Customer Reviews

The Tempest [VHS]

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

The point of this film is not to be a direct manifestation of Shakespeare's written word but to be an interpretation on one of Shakespeare's themes. Caliban is believed to be Shakespeare's take on slavery in America. The film centered around this theory.

This movie, "The Tempest," bears, in truth, very little reseamblance to the real story by William Shakespeare. Why are people caught up so much in reinventing the original? "The Tempest" by Shakespeare is not set in the Civil War. Its characters are not southern backwoods types and while some of the themes are similar it does not deserve to have its name slapped on this imperfect bit of Hollywood. I charge you with the task of recreating "The Tempest" in its original setting, with its own characters and plots, and then try to sell it to the world. Shakespeare fans would but the movie in bulk and you would become rich overnight. (Note: Such a great Shakespearean classic as "A Mid Summers Nights Dream" has recently been recreated quite well in all its original color and beauty in movie form, try it.)

Good Luck...

The movie The Tempest with Peter Fonda completely failed to display the quality and meaning of Shakespeare's play. The whole mystical feel of Shakespeare's play was lost. The setting of the story made no sense. The actors were terrible and the civil war did not fit in. All in all I wouldn't ever recomend this movie to anyone. To put anyone through that torture is cruel and unusually punishment. If you want a good and meaningfull story read Shakespeare's play.

The movie "The Tempest" with Peter Fonda has great potential. Or at least that's what I thought before I saw it. The play by William Shakespeare was interesting, thought provoking; however, I was only provoked to laugh while I was watching it. Hollywood took the Renaissance age of England and mutated it into Civil War times. Rather than the noble kings and dukes they are all meant to be, they are rich plantation owners in the deep south. The magical island Prospero once inhabited is now a swamp, and the character Caliban is now "Gator Man" (which, by the way, sounds even worse when said with a southern accent). How proud Shakespeare must be. "The play was so good, how could the movie be that bad?" you may ask yourself. Well if you neglect to notice the bad script and the southern accent that fades in and out of Peter Fonda's dialogue, it's not too shabby. Although, if you ask for the opinion of my World Literature class, I'm afraid they have the same point of view as I do. I think this is one of those movies that is supposed to make you really appreciate the original version. Don't let that stop you from buying it, though. It's fun to laugh at, or, I mean, compare the differences.

I thought that this movie was great! Although I do believe that the acting could have been alittle better. It was kind of dry in a way but it kept my interest. I really liked the way it was produced. It was really neat to see it down in the south like it was during the civil war. Even though the actors are not "big" actors they did a swell job expressing the play in a dramatized way. I believe that this movie should be seen by anybody who enjoys Shakesphere and is interested in a well put together movie of adventure and magic.

Marshal Krause

After watching the updated version of The Tempest I have made a serious judgement. Great stories written by a great playwright should not be redone in a Southern backdrop. Some may say that this movie gives off good imagination, to actually take a story like The Tempest and place it in its own origin would have been a much better movie than what I had witnessed. I would have accepted the movie much more if the creators hadn't named the movie The Tempest, but rather a name that suggest the movies meaning, like Southern Styles of Tempting. The story of William Shakespeare's The Tempest made much more sense to me in tis Elizabethan language than this movie in our modern age English language in comparison to the story line.

To end this review on a good note would be wrong. If you are interested in this type of story line I would strongly suggest that you read the original writing of Shakespeare's The Tempest than to waste money of buying or renting of this movie.

The Tempest, set in the South during the Civil War. Though they tried hard to incorporate the characters and did a fairly well job at that, there was very little left of the original Shakespearean play. The purpose of the story seemed to be to fight for your future not hide away like a hermit. In the original play, it was about forgiveness and healing relationships. There is a slight difference there.

I also didn't like the heavy black magic. Yes, magic was part of the original play but there wasn't so much incantation and most of it was off stage. The magic in this movie seemed to be very prominent. The characters also seemed silly, especially the love story. The character of the brother was changed too; and no resolution took place between them. The war diverted them onto a few rabbit trails that seemed to be there just to fill in time. Finally at the end, they actually tried to quote a little Shakespeare. A little too late IMO though.

If you've never read Shakespeare this movie probably won't bother you as much as it did me. It isn't destined to be a classic but could be entertaining if you just want something to watch.