I just wanted to put something on here that was a little more positive than what Matt McGuire wrote. If I had seen this before I'd seen some of the movies based on Shakespeare, I might have felt that the dialogue was weird and the story contrived. However, having seen filmed plays like Twelfth Night and read a few early modern plays makes me appreciate what's going on more. What seems silly, stilted, and improbable to a modern audience is actually a very understandable play that follows traditional story beats and tropes. When watched from the right point of view and state of mind, it's actually quite an amusing story with occasional moments of romance and heartbreak. Perhaps the best thing about this movie for a modern audience is watching Ben Kingsley, Fiona Shaw, and the others enjoy their roles so thoroughly. PS: I think the audience members that are glimpsed now and then was an inspired little touch.

I thought Mira Sorvino did a great job as did Ben Kingsley and all the others, however my real praise is for the woman who played the young man's patroness, Fiona Shaw, what a performance she produced, intense and perfect timing as well, absolutely great. I recommend the film as good fairly clean fun and a pleasure to watch. Mira was really well suited to this part, mischievous and sexy at the same time, she caught the spirit of this french semi-farce very well, although I could not see her as a young man at any time. Still she handled the part very well, it must be a considerable challenge to play the opposite sex. The author was of course well known in his day, and the play upon which this film was based was first performed we are told in 1732. I thought the attempt to include an audience very clumsy and actually did not realize what they were trying to do as I watched the film, right up to the ending credits when the cast appeared for a bow wearing modern clothes it escaped me. frankly I doubt it was worth the bother of attempting anyway, it doesn't add anything in my view.

This is a very light period piece, in the spirit of plays like a midsummer night's dream, based on a 17th century farce. Don't expect the type of comedy that will make you laugh out loud, it's more the atmosphere of things not to be taken too seriously, particularly the princess having to pass as a young man. In the spirit of the movie and of older plays it's all perfectly normal and acceptable, because these kind of stories sacrifice believability in favor of good fun. And though flawed, the film is much better than the hugely overrated Shakespeare in Love.What I did have a problem with, was the horrible jump-cut editing. In a lot of scenes there were useless, unnecessary cuts because the camera did not even switch views, it looked extremely unnatural. Did someone spill coffee on some of the tape so they had to leave some out? Now the acting is what saves the film, I was especially delighted with Mira Sorvino and Ben Kingsley who both skillfully display grotesque but pleasant, sympathetic personalities. It was fun to see Mira in a men's outfit with boyish mannerisms tho still maintaining a feminine look. Also, the backdrops (of the 18th century-design garden and house) are gorgeous, real eyecandy.I bought this film for quite some money because I was very curious about it and have become fan of Sorvino. I would have rented it, would it have been available, but had to find it somewhere on amazon. But even though it wasn't entirely worth the money, I had a reasonably good time. If you want to see Mira's best, go watch Wisegirls, but this one is worth a watch as well! Enjoy.I give it 7 out of 10

Spoilers herein.Set physically in a well-manicured garden, managed by an obsessive gardener. Set philosophically in a similarly ordered mind-space, tended by two (co-equal) minds. Set dramatically in a narrative world formed by three cooperative directors (the original dramatist, the screen adapter, the filmer). Of these three, two of the affairs are false, and one is tentative. So we have the contemporary play audience flashed; we have the cinematic relationship similarly stuttered; we have the players playing actors playing roles (and one of these playing three roles to mirror the dramatist, adapter and filmer).`Love's Labor's Lost/Twelfth Night' meets `Rosencrantz and Guildenstern' meets `Draughtsman's Contract.'I love the idea, and appreciate the energy of the players and the apt set: that carried me over the flaws. But these flaws are significant: the excessive self-reference kills the rhythm of internal humor, the acting about acting seems downright silly in the many places where the enveloping direction was weak. The self-conscious editing was overly explicit, and could have easily been done precisely the same with bleeds instead of cuts with greater effect and no jarring.In the case of Peploe, the intelligence outstrips the skill -- in the case of the players, it is the other way around. I think a better strategy would be to try different philosophies of acting rather all from the same tradition as we have here. A more fluid camera could have helped as well. As it stands, we have something worth watching with the potential to have been great. But it abdicated.The director's credit at the beginning was one for the books. Perfect. It had the words stuck to the carriage wherein the characters are dressing as actors.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.