WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Thehibikiew Not even bad in a good way

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Abegail Noëlle While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Tom Harris Right, first off, don't watch this movie if you're not familiar with "The Tempest," you will be wasting your time and won't be able to follow anything, and you'll waste more time coming on here moaning that you didn't understand anything and how it really sucks!Actually, it probably isn't enough to be just familiar with The Tempest, but to know it well and love it well. Every character and every line! Because, to me, it seems that this is not really an adaptation of The Tempest at all, it's a film about the creation of it. John Gielgud isn't really playing the part of Prospero but he's playing the role of Shakespeare himself as he is writing the play. The film is kind of set in the mind of Shakespeare and is part opera, part theatre, part musical, part acid trip gone wrong, part... too many parts to describe!The Tempest is a very special play. It was Shakespeare's last, and he probably played the part of Prospero. And there are a lot of connections between the journey of Prospero and Shakespeare's own life, culminating in the beautiful Epilogue speech, which is both a valedictory of Prospero and of Shakespeare. And all this with one of the greatest Shakespearean actors of all time performing all the voices!In summary, if you love Shakespeare, you'll love this film, you'll get the urge to revisit it often. If you don't, then neither waste your time watching it or cast your vote upon it - it's a disgrace this film has such a low rating!

spockaholic It's a challenge to come up with a description that conveys the abomination that this film is. I think "cinematic holocaust" sums it up. This film is offensive, painful, shameful and a blight on the face of human history.If you've actually read Shakespeare (and not just read the cliffs notes to pass your 8th grade English exam), you will sense right away that this "adaptation" has absolutely no connection to the lyrical masterpiece. For one thing, I don't think Shakespeare had fat, naked people prancing around the stage yelling "Boatswain!" for no reason.Peter Greenaway should've really been a porn director; he seems to have so much sexual frustration built up in his little noodle. As far as artistic expression, I think I've seen more compelling visuals in the radiogram of a fart.

kakoilija I would not condemn this film, but the advances in areas of computer graphics has rendered this film somewhat old. The graphics look like they have been made by some teenager with flash. However there are quite nice cinematic pictures... I would suggest this to any cinematographer.For those who hate nudity... we're all born naked. We take showers, and we do not live in the Victorian era anymore (except perhaps the some US-suburbs have similar culture). I would not see anything bad in showing this to high school students... although I would think that most would be bored to death.I watched it gladly, as it was so well made.

tamsen86 I just saw this movie this summer and I was absolutely bedazzled. Everything about from scene one with the water drops to the last shot of little Ariel was over the top in great. I would recommend this to anyone in search of a complex magical tale with superb acting. I watched it late at nite and it was like a dream. What an experience!Also fabulous was the music and the choreography, plus the choice of colors and sets. I think it's wonderful when a movie does justice to a work of Shakespeare's--not an easy feat by any means.Loved John Gielgud's performance and I simply can't imagine anyone else in the lead. I am purchasing a copy this movie and never parting with it. Hats off to Peter Greenaway and everyone else involved in this fine artistic accomplishment!