Movie? or Play?

Well, I commend the director of the movie for capturing the moods in the play to what I feel is accurate to what the lines were supposed to sound like. However, I condemn the director of the movie because he moved the scenes' locations, and played with the order of the lines. This, I feel, changes the sequence of events to the point where the audience no longer gets the same experience out of the story as when it was performed on stage in Shakespeare's day. I tend to lean more towards accuracy in situations, especially matters as delicate as this. I think that just a shuffling of some chunks here and there, while may not seem like too much of a difference, actually makes a big contrast to what the author of the story may have been trying to get the audience to wonder, or feel, or experience, or think about the characters, or who know's what else, but only could be accomplished in the certain way the author wrote it. It's like taking someone's words, "I feel like eating pie. Here are the ingredients," and making it, "Here are the ingredients. I feel like eating pie." If one didn't know what the phrase was originally, one could come to either two conclusions of what the second version of the phrase meant: either that the person gives ingredients because they feel like eating pie, or that the person gave ingredients, and then decided that they randomly wanted to eat pie, having nothing to do with whatever the ingredients may be. For those who watch the movie without reading the play get the sequence of the story in the messed up version. So, I must say that I prefer the play over the movie for the sake of the experience of the story.