Let me say first of all that this is easily my favourite of all Shakespeare's plays. The way that it interweaves the fantastical and the real is exceptional. But this production did not do it the credit that it deserves.There were a lot of good things here. All Shakespearean productions seem to have at least one actor who doesn't seem at home with the language. It looked for a while as if this one would get away from that. Unfortunately, Puck's entrance kind of spoiled this for me, and as he is a major player it was doubly disappointing. He was totally miscast, and some of his better known lines were almost painful.Having Titania's bed chamber looking like a Rubens painting was a great touch - to say nothing of Titania herself, who, played by Helen Mirren, was outstanding. Making her attendants so numerous and so young was also excellent - in theory. But again, none of them (in their, admittedly few, speaking parts) seemed in any way comfortable with the language. I realise that Shakespeare can't be easy for 10-year-olds, but surely they could have done a little better.The sets were also a disappointment, the forests clearly being indoors and the puddles therein being miraculously free of mud. I don't know what would have been wrong with just shooting that part outdoors.It must be a tough production to get right. There were certainly some good things there, but some unnecessarily bad ones as well. I enjoyed it, but the Hollywood version from 1999 is better, and probably easier to source.

After reading some previous comments, I can only conclude that some people were watching a different movie altogether. I found this version Of A Midsummer Night's Dream to be far superior to any other that I've ever seen .This is my favorite of all Shakespeare's plays, so I generally stand to be critical of the various treatments offered. However, I found this cast and direction to be outstanding, visually, and emotionally. The costumes were spectacular, the settings haunting, and the acting...flawless. I loved Geoffrey Palmer's work as well. I was lucky enough to catch a repeat of it years ago, and quickly taped it so I could watch it every summer.I themed my wedding after this play. I loved Helen Mirren's portrayal as the faerie queen, Titania. I found her to be perfect in the role. Judi Dench, I believe, played it all too 70s hippie-angsty, and could have done very well without the overexposure.The casting of an older boy as Puck, while at first seemed unfamiliar, and wrong, he quickly won me over, and soon his age didn't matter a bit. He sure beat a manic Mickey Rooney in the Hollywood version of 1935! Who, by the way, was 15 when he played the role.I saw some scenes on Youtube the other day, and the background music has been playing in my head for 2 days now. I'm hooked again.My birthday is next month..my husband is buying me the entire boxed set of the BBC Shakespeare comedies! Helen Mirren as Rosalind in As You Like It is superb again...as is John Cleese as Pertruchio in The Taming of the Shrew. I can't wait till next month...I'll be in Shakespeare Utopia.

There are two reasons why you might want to watch this version of Midsummer Night's Dream. One is Helen Mirren. She is lovely and perfect as Titania throughout and her delivery of the long monologue to Oberon in Act 2 Sc. 1 does not lose the viewer's attention for a moment. That is an awesome feat considering what a difficult passage it is.The other shining moment occurs in Act 3 Sc. 2, starting about when Demetrius wakes up to find that he is in love with Helena. The ensuing lines are delivered over top of each other, as the lovers engage in a confused quarrel. The actors add to this by pushing each other, trying to get around or over or under to talk to someone other than the one that's talking to them. Great directing and perfect timing make this scene race by like I've never seen it before.These two shining moments hardly make up for the rest of the performance which lacks sparkle. Some parts are sung (Puck's "Jack shall have Jill" speech) which is just incongruous. Perhaps the fact that Starveling sings his part as Moonshine is a bit of self-satire.Which brings me to the rude mechanicals who are particularly lacklustre. Geoffrey Palmer is absolutely wasted here. "Pyramus and Thisbe" is absolutely boring. There are exactly two bits of comic business (Bottom steals food from the wedding table on the line "'Deceiving me' is Thisbe's cue" and Starveling as Moonshine tries to upstage Bottom by hanging the lantern in front of his face) and they aren't exactly hilarious. If it's not funny, it should at least be moving, but although Flute (a very feminine Flute) tries, the director has cut most of the wedding party's backchat and they seem to have little interest in what is going on on the stage. Small wonder really.There's nothing about the sets and costumes, which suggest the English Civil War, to get us excited. The entire first scene is set in a library against a background of a ticking clock. What a great way to remind us how slowly the scene is moving!

This is the second time I've seen her in this play, first as Titania. The first time she was in a movie version of the Dream she was Hermia, one of the lovers. This is a good version for a class room viewing. It lacks the nudity and innuendos that Hall's and Hoffman's exhibited. This is also the one I know of where Puck is a punk. I love this version because it doesn't cut out any of the dialogue. It heightens the tension and passion Mirren's character had in the section about the environmental affects her feud with her husband has had. The costumes do not blend well with one another. It makes it hard to date and does not give the story a sense of timelessness. Also, you can get this on video. It's hard to find but it can be located at a library near you. Blockbuster will not carry it for whatever reason. PBS is a good source too but don't hold out for it.