Shakespeare, eh? What a rich seam of material he has provided for filmmakers around the world. Almost as soon as films were being made the Bard's works were being plundered. Here we have a compact telling of The Tempest made in 1908. In its mercifully brief running time it attempts to tell the entire story, using titles to explain the plot rather than provide quotations from the play. Even with these titles I had trouble keeping up with who was who and what was going on and there's no doubt that, even with explanatory titles, the makers assume the viewer possesses a little knowledge about the play. The film is a mixture of location shooting and stage sets, as if it can't decide whether it wants to present a filmed version of the stage play or to free itself of its confines. Settling for a combination of the two isn't the right choice, however – it merely proves to be distracting.

Tempest, The (1908) *** (out of 4) Another Shakespeare adaptation works perfectly well and delivers a very magical feel. Part of this is due to the dreamlike camera work but the special effects are also quite good for their time.King John (1899) *** (out of 4) 've been told this was the first Shakespeare adaptation and if so it isn't too bad for what it is. Running just over three minutes this here takes the final pages of the play as King John dies.Midsummer Night's Dream, A (1909) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Yep, more Shakespeare early style. The actual "story" never really comes across here and the title cards just make things even more confusing but the interesting thing are all the technical stuff. Every shot of the film takes place outdoors and all the locations are very nice. The camera angels are also all set up to perfectly capture the mood of the film.

Okay, the idea of doing an entire Shakespeare play in only 12 minutes is indeed a daunting task!! And, based on the technology available back in 1908 this isn't a particularly bad movie--they actually have sets and special effects that didn't totally stink for 1908 (though by today's standards they certainly are laughable). In fact, compared to even earlier films like LE VOYAGE DANS LE LUNE (1902) or THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY (1903), this isn't a particularly good film (they both bad much better sets and acting). Another problem is that you really MUST be awfully familiar with the original play to have much of an idea of what is going on, as it's very confusing and very sketchy to say the least. I have got to admire them for trying and some of the scenes are very interesting to watch from a historical or kitschy point of view. However, most modern audiences would become quickly bored with this film.

This fun little short, silent movie version of Shakespeare's "The Tempest" shows its age at times, but it is an excellent effort considering all the limitations of the era. It covers much of the main plot of the play, and the first few minutes actually consist of events that had already happened when Shakespeare's play begins, and which the characters in the play refer back to - so it's interesting to see them as part of the story here.The fantasy nature of the plot lends itself well to special effects, and they tried quite a few things that were very imaginative for the time. While some of them reveal the cinematic limitations of 1908, most of them work pretty well and add some real energy to the film. According to the Milestone video, the cast list is now unfortunately unknown. Most of them are adequate, though nothing special, but the young girl playing Ariel is very entertaining, and steals most of the scenes that her character is in.If you like Shakespeare and silent films, you should enjoy this short feature.