15 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Not Shakespeare, January 24, 2002
Despite the title, this film contains none of Shakespeare's language except random words like "daughter," "the," and "and."
For NON-Shakespeare buffs, I'd say it's a decent tale, setting the play's retold events in the American Civil War. It's a good combination, since we understand the emotions of the tale better in a known context, while the story shows us a different angle on the war. Overall, though, the combination doesn't quite jell.
Some things work very well. The portrayal of Ariel as a black slave is meant to set viewers on edge, especially since Prospero (I'm sorry, that's Gideon Prosper) refuses to set him free for most of the film--one of the clearer signs that Prosper is not just a wronged hero but a driven man who hurts others with his singlemindedness. Judging by other review comments, the director succeeded in making his point.
However, Ariel sounds and acts so clearly like a modern urban black man that it's hard to feel he was raised a slave and a member of a very different culture.
Peter Fonda does a good overall job with Prosper, but the director (and/or scriptwriter) doesn't convince us either why Prosper took up Voudun in the first place or why he gave it up in the end, which limits our understanding of the character.
But the loss of Shakespeare's language, in exchange for modern clarity of a tale that doesn't make that much sense without it, adds up to a film I certainly don't plan to keep.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Shakespeare's Version vs. the Movie, October 20, 2000
I recently watched this movie, and I can say that I wasn't overly impressed. I am a big fan of Shakespeare's work, and I don't think that The Tempest he wrote was made to have a setting like the 1800's. It is absurd that someone could take one of Shakespeare's masterpieces, and turn it into a movie about a plantation owner during the civil war. If the movie had not been "based" on the original Tempest, then it might have been ok. Shakespeare's version had meaning, and a theme behind every scene, which I believe the movie lacks. Prospero was a very powerful, and exquisite character in the original, and in the movie he is pathetically portrayed by Peter Fonda, who I believe has limited acting abilities. The original also had creative characters, like Calliban and Ariel, who were the devil's son and one of Prospero's spirits. The original Tempest was like no other, and it had it's own style. I just don't think that that particular work of art should have been transformed into a typical civil war movie, with no originality.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
12 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
This Film Insults My Intelligence, October 24, 2000
I was, no, I am deeply disappointed in this film. Who said that just because a movie is "made for TV" it is allowed to completely eliminate all acting skill, story line, and meaningful plot elements? This film is a hodgepodge of ideas taken from the story, trying desperately to cling together to form a plot. I have read The Tempest, it was good. I watched this movie, it was not. The only way that this movie could redeem itself would be if it were on Mystery Science Theatre 3000. It takes chutzpah to put your name on a film like this. Peter Fonda should run for president with nerves like that.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
