Many people have attempted to put Shakespeare to film, and many have failed. In fact, I’d say that, of the many Shakespeare films I have seen, only one made full use of the medium of film and gave us something special, something memorable that actually stands on its own as a film without requiring the Shakespeare tag.
The problem with Shakespeare is that he wrote for theatre. His characters spend most of their time talking about their intentions, going on and on about plots and possibly how this morally affects them. While the psychological points are still interesting in this day and age, the repetition of plot points as well as talking about every tiny detail is necessary on theatre, where many people may not properly see the action, but completely useless on the big screen. Not only is it not necessary, it actually makes people fall asleep, as proven by this graph:

Graph = proof
The horizontal line indicates the percentage of people falling asleep, running to 100%. The vertical line indicates useless words being spoken. That’s right, even with only 200-400 useless words spoken, over 50% of people fell asleep. This is quite shocking evidence, really, and points to Shakespeare being out of date. The only reason the graph is not filled out to its 1600 maximum is that the researchers had fallen asleep by then, also, as had the actors reading the lines (a Shakespearisation of Die Hard).
The only memorable Shakespeare film I have seen is Richard III, starring Ian McKellen. This film is rare in that it actually employs great cinematic techniques, and visually keeps you on your toes. Not only is the setting both macabre and fascinating at the same time, as well as wonderfully detailed and stylish, but loads of wordless sequences are used that surprise the viewer. The shaking glass of water moments before a tank drives through, the army camp using a train for a command centre, the setting for the Now is the winter of our discontent speech, etc – it is all wonderfully done and keeps your interest. Only Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V comes close.
Most Shakespearian film directors appear to be under the mistaken belief that they are actually making a stage production. Not only do the actors say far too much, but the directors go to the patronising length of first having the actors say what, for example, they are carrying, and then actually showing it. This is basically the same kind of depth you would find in most soap series and is about as interesting as watching paint dry while hearing a scientific voice-over explain the process in detail. Get on with the show!
Actually, I like Shakespeare loads. He has a beautiful writing style, and I love reading large parts of his works. But to say that his plays can be easily translated to film is a plain and simple lie, and generally resolves in uninspired, if well-acted, films which have difficulty keeping you awake. Filming Shakespeare is incredibly difficult and requires incredibly gifted directors to succeed, as neither the pace of his stories nor the texts themselves fit the medium of film, where the visual world has been opened up and allows you to tell things without telling them.
And that’s not a weakness or a sign of a society where people find it more difficult to keep their attention focussed; being kept visually awake is a necessary part of cinema, and that is no easier than any other part of producing an entertaining story.
