Much Ado About Nothing

Joss Whedon's attempt to do Shakespeare quickly and on the cheap is admirable, but not very successful. MUCH ADO doesn't hold up to modernization terribly well as it is, but Whedon rarely seems to find the right tone: sometimes too farcical (the eavesdropping scenes), and other times too low-key (Nathan Fillion's one-note Dogberry)--or distressingly tedious. Clark Gregg's Leonato is by far the best in the cast, though Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker make a valiant stab at Benedick and Beatrice.

The best part about this film is the comic energy that Whedon and company bring to it--there's a kind of frenetic vibe to the whole thing that really fits the material. Also, I love how engaged in the world these characters are--pouring wine, running steps, dusting the furniture--it grounds the action in the real world and brings some immediacy to the whole thing. Acker is a real standout here, and Fillion is quite good in a limited role. What a fun, fun movie.

I'm a Whedon fan, so I'm very biased, but it was really good. It's already probably my favourite Shakespeare adaptation. The actors delivered the lines so well, and brought so much more to the characters than is on paper. Denisof, Acker, Kranz & Fillion were all fantastic. The direction, cinematography and music were all perfect for the film. The comedy was truly funny, and the drama had genuine emotion. I very much enjoyed it overall, and I look forward to seeing it again.

Easily one of my favorite big screen Shakespeare adaptations, especially where the comedies are concerned. Joss Whedon did a great job modernizing the play in a way that still stays incredibly true to the original text. Alexis Denisof & Amy Acker still have fantastic chemistry together, and Nathan Fillion should do all of the Shakespeare ever.

Smart, witty, emotional, Whedon brings this modern interpretation of Shakespeare to life. Stylish and fun, the ensemble plays well off of one another.

The tone isn't 100% on, and there are things that could have easily been expanded upon if they'd planned it a little better; some scenes (Fran Kranz "The Graduate"-like scene in the pool, for instance) appear to be from another movie entirely. But as a hung-over romcom version of Shakespeare, it's pretty successful, hitting the comedy very well (Fillion is a brilliant Dogberry) and the drama well enough to work.

Just a really entertaining movie.

It's really fun, but it's really uneven. The characterization of Claudio doesn't work, and, while Beatrice/Benedick are great overall, they have a couple overly slapstick scenes, too. Dogberry is great, as is the choice of a female Conrad. The modern setting is a bit problematic, though, because it is sometimes overly realist but unexplained and in conflict with the more fantastical elements of the text. There is also just not enough consistency in how it is shot.

You can definitely feel Whedon's enthusiasm for the source material, which counts for a lot, if not necessarily enough to overcome the fact that it does feel a lot more like a staged reading than a full-blooded movie. There's a definite range of success in how well the actors get their mouths around Shakespeare's words while managing to act at the same time, with Nathan Fillion, Clark Gregg and arguably newcomer Jillian Morgese at the top.

Whedonistas (a word I have never used before, and hopefully never will again) will enjoy this delightful jazzy romp as much as the wide audience will. It's not really great but I can't find little to nothing bad about it. And it has a nice DIY appeal.

A mostly successful transposition of Shakespeare's comedy to the 'modern day'. Impressive that it was shot in just 12 days. It possesses a certain energy and playfulness, not just as a result of the original text, but also the direction of Whedon and the performances of the cast.

Whedon reuniting the casts from his beloved TV shows to film a passion-project Shakespeare adaptation at his house seemed like a film that would be worth watching. I can appreciate what he was trying to do with Much Ado About Nothing, but I couldn't quite enjoy it. The modern setting, paired with the Bard's English, under a B&W aesthetic, all felt a little confused in tone and slow in pace. Meston as Friar Francis also highlights the difference between classical theatre and film performances.

78.50

Much ado about (a)nothing interesting.

Dull, dull, dull. Much Ado is a fantastic play, but Whedon doesn't do it any justice here. Watch Branagh's excellent version instead.

It starts off slow, but I'm not sure how much of that is the play and how much the adaptation. When it fully dives into having fun with the characters, it's thoroughly enjoyable. A plot where slut-shaming is so central feels weird in a modern-day adaptation, though, and at the end, I don't feel like I understood as much of the play as, perhaps, I should have.

Hard to get into, but once it captured my concentration, I really enjoyed this.

Is the word "nice" an insult to any kind of art? If so, this movie should be hurt!

Apt title.

I'm not a fan of Shakespeare, but this movie had enough personality, and a good enough cast, that it was watchable. The story was interesting enough, but I think I'd have enjoyed it much better if they had been speaking normally and not using the original dialog.

The bar was set by Branagh, but Whedon's MAAN is the clear victor here perhaps because Fillion's Dogberry is actually (ahem) funny. And it doesn't have Keanu Reeves.

Effective retelling that is not always successful but the participants are definitely having enough fun to make up for it.

Aesthetically, I immediately liked this one, but the story itself didn't do much to absorb me. I'm going to lean towards the "liking it" side but it could easily go the other way.

A dash of self-aware playfulness and a palpable rapport between the actors enliven the whole proceedings. This modern-day retelling of the Shakespeare play, unlike the self-serious and mechanical Coriolanus which had a similar conceit, works because it retains the heart and humor of the material in spite of its contemporary transplantation.

This low-budget adaptation doesn't revolutionize Shakespeare movies; it's not really that successful either at mimicking the original play or updating to the modern era. But I still really enjoyed myself. It's quite funny and engaging, and I found myself rooting for love's triumph. Plus, add in the fact that it was just made by Joss Whedon and all his friends because they felt like it, and I'm really glad this movie exists.

Very sloppy, uneven acting. Apart from the pool scene it looks terrible and the story makes little sense in this context. Attempts at comedy are even broader than they were in the original text, taking the whole thing too far over the top. Watch Branagh's version instead.

Shakespeare plays modernized in movies always have problems, but Much Ado About Nothing is about as good as they get.

Ver a gangue do Whedon reunida é sempre um deleite, ainda mais que constem um sensacional Fillion e um Denisof de barba... Mas no final de contas quem arrasa mesmo é a Amy Acker.

Clever and funny, but uneven. Considering the way it was made, though, it's pretty impressive.

If you are a fan of Shakespeare and you love Joss Whedon then you will love this film. The Bard provides an excellent comedy already and Whedon breathes some new life into it with some of his favorite actors. Beatrice played by Amy Acker did a fantastic job, I even got some great laughs from Alexis Denisof who I normally don't regard him as a comedic person. The cast is great, I loved that it was filmed in black and white and it made me laugh which is what a comedy is supposed to do people!

#13#, rw5, creator Whedon!, cast!

82.000

Without much to go on (this is one of Shakespeare's weaker plays) this visually stimulating film still falls flat.

Fast and sloppy. The problem is that there was a lot of potential. Whedon understands that Shakespeare should be in your face and energetic. However, he threw this together with his friends at the last minute. Had he sat down, planned this out, and actually given actors time to work with their characters, then it could have been great. Sadly it's a tossed together production that sometimes hits but not always. The enthusiasm is there, just not the craft.

The art-house audience was as entertaining as the movie with their too quick, too loud laughter. For me it was funny in places, but in others hard to keep up with the convoluted Shakespearean dialogue--not having studied it as those around me did or at least were pretending to have. A lot of the laughter was at the mugging, ham-it-up slapstick. It might have been because they weren't expecting it in that setting, but then neither was I.

A postscript: Joss Whedon reportedly filmed Much Ado About Nothing during a weeklong break from his work on The Avengers. (Clark Gregg, who plays S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Phil Coulson, steps in as Leonato here.) Whedon (who may be best known for his creative vision for the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer) apparently concocted the whole thing at his house ... exactly what you'd expect from a guy who, when he has a get-together, is said to have his friends read scenes from the Bard after dinner

I loved it. I was reluctant to see it because I was bored stiff by Whedon's Avengers, I was very nervous when I realised it was to be performed in American accents, and I was concerned by the black & white - it's not lit like "old school" black and white - I was looking at the screen and all those shadowy faces thinking "I'm not sure I'm going to be able to tell who is who..." But it was fantastic - witty, then goofy, then witty again, all about the gap that lies between men and women.

A delight for Whedon fans..