Perhaps it is because I am not a fan of Shakespeare, or perhaps I simply did not find the storyline interesting. So apart from some good scenery - the film was shot in Hawaii - I got nothing out of it. Too much talking. Forced acting. A disappointment.

This dvd was unexpected for me. I saw the actors listed and thought "can't go wrong" Well I was completely surprised and delighted! For some Shakespeare / movies I find it hard to really grasp the english language. I Love it mind you. I think that the director. Taymor [i think] did a brilliant job. She really does show how the language was so descriptive and visual and poetic. When I think of this generation and all its short forms of speaking It saddens me. I highly recommend this movie. I watched every inch of it twice!.

la verdad no le entendi a la movie y se me hizo un aburrida

One of the most Disappointing -Unwatchable films I’ve ever seen this year. Really a dumb movie. "I fast forwarded all the way." It would be a waste of money to buy.

Beautifully imagined and wonderfully acted.

Profoundly uneven adaptation of the play which switches the gender of the main character, played by Helen Mirren. It's her performance, plus that of David Strathairn, Chris Cooper, Tom Conti, and Alan Cumming that do the film credit, and without that, I'd have rated this with no stars. That said, however, the film has huge problems that it utterly fails to overcome. The two younger actors, Felicity Jones and Reeve Carney, are lifeless in their roles. Alfred Molina and Djimon Hounsou, who are capable of so much better work, are badly damaged by spending much of their onscreen time with Russell Brand. This "comedian" and general waste of space is completely out of his element, and frankly, one of the most obnoxious human beings on the planet. The film is entirely derailed by his jackass behaviour. Finally, Julie Taymor directs the film as if she's either insane, on drugs, or both. The Tempest as a story deserves better. This is the worst adaptation of Shakespeare since that wretched 90s version of Romeo and Juliet.

Am I the only person on the planet who is sick to the teeth with Hollywood's special effects? Shakespeare's plays are meant to be performed on a stage. The exchange between the actors and the audience is essential which is why I always find a cinematic version of his plays lacking however artful the acting. A tight closeup showing emotion is not a substitute for the acting skill required for the same scene on stage. This was an imaginative and visually intriguing version of The Tempest, but it was not Shakespeare. I agree that Russell Brand's casting was a BIG mistake.

Cheesy special effects and distracting music spoil the texture of this adaptation, overshadowing a fine cast and some very good performances. For me, changing the sex of Prospero was not so much the problem (it actually created some interesting new dynamics in the relationships between characters--Prospera and Caliban, notably). It was rather a general lack of restraint and cohesive vision in the production as a whole. Somehow this film manages to make this gorgeous play tedious. And that's just not right.

Very visually beautiful, but still has the spareness of settings like a play performed on stage. Really interesting blend of actors and actresses. I appreciate actors who appreciate Shakespeare and try to honor the tone and sensibility of the period in which his works were written. ALL of Shakespeare's works that we are most familiar with WERE first and foremost PLAYS - written to be performed in front of an audience.

Skip It - Despite beautiful cinematography, the film is not incredibly interesting. Here's another Shakespeare play adapted to the screen and in my humble opinion - Shakespeare is meant to be read, not watched.