Watch The Merry Wives of Windsor For Free

People are voting emotionally.

How sad is this?

Absolutely Brilliant!

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

On the whole, this production of "The Merry Wives of Windsor" is admirable. It contains nearly all of Shakespeare's lines (including a few insertions from the Quarto version); it includes some excellent performances; the staging is generally deft, and the atmosphere of the play is warmly engaging; and the sets are pleasing to the eye.Prunella Scales and Judy Davis as Mistresses Page and Ford (respectively) are especially good, but nearly all the other members of the cast -- ranging from Richard Griffiths as Falstaff to Elizabeth Spriggs as Mistress Quickly -- are also highly commendable. The one exception, surprisingly, is Ben Kingsley as Ford. To be sure, anyone playing the role of Ford has to go over the top occasionally. However, Kingsley is annoyingly histrionic in the pejorative sense of the term; his high-strung mannerisms and his falsetto utterances become quite tiresome. His performance is not unalloyedly woeful, but it is well below the level of the other performances.A few of the other reviewers on this site have criticized Richard Griffiths for his portrayal of Falstaff, but Griffiths aptly captures the nature of Falstaff in "Merry Wives" -- a play that presents Falstaff as a somewhat less shrewd character than the Falstaff of the Henry IV plays. Moreover, the girth of Griffiths made him more suitable for the role than was Anthony Quayle in the BBC's Henry IV productions (though Quayle's excellent acting compensated for his physical unsuitability).Apart from Ben Kingsley's performance, the main objectionable feature of this otherwise admirable production is that a few scenes and smaller portions of the play are rearranged. The rearrangements aren't damaging, but they strike me as pointless. (Much the same can be said about the handful of small excisions of Shakespeare's lines.) All in all, I can recommend this production heartily to anyone who wants to experience the charms of Shakespeare's play.ADDENDUM: Having now watched this production three more times, I feel that my remarks about Ben Kingsley's performance are too strongly negative. Most of his acting is in fact very good -- as one would expect from such a virtuoso Shakespearean thespian. Only at a few brief junctures does he become annoyingly histrionic with his high-pitched utterances or excessive gesticulations. I'll leave my original remarks unmodified, to indicate how someone might respond to Kingsley's performance after only a few viewings. However, my assessment of that performance is now significantly more favorable.

I enjoyed this 1982 BBC version, part of the BBC series of adaptations of the entire Shakespearean canon, a prototype for the modern farce. I think if you just take the play on face value, a hastily written work (prose rather than verse), its intention to entertain, displacing Falstaff from the History plays to a comic setting, then I found it watchable. There's no substitute for seeing the plays performed which is what this version does, bringing out the word play and comedy (puns,like when Brooks arrives, offering free booze to Falstaff, who quips, 'Such Brooks are welcome to me, that o'erflows with liquor').I actually found Ben Kingsley's performance entertaining, Ford's jealous rage is supposed to be comically over the top as both he & Falstaff become the butt of the wives' comic mischief, but for different reasons. I didn't think it detracted from the play (You want OTT from Ben Kingsley? See him as the villain in 'Sexy Beast)'. The portrayal of Falstaff is problematic but that is not Richard Griffiths' fault. This is because we have seen a flawed human being in the Henry IV plays, the cause of wit and of wit in others, the father figure, who Hal seeks in flight from his own father & responsibilities, the braggart soldier yet a man who is also self-aware, the bad man we all know and love. Here in 'The Merry Wives of Windsor', he is caricatured as a lecherous old fool, who tends to use words in an exhibitionist manner.I enjoyed all the performances, Alan Bennett a delight as Shallow, the playful wives, Judy Davis conveying the dignity and depth of Mrs Ford, the wife whose husband is consumed with jealousy & I liked the late Elizabeth Spriggs as Mistress Quickly, as well as Ron Cook as 'Simple. It was also interesting to find out that the house, its interior, was based on that of Shakespeare's own son-in-law.It was amusing watching Shakespeare send up 'comedy accents', such as Dr Caius and Sir Hugh Evans, but I find it strange that Dr Caius's performance is the one many reviewers think stands out. Yes, it's very good, the Dr's mannerisms, the duel, his irascibility but it is comedy rooted in a stereotype,like the English RAF officer masquerading as the badly spoken French policeman in 'Allo, allo'. I think I find the relationship between Frank Ford & his long-suffering wife more interesting.I gave this a 7 star rating (7.5 would be fairer) as I watched it with a 20 minute break but that's how one would watch a theatrical production with an interval. I thought it didn't pall at three hours.*Fans of 'Withnail & I': Richard Griffiths went on to play Uncle Monty, but Ralph Brown, who played Danny, the drug dealer, has a minor role in 'The Merry Wives...' as one of the servants assigned to carry Falstaff away in the laundry basket.

This play is a play of pure disorder that ends up in farcical comedy. So everything is dominated by three, the number of disorder. Three women are the mistresses of ceremonies and antics: Mistress Page, married to Mister Page, Mistress Ford, married to Mister Ford, and Mistress Quickly, Servant to Doctor Caius. The Pages have apparently one daughter they want to marry but three men are courting: Doctor Caius, a French physician, Slender and Fenton. The daughter, Anne Page, has chosen the last one and the others are promoted by her parents. Two young boys will be essential, probably the sons of Mister and Mistress Page since they are heavily identified as pages at the end, though this identification is ambiguous.We must add Sir John Falstaff, and his three followers, Bardolph, Pistol and Nym. The page attached to him is probably one of the two Page sons.The three Mistresses are associated to teach a merry lesson to their husbands and men who are jealous as for the husbands and vainly superior as for the Doctor. At the same time the gentlemen in the assembly want justice, in fact a good vengeance, from Falstaff who is dragging them into inebriety for his acolytes to rob them, to pick their pockets. What's more he pretends he will, not can but will, sleep with all the mature women around, hence he has three preys, though he is more interested in the two married ones.The play ends with a fake fairy apparition and dance, led by Mistress Quickly and all the children of the neighborhood, all in fairy disguises at night. It works very well as for Falstaff who is totally ridiculed in his projects concerning the wives. At the same time the two husbands are taught some modesty and reserve about the freedom of their wives and the trust they owe them. Falstaff will laugh at his being defeated in the merriest way possible. And the two husbands will also come to terms with their wives in a final celebration.The most hectic element is of course the case of Anne Page. The two official candidates are given contradictory instruction as for the disguise of the girl during the fairy dance. Slender is supposed to pick the girl in white and Doctor Caius the girl in green. They do that but Slender discovered luckily in time that the girl is a page, hence a boy. That marriage fails. Doctor Caius is less lucky than Slender because he marries his green girl who reveals herself to be a boy, another page, but after the ceremony has been performed. A strange situation indeed.And it is when Anne Page appears with her husband, Fenton, duly married. We end up with two marriages, one totally out of sorts, and the other one correct, and two married couples of parents. The figure of four is perverted by that homosexual marriage, the supreme disturbance since it could mean in England being literally grilled on a public square. Luckily the man of the couple is French, hence he only risks being deep fried in a giant frying pan. Of course we are on a Shakespearean stage where all women are played by teenagers. So it is just a twist in the fabric that means nothing, but that must have created a lot of laughing. This trick will be heavily used by Ben Jonson in his "The Silent Woman" This production uses very aptly the inside of a home of the time, with at least two floors and an attic, numerous exits and numerous cupboards to hide in. It also vastly uses the countryside around the house. That gives the play a rhythm and a force that this plain farce deserves due to the serious subjects it deals with: the trust of husbands to their wives and the freedom for young people to marry according to their hearts and not their parents' wishes.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

This production is not very good, but it's not quite as bad as I'd expected. Richard Griffiths holds up reasonably well in comparison to Anthony Quayle's portrayal in the BBC productions of Henry IV parts 1 & 2, though of course it's unfortunate that different actors portrayed the same characters in the different plays. Most of the other actors are reasonably competent, though not nearly as good as you'd expect from their work elsewhere. I agree that the direction is remarkably weak, with the denouement in particular being far too feeble to intimidate anyone, let alone Falstaff. But this was, after all, one of Shakespeare's weakest plays, allegedly written at royal command under severe deadline pressure.