Shakespeare adaptations are tough and I've seen most of them -- at least, more than most people.
Laurence Olivier didn't deviate too much from the original settings and intentions of Shakespeare in his films. Branagh has been able to take more liberties; but, they still don't go too far -- his 1996 Hamlet was great, set a far enough after Shakespeare's time to justify some things (like women being allowed on the stage), while being set far enough in the past that we all still believed the politics.
Then there are the way more liberal interpretations. I think the 1995 version of Richard III was among the best of the liberal representations; still, it nags at me that they would change the setting of that play being that Ricard III was a real person and the plot is heavily rooted in real events and bloodlines (I recommend Al Pacino's documentary Looking for Richard). Julie Taymor's adaptation of Titus Andronicus was among the most -- ahem -- creative. None of the attempts to completely modernize the settings of his text have worked for me.
What this movie did better than any I've seen was maintain the integrity and the setting of the original play while being creative enough with the production design and the cinematography to facilitate the willing suspension of disbelief.
It felt like we were on a stage at times and in the real world in others. Our eyes are always creatively drawn either by shadows or vignettes of whiteness. The sets look clean and bare for the most part, stripped down to the details. It's focused in every frame.
The performances were all fantastic with the exception of one actor in a small role.
Anyway, this is among my top five Shakespeare adaptations. I just don't know where to place it among those five.