worth watching.

I do find this story amusing even if not one of Shakespeare's very best. It's good enough to thoroughly enjoy and very well done too in this version. I particularly like Michael Kitchen (a favourite of mine anyway) as the patrician twins. Normally I don't like doubling of twins, I'd prefer two actors even if not identical enough - the audience can always take it they are identical, no problem. But MK did this so well, with the tetchy Ephesus twin with doublet always unbuttoned and the pleasant Syracusan with doublet always buttoned, plus the usual filming tricks to have them face to face at the end, that I had no problem this time. Perhaps this is partly because MK is such a good actor! The story is light and fluffy although with that serious edge one expects in Shakespeare, that twins parted at birth and parents also parted at the same time causes much distress. It seems rather strange the Syracusan side of the family waits so long to seek out the lost twin but you do need the twins to be adult because of the love interests. The utter confusion that ensues when one twin is taken for another is wonderful.

Even more, it's two sets of twins since we also have the servant twins both called Dromio, leading to even more confusion. And parents finally reunited too. Very nice.

I simply loved this production. Wonderful fun with fine actors. Roger Daltry does well as Dromio.

--spoilers-- I loved this version. The Beeb have used Vermeer paintings for Bertram's home, notably the Girl at the Spinet (I think that's the title), but done it all in black and white. Amazing set. Helena plays the spinet at one stage and how interesting as I'd never seen a spinet keyboard that close before - how cramped the keyboard is.

Every character is acted perfectly. Bertram is hissily horrid to nice kind Helena, and wouldn't we ladies all like to smack him for his ill manners? Time and again in the past women were forced into marriages with men they detested and how many of those men who had the freedom to choose their bride ever cared if she was miserable? But Bertram throws a fit when ordered by the King to marry Helena because he despises her "lowly rank". I can't imagine even the very grateful king would have forced a nobleman in his court to marry a girl much below his class and it was clear all the other gentlemen questioned were happy to have her if she'd chosen so. What's with Bertram's arrogance?!

It makes a good story as Bertram defies the King somewhat by refusing to consummate the marriage and then has the cheek to use the dowry the king has given Helena to pay for his accoutrements and journey off to war, leaving Helena a spiteful note telling her he won't love her until she has got a valuable family ring off his finger and can prove he's made her pregnant - two feats he's certain she can never achieve as he also tells her he'll never see her again. He sends a thoroughly mean letter to his mother too, saying there's nothing for him at home until his unwanted wife is dead. Not a thought for his poor old mother maybe never seeing him again.

Of course Helena manages to get the ring and the pregnancy, although she's exceedingly fortunate that the Florentine girl Diana who helps Helena trap Bertram back into his marriage isn't after Bertram herself when he absolutely ruthlessly sets out to seduce her. But Diana is sensible. She knows Bertram's married and won't give herself without marriage. Disliking Bertram's deceit, she and her mother and some friends are happy to trick Bertram so that Helena gets the ring and the pregnancy. Mean Bertram is thoroughly trapped though he doesn't know it yet.

He hears that his wife is dead and goes home. Everyone including the King congregates there for the final scene. There's a fair bit of fuss about rings being in the possession of the wrong people and the king gets annoyed with Bertram again. Diana and her mother and Helena also arrive though Helena keeps out of sight whilst Diana insists Bertram must marry her. Bertram is in a fix because now his wife's dead he's decided he loves her. But it's all sorted out when Helena appears. Bertram gets off pretty lightly, frankly.

The only reason I give this disappointing update of Shakespeare's fine (though historically, offensively inaccurate!) play Macbeth as many as 4 stars is because of the excellent acting.

I used to admire this play until I learned that it's based on a pack of lies about the real history of the time that was rewritten later to suit the current ruling family. The name Stewart simply means Steward and the Stewarts were not ancestrally heirs of the Scottish throne - much the same tricky situation as faced the Tudors hence the damnation of Richard III who was no better nor worse than his brother and his Tudor successors. Scotland, or at least the part that concerned Duncan and Macbeth in Macbeth's time was ruled by the chosen representative of the chieftains although a fairly unruly situation when there was dissension. Macbeth was chosen but Duncan, an unpopular chief, seized the Kingship. No wonder he got removed though not as in Shakespeare's play. Macbeth was supposed to be the just king and a good king whilst Malcolm was a hostage in England for quite a long time where he was indoctrinated with the English custom of primogeniture which he took back with him to Scotland, convinced he was the rightful king and the old system of election was invalid. No wonder the English let him go home - a useful "English" puppet on the Scottish throne. As I recall, Malcolm was a strong but very harsh king and not too popular.

So it's hard for me to watch this play without remembering the injustice to Macbeth who didn't murder Duncan so far as I recall. Even harder to watch this over-melodramatic and unrealistic adaptation in which Duncan actually tells his ambitious chef that if he Duncan dies tomorrow, Macbeth will inherit the business instead of Duncan's son "who isn't ready yet to inherit". Completely daft!

So Mrs Macbeth promptly decides her husband must murder Duncan right away, and worse, not some clever scheme to avoid being implicated but "you're a chef, a knife man, murder him with a knife". Which Macbeth does.

I was never too impressed as Macbeth and his wife descend into madness even in the original play and especially as Macbeth was as I had learned the rightful king anyway. However, it does make some sense as they are all so superstitious and prophesies start coming true to scare them. But in a modern Scottish restaurant setting, it's really hard to believe how Joe Macbeth loses all control over himself, acts weird, alienates staff and customers and is well on the way to bankrupting the business. He has Banquo murdered by one of the illegal immigrants his wife had tried to pin the murder on and then is himself murdered by MacDuff - another daft theme as now Macduff will end up in jail for murder whilst in the original play MacDuff is within his rights in the period setting as a supporter of Malcolm to pursue Macbeth.

Mrs M goes off her head much more realistically and really rather deserved to chuck herself off a building given what a mess she'd made of their lives with her loopy scheme.

Watchable for the good acting and the restaurant milieu and if you don't mind it being a travesty of history. Watchable if you like a melodrama and don't mind that it isn't realistic, or assume the modern couple had an uncertain grasp on reality anyway. But don't expect the later part to make any sense if you prefer plays to be in the real world, just ride with the melodrama if you can and admire the actors.

Had Shakespeare written this play now, set in our time, he wouldn't have written what the BBC issued because it doesn't make modern sense. A shame the modern writer couldn't take that thought on board rather than going overboard with unrealistic melodrama. The melodrama could have worked if the basic setting had worked. With the restaurant setting something more devious was needed. In a different setting and with far more at stake for the Macbeths than hurt pride, the two murders might have made sense. You could say "murders have been done for less" but are we to suppose Shakespeare's Macbeth and his wife are idiots? Of course they aren't. And a great deal was at stake in a historical period in which murder by one prince of another for power or revenge wasn't unusual. In this modern retake, clearly they are idiots.

The three witches are amusingly played as refuse men.

I've always loved this play. The theme of identical twins is delightful and there are so many laughs. I remembered it well from my schooldays when it was obviously a favourite then too. The earlier performances I've seen never, though, came up to the level of this one. I saw a version starring a very short Viola with an appallingly inappropriate halo of fluffy fair hair who looked totally ridiculous as a man and surely must have seemed to Orsino like a 12 year old page. One would hope Orsino wouldn't be falling for a child page!! And could you imagine this short actress in pageboy clothes and looking no more than a child being courted by the adult Olivia? Ridiculous... So it all made a nonsense of this story and when I tried to watch it again after seeing this version, I could only glance at a few scenes (with a very wet and soulful and completely pathetic Orsino mooning about) in horror and then return it hurriedly to the library.

So this version has completely spoiled me for anything twee. I couldn't now accept a pretty diminutive Viola. She must be a sensible height to pass for a young man. Perhaps Viola has previously been played as a page rather than a young man being trained in warfare as in this movie but I think the best reading is that Viola is a strongwilled, adventurous young woman who wouldn't want the kind of conventional life Olivia has and with her brother lost seizes the opportunity to try out living a man's life with all the privileges that would bring in Shakespeare's time. So Imogen Stubbs with her beautiful but also strong features and height and perfect voice is ideal for this part.

In the same way, Toby Stephens elevates Orsino from the dismal mooning character too often portrayed. Orsino can't be a wet dreamer. He's the leader of his country in war. He's highly respected and an upright person, made clear in the dialogue. His household is only of men and the indication in this play is that he runs a military academy which is surely exactly what we'd expect of a strong leader engaged in a war with a neighbouring state. Stephens is also extremely handsome, which adds plenty of spice to his character! The brother Sebastian, also excellently played and very charming, is amazingly like his twin in this production which is excellent. Of course we viewers can suspend belief when two actors are this much alike. Hard to imagine that in some productions both parts are played by one actress - this seems to me quite ridiculous nowadays although perfectly feasible in Shakespeare's time since women could not act on stage and the same boy could play both parts. Not allowing the twins to come face to face on stage would be completely bizarre. But I think that today this cannot work. We can't accept Viola played by a man. We can't accept Sebastian played by a girl. So better to suspend belief just a little! Sebastian's admirer Antonio is another splendid part excellently portrayed by Nicholas Farrell. Same applies to all the other actors. Sir Toby is portrayed with much wit but also some undertones of seriousness as he occasionally expresses his frustration at being a poor relation dependent on his niece's charity. Maria is not wasted as a silly bumpkin maid but given dignity and a little pathos. Malvolio becomes as I think he should a rather tragic figure, perfectly portrayed by Nigel Hawthorne especially in that "famous scene"! Sir Andrew is really sweet in his silly way. Helena Bonham Carter makes Olivia delightful and youthful, so suitable to fall for "Cesario. "Ben Kingsley rounds it off with a lovely sharp portrayal of Feste and lovely singing.

---spoilers--- I haven't read the book as I never could get on with Balzac - those movie or TV adaptations I've seen were always interesting but didn't touch my heart. So I can't comment on whether this movie seems faithful to the book. I found the movie is very good and very well acted. I was readily able to admire Cousin Bette who has been treated disgracefully over her life one way and another, lost the first man she loved to another woman and later loses another man to his daughter.... and eventually loses patience with being taken advantage of. I could also happily despise the nasty young Germanm sculptor she so unwisely falls for, what an arrogant irritating twerp. Being English I'm used to Hugh Laurie being only a comedian and it was interesting to see him in a more serious part as the family's patriach.

But I'm mystified by one aspect of the story. Toby Stephens is cast as a son of the family, Victorin, and the only one with a brain in his head and one feels for his frustration as the rest of his family behave like idiots. Is he intended to be priggish? Hardly surprising since without him managing the estate and the shockingly large loans that're all keeping them going and his father so determinedly squanders on a showgirl and general stupidity, they'd all have been in the poorhouse long ago. Yet when it comes to retribution time, why is Victorin forced to flee with his family so as to avoid being murdered by one of the lenders calling in the money whilst no-one else suffers or does someone pay off the debts?

If the theme is Bette's retribution, what on earth has she got against Victorin? And if the theme is wider than her personal retribution, it's not exactly clear. Perhaps there is an explanation in the book that was omittied from the movie, or the theme is that Victorin must suffer because he doesn't stop his father's excesses. But at least it seems he escapes to build a new, safer life with his family, whilst the rest of them suffer far worse. As people who live to excess and get themselves into trouble are colourful but also can be considerable bores, I would have liked to hear more about the financial aspects and seen Victorin used more in the movie.

But what happens to the extensive debts? At the end we see Bette living in the great house but what do they live on? Perhaps the book explains this, I certainly hope so.

I'd have given 8 stars but for those two quibbles.

This is a movie not to miss. I give it only 9 stars out of 10 because I'm not keen on such a long flashback as is used here. I would have preferred a straight chronological order - mostly I find flashbacks tedious unless they are very short. However, I expect the French, knowing Moliere's plays well, may be happy with this flashback approach as they could do what I mostly couldn't, pick out all the allusions to specific Moliere plays.

In France the word comedy is used as it used to be used in England in Shakespeare's time - it didn't mean a knockabout farce or a barrel of laughs, but a story which follows certain guidelines for entertainment and likely to include some comic sequences. This is an excellent comedy with both laughs and sharper moments.

Particular accolades to Fabrice Lucchini for another fine performance because he is a favourite of mine, but also accolades to all the actors, the director, the camera people, everyone.

I shall certainly be looking up Moliere's plays to discover some of the sources for myself. I've only ever seen two of them and one was an amateur performance but without subtitles and I at 15 didn't have good enough French to follow it much! Time Moliere was better known in England, clearly, just as Feydeau's real farces were introduced to us years ago.

My interest in this docu came about as I've been all my life a fan of Ivor Novello's music and persona even though I didn't know a great deal about his movie period until his centenary when he became briefly fashionable again and I picked up some 2nd hand books about him and read those of his major musicals for which I could get hold of libretti. I was stunned to discover just how much a superstar he was on film and after seeing The Lodger and reading a really excellent BFI book called Ivor Novello : Screen Idol, I realised just how he accomplished this and just how amazingly good he was. I've since managed to obtain The Phantom Fiend (unfortunately the cut down American version but it's still vg. up to the abrupt ending) and Return of the Rat (well, better than nothing about the Rat but clearly not as good as his earlier Rat movies).

So I bought this DVD sight unseen and was delighted to discover a whole chapter on Novello and a single still right at the end of the docu of his famous Apache Dance. But I was also surprised at just how dynamic and interesting British film making was in the silent period. It was very exciting to discover so much about our movies and infuriating to learn just how stupidly reticent we've been about that golden era. What is wrong with the British that we denigrate our own terrific history in film and we allow our oh-so-clever and sarcastic movie critics to carry on this calumny as though praising anything British is both incompetent and even disgracefully silly whilst it's an absolute necessity to rave about the movie past of the USA and France?

----spoiler---

Simply wonderful retell of this clever Shakespeare comedy. I loved every minute of this new version. This isn't just because of the perfect casting but also the very good script. This writer had absolutely everything right. Rufus Sewell, a favourite of mine anyway, is just amazing in this. I'd never before thought of him in women's clothes but he looks completely stunning even to the mini skirt and highheeled boots - he has great legs! The wedding is amazing! Shirley Henderson is a perfect match for him as the objectionable MP. It's not just full of laughs but plenty of warmth and tenderness too as the unlikely couple sort themselves out to become a completely likely couple. You really feel for all the characters including Kate's flashy sister with an out-for-the-main-chance student lover half her age, her mother and Bianca's long-suffering manager (played so poignantly by Stephen Tomkinson). Best of all are the final snapshots of "the future" which set the seal (threefold!) on this delightful tale.

I could watch this over and over again.

It's the best of the 4 retells on the Shakespeare Retold DVD which also contains retells of Much Ado, Midsummer Night's Dream and Macbeth. It also far outshines the quite good old musical Kiss Me Kate using the same basic story but which I found a bit boring but for the music.

I note Rufus Sewell and Shirley Henderson also starred as "husband and wife" in Charles II, another marvellous piece of TV.

I do get irritated with modern adaptations of Shakespeare when the director can't make his mind up whether to use the original or to update it. If it's using the original words in an updated setting, that's particularly tricky if set in the 20th or 21st century although it can work OK in period styles, eg the Trevor Nunn Twelfth Night set late Victorian very effectively. It could work with the 30's setting if only there had been far less of the song and dance and far more of Shakespeare's text. Unfortunately, it just ends up being a pretty trivial though very pleasant show.

Another problem is Branagh himself. I agree he's far too old to play one of the students but more important, he's such an experienced Shakespearean actor that in spite of all his efforts to be just another student, his strength of acting shows all the time. Of course he should have played the King - no problem in having a mature student King surrounded by younger students. Instead we had a pleasant but unimposing actor for the King, thus an unimposing so-called King with no Kingly attributes.

The amount of song and dance, which I found tedious in spite of the nice songs and pleasant enough dancing, unfortunately meant the great Shakespearean dialogue had to be cut down drastically. So the whole thing ends up a trivial and mild confection, and I got very bored, including with the comic turns, and was glad when it ended. Branagh has not done Shakespeare justice in this production.

Accolades however to Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan, absolutely splendid as the older couple.

As a Novello enthusiast I'm so grateful to get hold of a copy of any Novello movies that it's hard for me to be really critical of this one although it's the least good of the three I've found so far. I must agree this is a confused movie and the mainly incomprehensible comic turns of the two London cockneys are excruciatingly awful and completely incongruous. I concluded they must have been a very famous real comic turn at the time and shoved in to get in extra audience, but why this should be necessary when you have amazing superstar Novello and one of his favourite leading ladies Isabel Jeans let alone Marie Ault, is beyond me from this many years later.

I enjoyed the movie in that it's the only Rat movie I've managed to get hold of so far although I've obtained the novelisations of the earlier two movies. I'm simply longing to see the first of the series and astonished the famous Apache dance wasn't repeated in Triumph of the Rat - I'll bet the audiences would have loved a repeat. Instead there's no underworld dancing to excite us. As for the story, this has been a bit confused for modern viewers by Denise Robbins' novelisation of Triumph of the Rat as unfortunately she added to the original movie a whole sequence about the girl the Rat was in love with at the time and transposed the period to just before WW1 which simply doesn't fit in with the fashions or the underworld twenties etc.

I would have given this movie 6 stars if it hadn't spent so much of its time on the boring modern day researchers in the story. I have twice tried to read this book. The first time I returned it to the library almost entirely unread after losing patience with it quickly. The second time after being pressed to try it again by a friend who admired it, I tried harder but still gave up quite quickly. Frankly, I found it boring, wordy, and tedious in spite of an interesting theme. The writer just couldn't hold my attention.

I like period drama which is partly why I watched the movie, the other reason being the actors include three favourites of mine, Jeremy Northam. Trevor Eve and Toby Stephens. Regrettably, Stephens' potentially very interesting part as a villain, though starting well, ultimately is small and towards the end more or less forgotten. Eve similarly. Northam playing the Victorian poet would be expected to have a major amount of screen time along with his beloved, but this doesn't happen. The director concentrates on the most boring characters in the book, the two dreary modern characters plugging away interminably at their research and sparring with each other until one hardly cares what they find out or what they feel about one another as they simply aren't exciting characters.

I think my reaction clearly indicates this movie isn't as good as it could have been. A good movie should hold the attention even if not featuring all that much the actors you came to it for. So who's at fault - the story, the actors playing the modern researchers, or the director? I think the director. He had the opportunity to make a better adaptation of the book or to divide attention more fairly between the characters, and chose not to.

But of course it depends on your point of view. I've no interest at all in the modern researchers. Others may feel the Victorian story is a minor issue and the emotional interactions of the two modern researchers are all that really matters.

----spoilers----- If this story had only been about Beatrice and Benedict I'd have given it 10 stars, but the Hero-Claude plot is rather weak. I think it was a mistake to turn spiteful Uncle Don John into Hero's obsessive and clinging friend with whom she'd had an unwise flung through being sorry for him. Nasty Don John scheming to cause trouble is I think better than drippy Don miserying over Hero. But I can see the attraction of this different theme and it does work well at first, but from the wedding onward the plot goes awry. It's obviously impossible for any modern girl to want to marry this berk Claude who's so easily deceived by pathetic Don's silly plot, whilst in the original naive Claude can get away with his very bad behaviour as Don John then is far too clever for him and moral attitudes were different then. So this relationship is left unresolved and I can't see how it could ever work.

But Beatrice and Benedict - oh yes, brilliantly done! Sarah Parish and Damian Lewis (is he meant to look like Kenneth Branagh or is it chance?) are marvellous and the whole script concerning them is excellent and very funny.