Watch A Midsummer Night's Dream For Free

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Admirable film.

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

While it does take a bit of time to get things going, I found that it was REALLY well done! The way they did the woods scenes with the lights and the doors it made me look at it in a whole new way. The scenes in the woods required the watcher to use their imagination and it was so lovely! The characters and the dialogue are well done by the actors! The costuming and make up are wonderful and full of color!! I enjoyed it! The boy did puzzle me, but that was the only thing I could have done without! I just love Lindsay Duncan who most would know from HBO's ROME, she is such a classy lady and a very good actress. Puck reminded me of a young Robin Williams and was very good in his part. It was a good production and I would love to see it again!

When you go to watch a stage show, you expect to see the action from one viewpoint, you expect the action to be confined to a limited space (the theatre at least, and probably the stage), and you expect the actors to enunciate extra-clearly and move using broad dance-like movements so the audience can hear and see them.Not on film. Wheareas in a theatre you might create an ambiguous set which imagination could transform from an interior into a forest, in a film you'd just shoot one scene indoors and the next in the forest. Whereas an actor on stage might spit out his t's and roll his r's so he can be heard 30 rows back, a film actor only needs to be heard by a boom mike. Whereas often all you can see of a stage actor are body movements, all you can see in a film closeup is the actor's face.All of this argues that a successful stage production does not necessarily translate into a successful film. Such is the case here.Daniel Evans must be the worst Lysander ever to appear on screen. He uses all of his stage mannerisms but no facial expression so the performance is highly unconvincing. Puck also suffers from mime-like movement. The young women are better and Kevin Doyle as Demetrius is quite good. The rude mechanicals take themselves too seriously.Some attempt has been made to use Osheen Jones as a framing device by suggesting that the play is all his dream (a device stolen, actor and all, by Julie Taymor in her Titus) This idea is not carried through rigorously: we have no idea of what his relationship is supposed to be with the characters--do they represent figures in his waking life? Does the doubling of parts suggest a correspondence in character between Theseus and Oberon, or Puck and Philostrate? Is the fairy story a dream of the human characters who are themselves a dream of Osheen Jones? Who knows? What is clear is that on film a stage with hanging light bulbs looks like . . . a stage. Not a dream landscape. In the end, this version of Midsummer Night's Dream is unconvincing and doesn't know where it is going. It should have been left on stage.

i would it were more forgetable- the garish colors and deplorable acting made it the worst thing I have ever had to sit through and such nightmarish images remain in my head. Between the "hammer pants" that Puck dons and the macauly culkin-esque annoying kid whose purpose is so meaningless as to remind the viewer that someone is watching this thing, the film has all the appeal of a piece of bad corporate art circa 1990.

Why this film is so underestimated? May be, because the same production looked better on the stage? Well, I've never seen it on the stage and am totally satisfied with the screen version. It is a wonderful mixture of a fair-tale dream and amusing comedy of characters and situations. The most startling thing about the film is the settings, which are colourful, imaginative, and picturesque, with magic lights. Costumes are also fascinating – artfully invented type of dressing for heroes of English boy's dream. I think that introduction of the boy is very clever and helpful in a film. The movie is beautiful and superbly performed. Alex Jennings and Lindsay Duncan act splendidly, and so does Finbar Lynch. But I especially like the love-quadrangle of Lysander-Hermia-Demetrius-Helena. Young actors are very spirited. Shakespearean text wasn't unnecessary edited and RSC actors speak it brilliantly. There is also a lot of fun. The production of that absurd Athenian troupe is just as ridiculous as it was meant to be, I think. I find plenty of things to enjoy about the movie; highly recommend it to everybody. P.S. Englishmen are extraordinary lucky to have the opportunity of enjoying RSC productions on the stage. What the rest of world would do without films?