It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

There are problems with this play. It's somehow inherently downbeat. Of its numerous productions available on DVDs, and its reworkings under different titles, Forbidden Planet, Prospero's Books, none seem truly satisfactory. Something is always lacking. Its supremely quotable, memorable poetry appears at odds with its curiously artificial plot and story. Its clowns are not funny; its plotters are inane, its slaves are repellent or disturbing. I thought Ariel was quite good, once the embarrassing bikini could be overlooked. In this version, Hordern is too avuncular, insufficiently vibrant and intense, and lacking in dramatic and magical, masterful charisma. Difficult to suggest an actor with the right personality for the part. It's as if Shakespeare baulked at self-presentation. I don't see Gielgud as ideal for the role. Miranda and Ferdinand were not bad. The other parts are forgettable. The overall direction is competent, but I wouldn't say inspired. Is any other version any better ?

I love The Tempest as a play - its magic, its fun, its emotional impact. All these should be present in a good adaptation.The problem with this version is twofold. First, it is very studio-bound, giving a feeling of flatness to the proceedings (compare to the Derek Jarman version a year earlier, or the 1950s version with Maurice Evans). Second, it suffers from inappropriate casting in key roles, notably real-life siblings Pippa and Christopher Guard as lovers Miranda and Ferdinand, and David Dixon as Ariel (the potential was there but it just didn't work).Michael Hordern is however fine as Prospero, and Nigel Hawthorne and Andrew Sachs provide some comedy. Warren Clarke is a monstrous and diverting Caliban, devoid of magic but with some sense of the injustice he feels at his treatment on the island.Some clever ideas and some very good scenes (notably when the goddesses appear, singing), but this Tempest is too dry and flat to be really engrossing.

This must the worst move I've ever seen! I thought that by the fact that it said BBC on the cover, that it had to have some kind of quality or at least be ok. This is ridiculous! some excuse it must get since it was made in 1980 but still. To actually dress up the air and water sprites in thong and cover them with baby oil and glitter is not the best way to take a dramatic play of Shakespeare seriously. The one actor I could actually watch without getting attacks of laughter was the drunken servant! And the scenography looked like it had been brought in from a school play. Everything look as if it were made of papier-maché! well maybe I do ought to recommend it after all, not if you want to see a good Shakespearian play but if you would like to get hysterical laughter attacks from oiled men in thongs crawling over each other...erh...wait a minute...was this a PG-13 movie? I think not....

The production values are weak, the handling of the spirits is laughable, the wedding masque is tedious, and Ferdinand's hairstyle seems, to our current sense of fashion, ludicrous. BUT this television of Shakespeare's play is to be prized for some excellent performances, most notably Michael Hordern's restrained, intelligent, compassionate and emotionally profound performance as Prospero. Listen to him handle the difficult exposition in Act I, watch how he gives his approval to his daughter's marriage, how he releases Ariel, and the wonderful transition he makes into the final epilogue. There are some fine performances here--you just have to look past some unfortunate design and directorial choices.