Amy Acker as Beatrice and Alexis Denisof as Benedick are perfectly cast as the ex-lovers who have sworn off love. He's a player, she's a shrew, and neither notices they can't stop talking about how much they detest each other. The scenes where friends and family dupe each into believing that the other is secretly in love are classic examples of physical screwball comedy while remaining completely faithful to the original text.
Also especially good is Nathan Fillion (Castle) as Dogberry, a constable who provides security to the rich and powerful. In Fillion's hands, Dogberry is a hilariously understated nincompoop who murders the English language and wants it on the record that he is "an ass."
Known for TV's Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Whedon shot Ado in twelve days while on a break from directing the comic book blockbuster The Avengers. To save money, Whedon set the action in his own house, cast actors from his old television shows, and filmed in black-and-white with a handheld camera. The result is sublime.
Some may struggle with a dark subplot involving a party guest's bout of Othello-like jealousy—blame Shakespeare—but it's handled about as well as it can be, and besides, no matter. What you'll remember is the screwball rom-com between Beatrice and Benedick. These were roles written for Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn three hundred years before they were born, and Acker and Denisof make them their own.
4.5 stars out of 5.
Posts
8 comments:
Ranked as our top flick for 2013
-- The Muleboys
GEORGEOUS black and white, sublime performances, ingenious (yet subtle) direction. Goddamned nice movie.
And thank gaud it's not a film, it's a movie. A flick. A joy. . . .
One of the things I liked about it is that while being entirely faithful to the source material, it didn't feel ponderous or reverential the way Shakespeare adaptations sometimes do.
I think I might rate it in my top five comedies of the 21st century. Top ten for sure.
You know, one day I should write a longer essay about Much Ado About Nothing, specifically about Shakespeare's recurring interest in perception -- what we think is true -- how perception guides our emotions, how false our perceptions often are and how easily manipulated they are. I can't think of another writer who spent more time than Shakespeare pondering the idea of the "eye of the beholder."
Here, he explores the theme through two story lines, Beatrice and Benedick who are manipulated into thinking they are in love with each other, and Claudio and Hero who are manipulated into thinking they are not. I still think the former works better than the latter, both because the former so obviously are made for each other, and also because there's real reason to think that the latter are not. And since in the 21st century we have no real rooting interest in the arranged marriage between two powerful families, there's not much to hang your hat on one way or the other.
Still, the two story lines are not as far apart as they might appear to be on first viewing.
Thanks for reminding me that I'd missed this in theaters. I agree that Shakespeare adaptations can be, um, shake-y, but you give me hope that Whedon didn't muck it up.
Much Ado About Nothing has turned out to be one of those movies that comes along once in a blue moon that's so good, it sort of ruins me for other movies for a while, because nothing else is going to be as good. So I've been watching football and Julia Louise Dreyfus in Veep and reading and otherwise avoiding movies.
We watched Ado on demand on New Years Eve and I liked it so much, I went out and bought it on Blu-Ray the next day, watched it again and listened to the Whedon's commentary, which I never do.
Damn you, Whedon, you magnificent bastard ...
I read your book!
Infanterie Greift An, I always say, at least when i sneeze
Post a Comment