I love this movie so much

A Major Disappointment

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Among the thousands of artists who have adapted Shakespeare, Welle's movies still are the least appreciated and estimated of them. Welles repeated Verdi's task in turning Macbeth, Othello and Falstaff, but in films rather than operas.We can only imagine what it is to adapt the pinnacle of the English comic literature, the huge hill of flesh Falstaff into a film knowing that you're at risk of being an heretic to loosel'd one of the masterpieces of the greatest author that ever left their mark on literature. But here we can say that welles really turned Shakespeare and inevitably into an loss of complexity. First of all like many artists (Verdi one them) that have the mistake of thinking that Falstaff is the main figure of Henry IV's plays, Welles adapts the historic tragicomedy in a melancholy comedy, political issues are ignored or comixed, Hotspur is transformed into bad comic scream-ever character. Shakespeare play is not really about Falstaff, despite that he dominate the stage, nor is a comedy in the basic term sense. Falstaff's quartet friends (Pistol, Bardolph, etc) lose all power. The play is all about politics, Hal and Hotspur, honor and kingdoms. That's the thing and to adapt such a corpus of literary complexity Welles wrong itself connecting the two plays parts when the first part works excellently alone.To escape the literary aspect of the review. Chimes at Midnight It's an excellent entertainment, a must view for those who want to see one of the three greatest comics characters (the others being Don Quixote and Pantrugel) in the cinema. Highpoints are Shrewsbury Battle, Falstaff's welles performance and direction as always. But not exaggerating in the purism, Chimes at midnight does not have the psychological depth of Macbeth (1948) or the beauty of performances of Othello (1952) and in my opinion he's the minor of the three Shake-welles films.

This is one great and also quite unique Shakespeare adaptation.One of the foremost things that makes this movie unique is the fact that it's not simply based on one William Shakespeare play but instead is a compilation and free interpretation of 5 different ones. So even those who already are very familiar with Shakespeare, will still find plenty of surprises in this movie and get plenty out of it as well.Another thing that makes this movie special, is that it's a very lively production. You can say all you want but most older movies based on Shakespeare plays are incredibly dry and static ones. Almost like you are watching a stage-play, if you will. Not this movie however. It's surprisingly fast paced and with its 113 minutes, it's also 'pleasantly short'.It also has a good and pleasant story in it, that definitely feels and sounds truly Shakespeare. It has all of the typical ingredients and also characters in it, which is no surprise of course, since this movie is being a compiled version of 5 of his different plays.It's all being very well told and directed, by Orson Welles himself, who also plays the main lead. I don't know what is better, Welles his acting or his directing of this movie. It's really pleasantly told and paced all, with often humor but also always a sense for drama and tension in it. His acting is sublime as well but man, did Welles look huge and bloated in this movie. Quite amazing the psychical transformation he went through, throughout the years.But of course Welles is not just the only great actor in this movie. Shakespeare actor John Gielgud also plays a very good role, as Henry IV and I also quite liked Margaret Rutherford, who is perhaps better known as the first and original movie Miss Marple. It's also a pretty good looking movie. It's black & white, like basically every classic Shakespeare movie adaptation and it uses some good looking settings and sets. It most certainly did not look like a cheap production, while the movie still apparently only cost $800,000 to make.Really not much bad to say about this movie. Definitely a must-see, if you are into these sort of movies or Shakespeare. 9/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I know that Orson Welles has done Macbeth and Othello from William Shakespeare as films, but this one he directed is different because it mixes small bits and pieces from a few of them, particularly Henry IV Parts 1 and 2, Richard II, Henry V and The Merry Wives of Windsor. Basically Henry IV (John Gielgud) is the ageing king watching with discontent over his son Prince Hal (Keith Baxter) as he lives a rude and irresponsible life with overweight and constantly drinking Sir John Falstaff (BAFTA nominated Welles). I will be honest and say that I did not understand everything going on, admittedly mostly because of the usual Shakespeare higgledy-piggledy dialogue that I can usually get to grips with, but I know that Hal becomes Henry V, there is a big battle, and in the end Falstaff supposedly gets what's coming to him. Also starring Margaret Rutherford as Mistress Quickly, Jeanne Moreau as Doll Tearsheet, Norman Rodway as Henry 'Hotspur' Percy, Marina Vlady as Kate Percy, Fernando Rey as Worcester and Alan Webb as Justice Shallow, with narration by Ralph Richardson. Despite not knowing what was going on most of the time, Welles gives a good performance as the overindulgent git, and his size do provide many of the good bits of humour, of course the most memorable scene is of course the big battle scene in the middle, also because of Welles in that fat metal suit, it may not be to everyone's taste, the critics rate it well, it is Shakespeare and Welles combined, so it is certainly a watchable historical comedy drama. Orson Welles was number 16 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, and he was number 45 on The World's Greatest Actor. Good!

I have to admit right here and now that except for "Romeo and Juliet" and "Macbeth", I am not too familiar with the plays of William Shakespeare. As a result, hearing the Old English of the Bard in the beginning of this latter-day Orson Welles movie almost alienated me to the point of almost not watching the rest of it on YouTube. But since I just got a jones for seeing many of Welles' films that aren't Citizen Kane or Touch of Evil, I felt I had to watch the rest of this so I could say I have done so. I'm very glad I did as I got used to the dialogue as being something from the 16th century and would eventually understand what is going on. Kudos for Welles for giving compelling battle scenes in the middle part and for performances of not only himself as John Falstaff but also Jeanne Moreau as his mistress and especially John Gielgud as the King especially his final scene. And I did get some of the humorous scenes near the end. So on that note, I highly recommend Falstaff (or Chimes at Midnight).