User reviews

This is a rather frustrating film, with occasional patches of brilliance lost in a generally dull and inept staging. It's an attempt at making a modern-dress film of Shakespeare's play. The Court of France becomes a flashy office block in London, and the Forest of Arden becomes the banks of the dirty river Thames. The pastoral shepherds become homeless people. Purists may shriek, but this is actually rather clever, since Shakespeare's Arden is not meant to be a jolly happy place; it's meant to be a place where the attempt to live a simple life is complicated by the fact that the winter winds are freezing cold, and that poor people can be just as miserable as kings.

There are some good performances, especially Andrew Tiernan, who doubles Oliver and Orlando, and Edward Fox, who plays Jaques as a drily witty public-school toff, slumming it with the homeless. Occasionally the new setting works really well, such as when Orlando is slouching in the foyer of the 'court', and when the girls are seen trailing across an industrial wasteland, carrying their belongings in Harrods shopping bags. And I liked seeing Audrey as the owner of a caravan-cafe, and her tomato ketchup sandwiches are funny.

But there are some awful moments too. Griff Rhys Jones' Touchstone must be the least amusing performance in the history of film. The wrestling match happens, but is not shown on camera (we only see the audience's response), presumably because they couldn't think of a modern equivalent but didn't want to cut the scene. Worst of all is the dire folk music soundtrack, which belongs in a 'traditional' film of the play rather than a modern interpretation. For most of its duration, the film is slow, awkward and ultimately foolish.

I would like to be supportive of this film. It certainly should be viewed by anyone interested in the play. Although its faults outweigh its merits, there are moments that will illuminate your understanding of the play, and it's good that there are filmmakers who want to present Shakespeare in a controversial way. Christine Edzard is the precursor to Julie Taymor's 'Titus', and Baz Luhrmann's 'Romeo and Juliet'. And for that we should be grateful.

Although some of Shakespeare's plays have made a nice transition onto film, or at least, lightly entertaining, despite three film versions, As You Like It hasn't fared well on screen. Perhaps this is because of the play's nature. It's very theatrical, being mainly talk and interaction between the characters.

Of all the plays to adapt in a modern setting (Julius Caesar is the eternal story of backstabbing politicians), As You Like It does not seem the obvious choice. It is quaint and pastoral and hardly strikes an audience as being particularly socially relevant to our times. But bizarrely the director Christine Edzard sees some sort of pressing modern relevance, though nobody else seems to find this.

The court has now turned into the foyer of a posh bank with mock classical features inside. You can see how it might have looked like a good substitute for a court but it feels a little too forced to be entirely convincing.

Orlando is a sulky youth in a hoodie; Oliver is a smarmy yuppie. Both are played by Andrew Tiernan, which is initially an interesting conceit but it soon becomes a little ridiculous, particularly in the wedding scene. Tiernan is average as both.

Rosalind's cousin Celia (Celia Bannerman) is old enough to be her mother. It's just about acceptable until Celia has a chat with her father the Duke, where it is too incredible to believe that Celia could be his daughter.

So, how do you make a forest modern? You don't- you ditch the pastoral setting and use a London wasteland! In fairness, the wasteland works quite well and you get used to it, almost attached to it. It's your modern day wilderness. Jaques (James Fox) is a posh man slumming it with the homeless. Instead of being a hippie as it looks like in Branagh's film, here Jaques is a wandering soul, a loner. There is a certain sadness and mystery to him and Fox brings this out well. However for some strange reason his Seven Ages of Man speech is used as a prologue and repeated at the point it comes in the play.

Ewen Bremner is suitably pathetic as Silvius and Valerie Gogan is very good as Phoebe. Miriam Margoyles doesn't have much to do as Audrey but she does a good job but Griff Rhys Jones is incomprehensible as Touchstone. You cannot hear a word he's saying.

Emma Croft is brilliant as Rosalind. She makes a convincing transition into a young teenage boy (hoodie, baggy jeans and a hat instead of doublet and hose) unlike Bryce Dallas Howard in the 2006 film who in no way plays at being a man. Her love for Orlando is believable and she is easy to root for.

The pace of the film is incredibly slow. The beginning drags out- you might as well fast forward the action until you get to the forest. The wrestling is not shown- instead we get mild audience reaction which looks as if they're watching a man sorting out the plumbing than a life or death wrestle.

The film is a failed experiment. The modern setting doesn't help an audience understand the play, although it makes Rosalind's disguise easier and it is interesting. Most people would struggle to identify this as As You Like It, were it not for the names. One major disadvantage of modern adaptations of Shakespeare is that they can date quickly. This film is incredibly dated, despite it being made less than twenty years ago. The 1990's aren't seen as a historical period so one can't really call it 'Shakespeare for the nineties'.

Basically, the blame lies with the director. Not only is the concept flawed but the staging is often bad, the text distorted, and all the actors looked as if they have been trapped. Edzard tries to find a serious message in As You Like It that isn't there and so the whole thing is often depressing.

Like Justin Kurzel's recent treatment of "Macbeth", this 1992 version of "As You Like It" proves that it is possible to do something which for many years I believed to be virtually impossible, namely to make a bad film of a Shakespeare play. I will not set out the plot at any length because it is so well-known, but (like "The Tempest") it revolves around the usurpation of a ducal throne by the reigning Duke's younger brother. The exiled Duke Senior takes refuge in the Forest of Arden with a handful of loyal courtiers, and the main plotline deals with the romance between Senior's daughter Rosalind and Orlando, a young man of good family who has been deprived of his inheritance by a spiteful elder brother, although there are several other romantic entanglements.

This is a modern dress production, set in a contemporary United Kingdom. The usurping Duke Frederick's court becomes a grandiose neo-Classical building reminiscent of a bank, and the Forest of Arden becomes a bleak urban wasteland. This was a mistake. It is certainly true that Shakespeare's play both belongs to and subverts the "pastoral" genre of literature which was very popular in the late 16th century. This was a genre which celebrated the joys of country life, seen as simpler, purer and happier than life in the cities and at court, but Shakespeare subverts it by pointing out the hardships of the rural existence, especially poverty and the harshness of the elements. In order for this contrast to work, however, country life has to seem at least superficially attractive. In the original play, Senior's preference for the Forest of Arden over the corruption and treachery of life at court might be naïve and misguided, but at least it is idealistic. In this film, his desire to live the life of a down-and-out on a burnt-out rubbish tip seems less like idealism than like rank stupidity.

Most of the cast seem to have no idea of how to put over Shakespearean blank verse. There are a few honourable exceptions such as Celia Bannerman as Celia, Cyril Cusack as Orlando's elderly servant Adam and the experienced James Fox as the melancholy courtier Jaques, but few of the others can match them. I couldn't really see the point of the gimmick of casting the same actors as Senior and Frederick and as Orlando and his brother Oliver. Griff Rhys Jones was virtually inaudible as the jester Touchstone, a particular disappointment to me as I have often enjoyed Rhys Jones's work as a comedian. (His comedy partner Mel Smith was later to give a wonderful performance in a Shakespeare film, as Toby Belch in Trevor Nunn's "Twelfth Night").

The critics, understandably, largely disliked the film. "Time Out", using a line drawn from Jaques's celebrated "Seven Ages of Man" speech, called it "Shakespeare sans teeth, eyes, taste, sans everything". In the 1990s Britain produced some great Shakespeare adaptations, including Kenneth Branagh's "Much Ado about Nothing" and "Hamlet" as well as the aforementioned "Twelfth Night". This film does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. I disliked it even more than Kurzel's "Macbeth". 3/10

Really did want this version of 'As You Like It' to be good. It had potential to be. 'As You Like It' is far from being one of my favourite Shakespeare plays, due to its very thin and quite absurd story and the even more absurd endiing, but the text is full of unforgettable moments, there are some well drawn characters (especially Rosalind and Jaques) and it does have fun and charm. The cast is a good one and certainly have nothing against Christine Edzard, the 1971 film of 'The Tales of Beatrix Potter' which she co-wrote and designed is one of my favourites.

This version of 'As You Like It' just didn't work for me. It is not terrible and it was somewhat interesting to see it in a setting other than the usual and specific pastoral setting (had doubts about it working though). Adaptations of the play on film have varied, of which this one is the worst. More so than the Laurence Olivier film, despite this version having the significantly better Rosalind. Modern adaptations of Shakespeare have varied, of which this is the worst in my view. Being the only one that feels completely wrong in a modern setting and certainly in this one.

1992's 'As You Like It' has its moments. It does benefit from a few good performances. The best one being James Fox's pompous but at times touching Jaques and Emma Croft's very rootable Rosalind. Valerie Grogan is very good too and Miriam Margolyes and Cyril Cusack make much of little.

Some nice photography here and there that deserved a better and more attractive setting to compliment. Rosalind's disguise is at least plausible here, that's the one thing that works in this setting and where the adaptation fares better than most versions of 'As You Like It'.

Otherwise there is not an awful lot to recommend and there is a lot to criticise. The film does not look attractive, pretty ugly actually other than some of the photography, and it really doesn't work in a modern setting. 'Coriolanus', 'Julius Caesar' and 'Titus Andronicus' work in modern settings because they are still politically relevant, whereas 'As You Like It' has a very specific setting and any other setting other than the intended pastoral one just jars with the text. Which is still absolutely wonderful, but doesn't consistently register as well as ought.

'As You Like It' is very sluggishly directed, with nothing new or insightful, and the first act goes at a snail's pace. It also does absolutely nothing to make the ending less absurd, if anything it is even more random and even sillier in execution here. Lots of dullness and over-silliness but not an awful lot of charm. And why even bother to have the wrestling match in, if you are going to do nothing with it? Do have to agree with Griff Rhys Jones being embarrassingly incoherent as Touchstone and not funny at all, actually found him annoying. Also with that the music is very out of place, if it was the specific setting it would have worked perfectly. But it was like it was written and selected without being told that the film was going to be set in a modern setting yet the film stuck it in anyway.

Concluding, underwhelming. 4/10.