Watch A Midsummer Night's Dream For Free

I love this movie so much

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

On a hot midsummer night, what could be more appropriate than this great Max Rinhardt's Warner Brother's classic? The movie is an American classic for "doing" Shakespeare with sound. The effects are wonderful for their time, the music is just right, and American audiences of that era would have recognized many of the cast members. The characters from this version of this well-known Shakespearian play give us lots of fun and joy. They argue; they sing, they dance; they fly through the air. They could be young lovers forced to obey orders of the Duke; they could be jealous woodland fairies; they could be a group of excited simple townsmen who want to win a prize from the Duke; or they could be Athenian royalty. OK, This movie is higher on special effects like--- gossamer images and Mendelssohn's incidental music-- than it is Shakespeare's actual script. Yet, everyone who loves Shakespeare should see this version just because you might want to see Olivia de Havilland (as Hermia), Dick Powell (as Lysander), James Cagney (as Bottom the Weaver), Joe E. Brown (as Flute the Bellows-Mender), and Frank McHugh (as Quince the Carpenter). In the Fairlyland cast, Victor Jory is Oberland , Anita Louise is Titania, and a 14-year-old Mickey Rooney is Puck. The movie won an Oscar for Best Cinematography (Hal Mohr)—as the first and only write-in nominee to actually win, and Best Film Editing (Ralph Dawson). It was nominated Best Picture but lost out to Mutiny on the Bounty and a host of other great choices.

An early film adaptation of Shakespeare and it's aged pretty well. There are some obvious moments where modern film-making would have improved things, especially the lighting. The long version is really long, with the ethereal fairies moving about in a way that added nothing to the film.As for the acting, my primary negative takeaway is with Puck. Mickey Rooney played the sprite, and over acted it entirely. At the start, it was mildly charming. With every scene it was made worse with his voice and his laugh. I came to dread every scene in which Puck was in. It wasn't helped by the lovers being uninteresting as well. There wasn't much chemistry between them and Lysander also had an unfortunate laugh.The film was saved, by two things. One, it's Shakespeare. The plot and dialogue are solid and it was a fine adaptation. The best part of the movie, were the players. Joe E. Brown's comic relief was great. The last scene of the movie featured him and it leaves one with a great feeling of the movie.The surprising, was James Cagney as Bottom. His part was perfectly played as an over-acted role and he was clearly having fun doing it. He was deserving of an Academy Award nomination, as it really was one of the best of his career. To anyone thinking of him as just a hard nosed gangster, he had some great range.It was truly a joy to watch Cagney, and I almost wonder how he would have handled the Puck role. It couldn't have made things worse than Mickey Rooney already did. Watch this movie because it's Shakespeare and James Cagney. Just try not to let Mickey Rooney force you to stop before the end.

A heap of talent was assembled for this big Hollywood adaptation of Shakespeare's classic tale. Unfortunately it does not all fit together in the most satisfying manner possible, but it's still a good show for the weird effects and the novelty of seeing some of Hollywood's big stars take smaller roles derived from the Bard.James Cagney is the biggest star in the film, but of course spends half of it with a donkey's head.... the really odd effects are in the beginning, with the faeries appearing in what seems to be a triple exposure of smoke and mannequins. There's an awful lot of half-naked children running around with wires attached to them, flying around and so forth, and I'm not sure if the whole thing is really in good taste. Mickey Rooney is given a ton of screen time, and while it's fun to see him as Puck, the fun wears off rather quickly. His screeching laugh must have seemed a good idea, to somebody.Meanwhile Olivia de Havilland and Dick Powell are embarrassing themselves as the young lovers (actors really too good for these roles), Anita Louise looks pretty but not very fay, and well what else can you say? The film's direction by Reinhardt is very good, but in its full edit the film's effects and especially its contrivances end up making it feel like a bit of a slog.

This obviously was a quality production for Warner Brothers and had it been made just a few years later I am sure they would have done it in Technicolor (1935 was still a bit early for this). It begins with a very long overture--a sure sign of self-importance for the film! Then, you see that practically all the A-talent (aside from Bette Davis, George Raft and Edward G. Robinson) were assembled for this film--Dick Powell, Olivia de Havilland, Frank McHugh, Hugh Herbert, Joe E. Brown, Arthur Treacher and James Cagney. The last five are certainly odd-ball choices for a Shakespeare play--that's for sure! And, on top of all this, the film has amazing costumes and sets as well as a two-hour plus running time! Wow. Unfortunately for the studio, while the film was critically successful, it baffled audiences of the day...and continues to do that to this day.Now I must stop here and confess two things that you should consider as you read my review. First, I never have read or seen this play up until now. Second, I enjoy Shakespeare about as much as I enjoy an outbreak of Herpes! And, before you write to me about how great The Bard is, understand I have read at least dozen plays (even some obscure ones like "Henry IV, Part One")--all thanks to overly conventional high school and college teachers who considered Shakespeare to be a close second to God (or first in a few cases). This review, then, is probably more for the common man...as well as the uncommon man (or woman) who is actually willing to face scorn by admitting they hate Shakespeare! I am sure this last statement will generate a heap of 'not helpfuls'! Now if I have to endure a Shakespeare production (other than the wonderful one by The Reduced Shakespeare Company), this isn't a bad film. After all, this is one of Shakespeare's 'funny' plays (of course, Shakespeare was to humor what Genghis Khan was to opera). And, of all his funny plays I've seen on film, this one certainly is more enjoyable than "The Taming of the Shrew" and "Othello" (at least I think "Othello" is pretty funny--I have heard rumors that it was supposed to be a tragedy--go figure). Also, it's so surreal seeing these many non-Shakespearian actors doing their craft! I also should point out that this might be the most beautiful Shakespearian production ever mounted. The camera-work is simply brilliant and I cannot think of any other black & white film that can stake the claim as being better than this one in this regard. Second, apparently the Warners really, really wanted to gain a lot of respect as an artistic studio (instead of the most fun studio--which it really with all its gangster and adventure films) and used amazing sets--ones that make the film worth seeing for this alone! Heck, keeping the volume off and just watching would be worth while. However, DON'T do that, as the music is quite luminous (can something visual actually be luminous?!)--and sets the perfect stage for the film. Seeing pixies and nymphs and elves and other magical creatures cavorting about set to this music is just wild! So what you have is a film that may or may not be Shakespeare (I dunno--as I said, I've never seen or read this one) but it ain't bad--and a visual delight as well. So, if you MUST watch one of his plays, this is a great bet. However, you also might try watching Akira Kurosawa's "The Bad Sleep Well" (it's a re-imagined 20th century corporate version of "Hamlet") or "Throne of Blood" ("King Lear" in medieval Japan)--these are both brilliant films AND YET they still have the snob appeal of regular Shakespeare! Or, you could take my advice and try "Strange Brew". This Doug & Bob McKenzie film from the 80s is "Hamlet" as well...but you have to pay VERY close attention to see this.