You won't be disappointed!

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

On the whole, this production of "The Merry Wives of Windsor" is admirable. It contains nearly all of Shakespeare's lines (including a few insertions from the Quarto version); it includes some excellent performances; the staging is generally deft, and the atmosphere of the play is warmly engaging; and the sets are pleasing to the eye.Prunella Scales and Judy Davis as Mistresses Page and Ford (respectively) are especially good, but nearly all the other members of the cast -- ranging from Richard Griffiths as Falstaff to Elizabeth Spriggs as Mistress Quickly -- are also highly commendable. The one exception, surprisingly, is Ben Kingsley as Ford. To be sure, anyone playing the role of Ford has to go over the top occasionally. However, Kingsley is annoyingly histrionic in the pejorative sense of the term; his high-strung mannerisms and his falsetto utterances become quite tiresome. His performance is not unalloyedly woeful, but it is well below the level of the other performances.A few of the other reviewers on this site have criticized Richard Griffiths for his portrayal of Falstaff, but Griffiths aptly captures the nature of Falstaff in "Merry Wives" -- a play that presents Falstaff as a somewhat less shrewd character than the Falstaff of the Henry IV plays. Moreover, the girth of Griffiths made him more suitable for the role than was Anthony Quayle in the BBC's Henry IV productions (though Quayle's excellent acting compensated for his physical unsuitability).Apart from Ben Kingsley's performance, the main objectionable feature of this otherwise admirable production is that a few scenes and smaller portions of the play are rearranged. The rearrangements aren't damaging, but they strike me as pointless. (Much the same can be said about the handful of small excisions of Shakespeare's lines.) All in all, I can recommend this production heartily to anyone who wants to experience the charms of Shakespeare's play.ADDENDUM: Having now watched this production three more times, I feel that my remarks about Ben Kingsley's performance are too strongly negative. Most of his acting is in fact very good -- as one would expect from such a virtuoso Shakespearean thespian. Only at a few brief junctures does he become annoyingly histrionic with his high-pitched utterances or excessive gesticulations. I'll leave my original remarks unmodified, to indicate how someone might respond to Kingsley's performance after only a few viewings. However, my assessment of that performance is now significantly more favorable.

I am not sure whether I'd go as far to say that this performance is a treasure, but I also don't think it is that bad either. It does have things that I think could have been done better, for example I do agree that the pacing was very slack at times and that as much as I like him Ben Kingsley was very neurotic and all over the place as Ford. The direction is inconsistent, the scenes with Mistress Page, with Mistress Ford and with Mistress Quickly are great and Falstaff also has some fine moments, but I found Ford's overdone and for some reason the denouncement doesn't quite come off. However, visually it is very sumptuous, with the sets and costumes lushly coloured and true to period. Shakespeare's dialogue still has sparkle and wit, and on the most part the performances are good with the women on a higher level of consistency than the men. Judy Davis is a dignified and humorous Mistress Ford, and Prunella Scales is the same as Mistress Page and even more so. Elizabeth Spriggs' Mistress Quickly is wonderfully conniving. Richard Griffiths acquits himself very well, witty and robust yet noble and vulnerable, while in support with the men while Tenniel Evans is likable it is Michael Bryant's very funny Dr Caius that stands out. In conclusion, a decent production that is well performed on the whole and sumptuous to look at, though the pacing and some of the staging could have been better. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This production is not very good, but it's not quite as bad as I'd expected. Richard Griffiths holds up reasonably well in comparison to Anthony Quayle's portrayal in the BBC productions of Henry IV parts 1 & 2, though of course it's unfortunate that different actors portrayed the same characters in the different plays. Most of the other actors are reasonably competent, though not nearly as good as you'd expect from their work elsewhere. I agree that the direction is remarkably weak, with the denouement in particular being far too feeble to intimidate anyone, let alone Falstaff. But this was, after all, one of Shakespeare's weakest plays, allegedly written at royal command under severe deadline pressure.

I usually love BBC productions, but this one is utterly misguided and makes one of Shakespeare's comedies seem a tedious bore.It's too bad. A good cast of some of Britain's finest actors are driven into the ground by pedestrian direction, unatmospheric sets, and a general approach of reverence that is numbing to say the least. No one is having any fun!I gave in after the second act!Perhaps someday, an inventive director will give the play and story it's due!