"The Comedy of Errors" is probably one of Shakespeare's more enjoyable comedies, with plenty of beautiful rhyming barbs and a plot with romance, intrigue, mistaken identity and of course the usual celebratory song and dance finale.It's all done with aplomb here, despite a rambling prelude and some awkward split-screen effects near the end. When travelling tradesman Antipholus (Micheal Kitchen) and his assistant Dromio (Roger Daltrey) wind up in Ephesus, a bizarre series of escapades sees them confused with a local nobleman and his servant who not look identical to them but even have the same names. Complications arise with, among others, the nobleman's wife Adriana (Suzanne Bertish), her servant Luciana (Joanna Pearce) and the Duke of Ephesus (Charles Gray).It's weird to see a member of "The Who" doing Shakespeare but Roger Daltrey acquits himself well and makes a fine double act with Micheal Kitchen. Bertish is wonderfully feisty as Adriana, and Cyril Cusack bookends the play as the twin's hapless father Aegeon.The only serious problem is the staging. This story might have worked better on location, as the sets look too much like a Blue Peter style TV studio. Despite some fancy camera-work, it still detracts from the effect.If you can ignore this, it's easy enough to enjoy this delightful comedy frolic

this movie bothered me so much, I had to see it in many days to survive the agony of it. now I am going to try to show my feelings towards this picture.first of all: the acting. the cast acts like they are teaching little children. I hate it when actor's do taht. it's as if we are all dumb creatures and they know it all... I dislike that fact, because it isn't so. correct, it's a play of Shakespeare, so they must overact to make it watchable, but still... they annoyed me like hell! second: the story. it's a story a 7 year old can write. again, it's Shakespeare, but why should I have to love everything from Shakespeare? yes, I like most of his works, but this one I detested. it was like watching a train arrive in 1894 (actually, that would have been more exciting than this Comedy of Errors).the music. ah, the music was fine. but if you would hear the music outside of the movie, you would hate it. so, also the music BEEPs.conclusion: the whole movie BEEPs. the only interesting about it was the conclusion, where everybody comes together in a Shakespearian way.

I do find this story amusing even if not one of Shakespeare's very best. It's good enough to thoroughly enjoy and very well done too in this version. I particularly like Michael Kitchen (a favourite of mine anyway) as the patrician twins. Normally I don't like doubling of twins, I'd prefer two actors even if not identical enough - the audience can always take it they are identical, no problem. But MK did this so well, with the tetchy Ephesus twin with doublet always unbuttoned and the pleasant Syracusan with doublet always buttoned, plus the usual filming tricks to have them face to face at the end, that I had no problem this time. Perhaps this is partly because MK is such a good actor! The story is light and fluffy although with that serious edge one expects in Shakespeare, that twins parted at birth and parents also parted at the same time causes much distress. It seems rather strange the Syracusan side of the family waits so long to seek out the lost twin but you do need the twins to be adult because of the love interests. The utter confusion that ensues when one twin is taken for another is wonderful.Even more, it's two sets of twins since we also have the servant twins both called Dromio, leading to even more confusion. And parents finally reunited too. Very nice.I simply loved this production. Wonderful fun with fine actors. Roger Daltry does well as Dromio.

To cast one Roger Daltrey may be regarded as a misfortune. To cast two looks like carelessness.This is a woefully clunky piece of film-making, and its biggest mistake is to use sophisticated special effects (sorry, awkward split-screen work) so that the same actors can play both identical twins. The BBC series is always over-literal in its interpretations, and this is a classic example; when the two Roger Daltreys and the two Michael Kitchens are identical to the point of pristine perfection, the story is actually made even less realistic than it was before. And it's also made less interesting; the actors don't play each twin as having a different personality, so it's difficult to tell who is who, and even more difficult to care. (Quite apart from the fact that Daltrey can't act...)Unintentional humour: check out the under-rehearsed actors who attempt to mime Egeon's story of his travels. It's really funny in a painful kind of way.