I can only surmise that the people who enjoy it are just happy to see actors they are fond with on the screen again. It's not because its americans Its not because its black and white. It's not because its modern.
It's just poorly acted and poorly directed.
Or we enjoy the story and look of the film.
Straightedge means I'm better than you.
No, I don't think so, the story has been done way better, and the look is pretty unremarkable.
shareNah, it was well acted, and the black and white gave it an almost surreal look. It helped blend the Shakespearean language with the modern setting.
Straightedge means I'm better than you.
Let's look at the very first scene as an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IUIllaPVVQ
None of it works. Characters gawk silently at each other. Most of the wit is just blurted out and thrown away. Benedict mumbles to himself as he wanders away from the scene that he's commenting on. Benedict and Beatrice have their skirmish of words away from the entire cast of characters who need to observe their interaction to make commentary later. It's just ghastly, its like nobody cared about making this well.
The awkward glances are between characters who like each other. Shows the audience right away Claudio and Hero are attracted to each other.
Benedict doesn't need to stand around to comment to himself. People can walk and talk at the same time. It's not that difficult.
The wit is perfectly thrown back and forth. As it should be.
The characters commenting on Benedict and Beatrice's interaction without having witnessed it shows they already have a history others are aware of, which works better when everyone decides to conspire to get them together.
Looks like it all works.
Straightedge means I'm better than you.
It really doesn't. It's flat and *beep* Haven't you heard the phrase, "Show, don't tell". Yes, there are scenes that mention their history. The whole point of THIS scene, though, is to SHOW that they have a very public disdain for each other.
shareYes, there are scenes that mention their history.
Have you even read the original play? Have you ever watched other versions? This may be a modern day version... but it is remarkably true to Shakespeare. The scenes were done so well, it was finally UNDERSTANDABLE!! I love Joss Wheedon's directing... always! But I never dreamed he could do such an insightful job with Shakespeare! The great use of the subtleties of Shakespeare's words and actions was so enjoyable. I will be watching it again... with subtitles, (although they are amazingly hardly necessary). Well done, Joss. And well done for all of the cast.
shareI agree. None of the actors seemed to have a clear idea of what their character was on about, particularly the leads. Amy Acker, for example, seemed to simper rather than be proud and caustic. The key lines were tossed off too quickly, losing all effect.
shareA cm punk reference on IMDB. Never thought I'd see that.
BEST IN THE WORLD
I absolutely disagree. It was well-cast, and transitioned to a modern age well, even though the material and language used are hard to adapt to a modern setting.
shareIt's not awful, just rather bland. Especially when you compare it to Kenneth Branagh's superior film from 1993.
shareWhile I also liked Kenneth Branagh's production, I slightly prefer Joss Whedon's version. There are parts of both that I prefer over the other in a head-to-head comparison. Overall, though, Branagh's reads a bit too farcical to me. An odd complaint, I know, given that the play is basically an early farce. But it is nice to have the hint of a true love story winding throughout, which I think Whedon's version does better. Despite the structure of the play and the concentrated star power in Branagh's version in the characters of Benedick and Beatrice, it reads as a story about Claudio and Hero in Branagh's version. Also, Branagh's version, in line with the farcical bent, negates any serious dramatic range. In Joss Whedon's version, we get a love story, a comedy, some nice drama (come on, are you going to complain about Amy Acker as Beatrice grieving and angry for her cousin's false shaming?); there is a wider dramatic range in this version.
shareWell put! I remember lauging out loud in Branagh's a TON compared to Whedon's... But the pain of Leonato, the governor and father of the falsely-accused Hero -- WOW! Great dramatic storytelling and performance from all! (Especially mad respect to Clark Gregg for stepping in at the last minute since Anthony Head was unavailable.)
- - -
Chipping away at a mountain of pop culture trivia,
Darren Dirt.
No
shareOkay. You have no idea what you are talking about, but okay...
shareEphisus, you realize you're arguing with a bunch of Whedon fanatics, right?
They think he flushes chocolate down the toilet.
Nah, we just know high quality when we see it.
Can't stop the signal.
Do you have *anything* interesting to add? Or are you just throwing snark? You have added nothing to the discussion.
How about this: "The under-the-covers play between Don John and Conrade (played by Sean Maher and Riki Lindholme, corresponding to the play's act II scene III) is extra-textual and does not add to the story. Instead, it makes an otherwise fairly PG movie solidly PG-13."
There is a real, informative, complaint that I have about this film (which I love). I'd like to show it to my nieces, but that scene strikes me as unnecessary.
Otherwise, I'll toss out there: an excellent film. I think that it is the best overall adaptation of this play to film. Better than Branagh/Thomsen, better than Smith/Tate. It is well-crafted, well-shot. It balances the humor and drama of the play. If black-and-white bothers you, you will likely have problems with it, but it is very nicely exposed and balanced black-and-white.
It is just a matter of taste. I love this adaptation. I think the actors were great in the roles, the direction fantastic, I liked some of the changes made, Amy Acker's Beatrice is the best I've ever seen, etc. It was an enjoyable film that I am very glad I watched.
shareIt's my favourite of Shakespeare's comedies - and I think this was a wonderful interpretation, very interesting and fun. I loved it. I also thought the acting was superb - Nathan Fillion in particular was a fine Dogberry. To each their own. However, I've seen many, many adaptations of this play and really enjoyed this one. It is meant to be lighthearted and I think if you approach it in that spirit you won't be disappointed. I think you would have to be pre-emptively determined to find any serious fault.
shareI, too, have seen - and enjoyed - many "Much Ados." I was raised on Shakespeare, literally since I was pre-natal, as my father read aloud to my mother's belly. Like you, I love "Much Ado," I saw it first on Broadway when I was very young - Sam Waterston was a fine, charming Benedick. I've seen Derek Jacobi and Sinead Cusak with the RSC, I've seen a couple of television versions from BBC, one with Robert Lindsay.
I've admired much about the Branagh version - it's rather like a huge golden harvest, but a lot of chaff in with the wheat.
Whedon's film is a diamond. So intelligent, the choices, so much ferreting out of clues in the text. I love how much a soldier Alexis Denishof's Benedick is - the man who complains when Claudio no longer "speaks plain." Denishof, unusually, and for me, wonderfully, incorporates that sensibility into his delivery. Usually, the last thing Benedick sounds like is a plain-speaking man, ever.
Amy Acker is like some luminous, lovely hybrid of Shakespeare heroine and 1930s or 40s film star (I love the cinematic nods to film noir and screwball comedy; Jean Arthur, a star from that era, was equally adept at comedy and drama, and, like Acker, had a husky voiced, idiosyncratic delivery.
You note Nathan Fillion - he is almost beyond praise here. So marvelous - and the film knows, comedy isn't funny if it isn't serious.
I watched the film again with a younger friend, very smart, but no exposure to Shakespeare except reading in high school and a couple of summer children's theatre productions. She also loved it - and "got" it.
I think the fact that Whedon's film speaks to us both is a pretty good indicator that it has serious merit.
Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.