Viewed in
2013
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Joss Whedon's modern take of William Shakespeare's play.
Loved
Nathan Fillion and Tom Lenk, unexpected slapstick comedy.
Liked
Charming cast, strong chemistry.
Disliked
Handheld motion sickness.
Hated
That Keanu Reeves has made it impossible for anyone else to play Don John.
Thoughts
As expected, this was light-hearted fun.
The black-and-white cinematography gave the film an anachronistic filter, a visual cue that I was watching fiction, making it easier to buy into a world of Elizabethan dialog mixed with gun-toting bodyguards. Whedon's use of just his house as the shooting location gave the film an intimate feel without being claustrophobic.
Most of the performances were charming and believable. I relished the verbally-barbed chemistry between Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker as Benedick and Beatrice. I'm not too familiar with the Whedon stable of actors, and with similar-looking modern attire of the well-to-do, it was a credit to the casting and acting that it was easy to tell characters apart.
I expected strong performances and witty Shakespearean banter. What I did not expect was the wealth of slapstick and absurdity to take the humor to a new level. Denisof's outrageously conspicuous somersault spying was a gut-buster. Acker matched that with, ironically, the cliched "woman in rom-com who falls down a lot".
Even though it was shot intimately, Whedon found ways to insert irreverent visuals, like Don John and company surfacing cooly like the Creature from the Black Lagoon behind Claudio, but then wading awkwardly away afterward. And the audacity to have the "I'll hold my mind, were she an Ethiope" line end on a shot of a black woman made me chortle.
But the true scene-stealers were fat Nathan Fillion and porn-stached Tom Lenk as the fools for constables, Dogberry and Verges. Michael Keaton was extremely funny and grouchy in the 1993 version. Here, these two destroyed that comedy performance with their over-the-top hamming and stupidity, as if they were auditioning for Reno 911! I would love them to spinoff a la Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead.
Much like Kenneth Branagh's epic take on the play, the actual plot was the movie's weak point. The fact that both couples had to be tricked/lied into falling in/out of love meant they were more like puppets than humans. So in both versions, I was never fully invested with these couples.
In terms of execution, I was disappointed to see that even Whedon fell victim to the shaky handheld camera, especially in the beginning and end of the film. Also, the heavier moments didn't work for me emotionally, such as Hero's humiliation. To be honest, I'm not sure why it didn't work, probably a combination of weak story and performances.
But the biggest black mark, which was not Sean Maher's fault at all, was his Don John. Maher was solid in portraying the jealous, seductive and manipulative villain. But once you've seen the Keanu Reeves' indelible performance from 1993, you cannot unsee it. And no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't help but giggle and hark back to my memories of Reeves every time Maher appeared.
Comparing the two versions of Much Ado About Nothing, both were really enjoyable adaptations for different reasons. Branagh's version was much more conventional and epic. Whedon's was more intimate and accessible. Both were worth watching for Shakespeare fans, I would just recommend watching Whedon's before you've been permanently Keanu'ed.
