Much Ado About Nothing is a slightly strange film. It's shot in black and white, in modern costume, with a mostly American cast of the sort of people that appear in lots of Joss Whedon films and TV series (it was directed by Whedon). Having cast members from Firefly and The Avengers quoting Shakespeare is initially a bit strange.
Overall, I think it's a more difficult film to watch than Branagh's, but probably slightly more rewarding. Branagh's film is more sumptuous and pleasing to the eye, but the seriousness of the situation involving Hero and the surrounding characters has far greater weight in Whedon's film, which also makes the Beatrice and Benedict story more solid.
It's also, for me, better cast, mostly because I think Emma Thompson just doesn't bring out the character of Beatrice as well as Amy Acker does. Clark Gregg has the air of a powerful Governor in the way that Richard Briers doesn't. Nathan Fillion is funnier as Dogberry. And as the original had Keanu Reeves as Don John, that wasn't hard to top. On the other side, Kate Beckinsale was probably better as Hero.
In case anyone thinks I'm ill or something, reviewing romances is rare and two in a row is not a pattern, just coincidence. Normal service of superhero, gun and car chase movies will be resumed soon.
Triple layer tinfoil
2 hours ago
1 comments:
Makes a nice change from a)no films or b)films about fast cars.
Did n't know there was another "Much ado...".Will now look our for it though since Blockbusters went bust....! ( Ah the wonders of the free market[which we are all supposed to die for apparently ] I used to go to Kingsthorpe and while my wife did the heavy lifting at Waitrose would dilettante down to Blockbusters and row with staff why early Jackie Chan movies were never in the right box and then to the now legendary Kingsthorpe Bookshop where you could phone them to get a book in
and pick it up whenever.As HG said Progress=Poverty.
Post a Comment