The Tempest

Audience Reviews

View More

Michael H 08/25/2024 A stunning Shakespeare adaptation that is truly breathtaking to see. See more Kyle M 09/22/2023 Playwright William Shakespeare had written his own language by verbal flow, layered elegantly to speak multiple meanings beyond direct conversations we'd normally see act out on the circular stage. The words feed thematically, projecting the connections between the character and the current setting. Though while the plays debuted in the 17th century, they've proven themselves timeless literary exemplars under occasional study and source for dramatic inspirations, thus maintaining Shakespeare's legacy, especially once film revives the stories' theatrical chances of replicating the power they contain with interpretations. But not everyone displays any sort of interest in the craft with effects of provoking devastation over realistic tragedy or discomforting disorientation over unique fantasy realms. Writer-director of both theatre and film Julie Taymor seems to re-capture the essence of one of Shakespeare's plays "The Tempest", with inadvertent negativity adjacent to the ideal perception. Prospera is a banished sorceress residing on an island with her daughter Miranda. Her vengeance finally comes to play when her former tormentors have been shipwrecked on the mysterious island, which she set up with a cast spell that caused the storm. Her unwilling aides, Caliban and Ariel, mystical inhabitants of the island, respectively conspire against and acts as her reach when tormenting those royal court members. However, she's powerless when love casts a spell between her daughter and the king's son. What initially compels is the minimal accolades, then the talent involved and the creative decision in not modernizing the script, just leaving it be. The idea of modernization tends to stray from the subject as a contrasting vision, which exactly occurred in Michael Almereyda's "Hamlet" but proven better in Baz Luhrman's "Romeo + Juliet". Julie Taymor directed "The Tempest" before as an abridged stage play – she also directed and designed the costumes for "The Lion King" in 1997, so her interactions regarding Shakespeare isn't unfamiliar when she reprised her creative controls in adapting her environmental interpretations of the aforementioned play onto the screen. Her main differences differentiating from original productions is genderbending Prospera and Ariel since it's arguably agreeable no can embody the former's stances more than what Helen Mirren could muster, leaving the unwilling latter to be creepily conjured by Ben Whishaw with questionable approach. However, if leaving the script intact with little tweaks reacting to the change, will it still support the characterization towards their justified concepts? Luhrman over emphasized his assignment's power while Almereyda kept it low which resulted in inactivity through the viewing. Taymor approached similarly like the latter, with an emphasis on imaginative weirdness as closer leaning for the Shakespearean perception's discomforting manifestation. As originally intended when prompted to feel for these characters, despite the casting, the mystifying treatment succumbs them down to naught. The costume designs by Sandy Powell, with a blossoming resumé, are praiseworthy as they briefly express the characters while the fine cast performed at expected caliber, till they started losing momentum as the story started leaning more into the unfitting fantastical realm housing Shakespearean literacy. It pushes the spectator in a demoted distance of a bystander unable to grasp what they're truly feeling as the duplicated screenplay and production merits shrouded and reduced those embodiments to face value rather than potential thematic representations that weren't delve into. Interpreting the story could've led to modernizing the script to enable the omitted pathos and the actual senses that don't ridicule but adds onto the overall acceptance. On the contrary, wouldn't that lower its supposed cinematic significance, or rather improve it as a fantasy drama? Most of the film been restricted in replicating the stage productions' limited spaces with minimal impressiveness on how the performers interact with the settings, though less than how it opened at peaked impression and better effective expression of delivering the word-on-word scripture. Albeit experienced, Julie Taymor may have shown she's in spiritual connection with Shakespeare himself wondering how the visual translation could function from stage to film – similar to the cinema's birth. Results proven in argument that it's best to present your interpretations of one's other story, with conscious awareness of the subtextual themes, than copy and paste under the supposed act of faithfulness if it doesn't do wonders. "The Tempest" may be the advocative counterargument in favor of those not interested in pure Shakespearean works, while enthusiasts would probably be on the fence over this one. (C+) See more steve d 12/12/2022 Not one of my favorite shows but a strong version. See more andrei d 04/14/2020 Needs more weirdness See more 09/26/2019 Thats going to be a no for me. Was really let down especially with the awards on the cover. See more 02/15/2019 It certainly couldï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)ve been worse, but I was highly unimpressed. Even though the film and sound quality were both nice, I was confused with the producerï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)s choice in visual effects. Ariel had a very ethereal quality, but some of his scenes were almost too exaggerated; it felt excessive. The exception to this is the Tempest scene. It was exciting and more intense than I expected. The setting was fantastic and well made! Calibanï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)s character was better than I wouldï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)ve imagined and the producerï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)s choice to cast Prospero/a as a woman was risky, but ultimately paid off in their favor. Helen Mirren played the part well. Some of the lines felt unnatural, like the actors didnï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)t KNOW what they were saying. Iï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)m sure they did, but I wasnï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)t sure they understood what was happening the entire time. The movie was at 100% drama all the time, but there were moments that I donï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)t think they executed the humor that Shakespeare wrote into the original Tempest play. It felt like a play producer decided to make a movie. All the drama of a play, all the production quality of a movie - and that isnï¿ 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2(TM)t a compliment. Humor: 1/5 , Production: 5/5 , Acting: 4/5 , Drama: 2/5 , Shakespeare-ness: 3/5 See more Read all reviews

The Tempest

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now