danielkeough
This movie seemed interesting from the start. The dialect is cute and all, but it was very difficult to follow. I was hoping that thou hath created Subtitles, in English. Alas, I was not able to complete this journey. I bet if I could follow what was going on with modern dialect I could much better follow the story. I wish to write this review yet IMDb wants me to write yet more lines. I don't know how much more I can write about the film. The rating is lower because it was very hard to follow despite me being a native English speaker. If I were to be able to watch the more, I could write more, but alas I am not able to write more because I couldn't watch the movie more because I wasn't able to follow the movie so I couldn't write any more about a movie that I wasn't able to watch all the way through.
MisterWhiplash
Normally, when I watch a film done in the Shakespearean prose, even a film that turns out to be a full-bloodied masterpiece like Orson Welles' Othello or Kenneth Branaugh's Hamlet, there is a sense that the language doesn't sound ALL immediate. It's all performed well and with enough energy and dramatic guff, but I don't get a modern sensibility from the actors.Joss Whedon, for the first time that I could see in a *good* way (step aside, Baz Lurhmann with your '+' film), got performances that spoke on film the Bard's words and yet ALSO provided, at least for me, a view into how to speak such words in a way that feels immediate, real, and not drawn out from the past but just as *there* in the sense of character interactions, timing and comic/dramatic sensibility as on Buffy or Angel or anything else Whedon does.It's really, I think, about how he directs the actors, and it's what counts here when it's a micro-budget film (Whedon shot it as his "20th anniversary present" to himself, no, really, following his wrap on shooting The Avengers in 2011), and all that's there is the actors in a house and it's black and white footage. And Whedon gets this story down so convincingly because his cast is always on top of what needs to be said, what's there in-between in physical actions (as Alexis Denisof tries to listen in any way he can to romance talk about another 'lady' and his interest, played by the sweetheart Amy Acker).And again, Nathan Fillion, how you fill in a supporting role! The Dogberry stuff is the "B"-plot-line, but it adds so much comedic punch to the narrative,which is all based on behavior and nuance by the way, and attitudes towards love, commitment, and how we treat one another as ruthless or kind or sometimes (trying) to do both in the same scene. Sound like classic Whedon, with the whole ensemble and sly romantic entanglements with the touch of social satire? You bet. It was my pick for Sleeper of the summer 2013.
lois-lane33
I thought this was a freakishly pretentious effort from the guy who brought us Firefly (a pretty good show) , Angel (a middling show) and Buffy The Vampire Slayer (a not so great show). I always thought that Joss Whedon did work that was one part groundbreaking and one part Archie comic books. He pushed his work but also pushed his audience in ways that were sometimes like lepton erotica. As if being smart was just a rumor someone made up but nobody actually was. The school I went to as a teen forced Shakespeare on students which is too often the way people encounter it. Shakespeare is best taken in small doses and this film isn't a small dosage- its a walloping huge dosage of it done in such a way as to make Shakespeare look ridiculous. The Bard' work is 500 years old and sometimes reminiscent of older work like The Decamercon written in 1335 by Boccaccio which is often described as the first novel ever written. Anyone who dislikes Shakespeare is coyly labeled a low IQ moron but most of the people I've met who are into Shakespeare are basically just upper class snobs who wouldn't know talent from a hole in the ground. This film is basically a hole in the ground.
Ruben Mooijman
The trailer of this film is magnificent: stylish black & white images of well-dressed people gathering in a beautiful mansion, accompanied by the cool sound of St-Germain, and words like 'obsession, hatred, sex, power, deceit and truth' projected on the screen in fast succession. But unfortunately the trailer is much better than the film. The idea of transposing the original play, written 415 years ago by William Shakespeare, to a present day context, including iPhones, surveillance cameras and posh cars, is very daring. The result is essentially a modern day romantic comedy about two couples falling in love, but with 16th century dialogue. At first, this feels strange. A lot of concentration is needed in order to understand the dialogue. During the first fifteen minutes, you have to get used to the concept. But after an hour or so, the effect wears off and you realize it is just a gimmick. I think the appreciation of this gimmick is a matter of personal taste and preference. My opinion is that the combination of 21st century characters speaking 16th century language doesn't work well. It feels unnatural and strained. Although I must say that the actors do a great job: their performance is as smooth as possible with these lines. Director Joss Whedon made this film as a hobby project. Instead of going on vacation, he shot the film in 12 days in his own house, with actors he knew well from previous projects. To save costs, he shot in black & white. It is a nice coincidence that this choice also helps to make the film look stylish and trendy.
AD
