Marvellous. One of the best Shakespearean adaptations I've seen yet.

The problem with straight Shakespeare** adaptations is besides that it is, like another user has said, much harder to digest when coming from the actors mouth as opposed to reading it, it is even more distracting when you are busy admiring the beautiful form. This review is interchangable for Olivier's adaptations which suffer from the same problem but Welles edges out for his technical prowess. **Foreign adaptations are obviously different since i'm reading subtitles.

Great performance and fine direction marred by lack of money.

142

#144

I picked an awful time to watch this, having a headache and being a bit tired caused most of the dialogue to fly into one ear and out the other at light speed. At least I could appreciate the amazing cinematography, even though the DVD is pretty bad looking. Hopefully I can watch this again someday with a clear mind and a good looking print.

Definitely not a movie for when you're tired. But, if you're alert enough to concentrate on the dialogue, this is an extremely witty and well-told story. And Keith Baxter as Prince Hal looks exactly like Leo Messi. I couldn't get over it.

I can't stop marveling at how well Orson Welles translates Shakespeare to the screen so seamlessly whenever I watch it.

Beautiful and compelling (once you get past the language).

Welles drew a lot on Eisenstein for this deeply expressive, active Shakespeare interpretation.

Beautiful shots and witty dialogue make this pretty fun to watch. Falstaff's character arc is predictable but still interesting and poignant. The Shakespearean language takes a bit to get used and while it's not as hard as regular Shakespeare the bad sound editing is a hindrance.

# 120

Unsurprisingly it took me a while to get used to the language in this film, but used to it I got, and come to enjoy it I did. If you can get into the spirit of the dialogue you'll realize that it's not only eloquent, but also really witty. The acting from the main players is very strong, especially by Welles himself as Falstaff. The film is also very beautiful looking. This is not for everyone, obviously, but if you think you can tolerate the language then you should give it a shot.

Straight Shakespeare is off-putting for me. I prefer a modern adaptation. The language is fairly easy to digest when read off the page, but not when it's being rushed out of the mouths of actors, many of whom have difficult accents. But the actors did a good job of it, at least most of them act as you would expect people to act, and not like they're showboating for an audience. And the photography is, as expected, astonishing. But I didn't get a lot out of it, and watching it was often a chor

I can't say anything new about Shakespeare; it's a good, engaging story, and entertaining. So instead I'll focus on the cinematography, because wow - this is just about the most beautiful looking black-and-white film I've ever seen. The use of shadows and contrast and fog, the compositions and framing, the angles are all expertly chosen, and the movie is mind-blowingly gorgeous from start to finish. It's an incredible feast for the eyes.

124

Sure the language is hard to digest (making the whole thing off-putting), but when you get used to it, it becomes a lot more. With a fascinating ensemble of characters, nice dialogue and blasting cinematography, Chimes At Midnight is arguably one of Welles best.