Maybe something strange about the user reviews... - Much Ado About Nothing (2013) Discussion

[–] TomsWindow 11 years ago

"TOTAL, TOTAL TRASH!!!"

Are you sure we're talking about the same Joss Whedon here?

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Tch, Tch. Such condescension. If you have never seen Whedon's work how can you so empathetically say that it's trash. You are only displaying your own ignorance. Very few directors today have Whedon's love of language and intricate dialogue. Very few can handle an ensemble cast with such aplomb and very few can write and direct with the same level of humanity and humour that Whedon does. I really think you need a crash course in Whedon. Try 'Firefly', any episode will do.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TSopped said so.

reply

[–] Balthazar-5 11 years ago

You may have a point regarding my ignorance of Whedon's work, save that I was only really trying to alert users to the possibility that the user reviews may have been 'stuffed' by a marketing company.

It is also a bit wierd that your valued recommendation for my introduction to the Art of Whedon is a TV series over a decade old... has he not progressed at all???

If I cand find the Firefly series at a reasonable price I'll try it out.

'Wisdom would be to see life, really see, that would be wisdom.' JLG.

reply

[–] capercaillie 11 years ago

...and when you do, you will love it!

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Why not start out with a masterpiece?

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TSopped said so.

reply

[–] Balthazar-5 11 years ago

I have been the editor of three different cultural film magazines (all indexred by FIAF) and written thousands of reviews, 'masterpiece' is a word I reserve for only the very best, and a work that starts off with the notion that one can 'terraform' huge numbers of planets in 500 years doesn't sound masterpiece material. (Why link it to any era?)
However, I have bought the entire series from Amazon marketplace for 4.79€ (= $6.30) so that gives me a target to aim at.

'Wisdom would be to see life, really see, that would be wisdom.' JLG.

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

What a coincidence, I was secretary of my Cultural Society. And I too am careful about bandying the word 'Masterpiece' around. But I think 'Firefly' comes as close to it as possible.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TSopped said so.

reply

[–] vmars080 11 years ago

You ended a sentence in a preposition, Smarty-Pants. Oops. Saying you have edited blah blah blah wait, not worth a response.

Well, I am curious what an "indexred" is.

reply

[–] bart-229 11 years ago

You are a pedant to carp about an obvious typo. And only 19th century grammarians complain about ending sentences with prepositions any more.

reply

[–] martinfunes 10 years ago

Ending a sentence with a preposition is something with which I will not put.

reply

[–] Lyrakill 9 years ago

... up with which I will not put :)

reply

[–] pinky_lerue 11 years ago

I am only a visiting attache, but I can assure that it is a masterpiece. Angel is lovely too.

reply

[–] learimfroste-558-593590 11 years ago

Lol

"That's nothing. Once I waited a whole year for September."
- Fozzie Bear

reply

[–] Soodinum 10 years ago

Wait ... you "have been the editor of three different cultural film magazines", yet you can't spell (indexred) and aren't familiar with JW? Something sounds off about you, more so than the reviews you mention.

'Then' and 'than' are different words - stop confusing them.

reply

[–] rjbmuse 11 years ago

I don't know. Out of context, many episodes of Firefly might not come off the way you think, and I love that show.

A couple of episodes of Buffy come to mind. "The Body" and "Once More With Feeling" are two of Joss's finest scripts. You don't have to know much about the show to appreciate them.

I was skeptical about his work, too, until I actually watched Buffy, and found out it is much more than it appears on the surface. In fact, each of his shows had gotten deeper and more sophisticated as his work progressed.

reply

[–] avjudge 11 years ago

I guess it's because you're in France that you'd think "I love Whedon's work" would come out of a marketing company and not from real people. Believe me, there are a lot of real people who will say this - my sister and her husband will give anything Joss Whedon is involved with a chance just because it's his and I've quite liked what I've watched - Buffy, Angel, Firefly.

reply

[–] T-Horror 11 years ago

It is the same in my house.
But i find by the initial post stating the fact that the filmography had to be looked up, and that particular movies and series didn't just instantly come to mind, says that the taste of the poster is not even close to that of those who watch and love Whedon's work

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hexrei 11 years ago

So more or less you called Whedon's work "TOTAL TRASH!!!!!" without really knowing anything about it? Your opinion is worthless.

What a lovely way to burn...

reply

[–] leoele 11 years ago

Your attitude on this board really makes me upset. Reviews being stuffed by a marketing company? For an adaptation of a classic play? I really doubt it, especially considering that this film has seen close to zero marketing at all. I like Joss Whedon, and this film wasn't even on my radar at all.

Then you say Joss' work is TRASH, while admitting that you aren't really familiar with much of what he's done. Someone tells you to check out 'Firefly' and your response is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. Boo, hoo, it's over a decade old!?! Joss created a fun science fiction romp, with great characters and storytelling. Firefly is listed at #8 on the IMDb best TV series list. Joss was basically at odds with the TV network over the direction of the show and technical specifications of the shooting right from the get-go. The environment was just never right for it to flourish.

I've been a member of this site for a number of years, and I don't know if I've ever bothered to post anything in the forums. I felt compelled to share that I don't even understand why you are commenting on this in the first place. It sounds like you have such high regards for the 'cinema' that even looking at this page should be beneath you.

Finally, and this is directed to Joss' fans, and not really to the OP, I am quite surprised that no one mentioned Dollhouse. The show was cheesy, but as the characters developed I fell in love with it. And, like Firefly, the show was cancelled, but unlike Firefly, Joss was allowed to completely bring the story to an end. If you are a Joss fan, it's definitely worth checking out.

reply

[–] jberning 11 years ago

And if the onyl preclusion from taking the recomendation seriously is that it is 10 years old, I can only imagine if someone told him to watch Casablanca or any other classic films that are much older than that yet still revered. Age of teh material shouldn't make a difference.

reply

[–] CromeRose 11 years ago

"It is also a bit wierd that your valued recommendation for my introduction to the Art of Whedon is a TV series over a decade old... has he not progressed at all???"

Ha! Firefly was decades ahead of anything being done at that time. It's still better than anything around these days imo. And Whedon was so far progressed and advanced from any of his contemporaries at that time that he is now decades ahead of any of them. No one will ever catch Joss. He's just that much better than anyone.

http://goo.gl/GPoFw

reply

[–] redeem147 11 years ago

I think you'll find this interesting - a yearly academic conference on Whedon's work. http://slayageonline.com/

reply

[–] SuperMan7731 11 years ago

by Balthazar-5 (Sat Jun 8 2013 16:08:23)

I concede that my original remark about Whedon's work was sweeping and not based on any close knowledge, but... sci-fi and vampire slaying and comic book heroes do not usually make for a very profound view of the human condition, nor of the art of the cinema.

As I previously said, maybe, maybe this film is a labour of love and has great value, but IMDb has its own way of preventing the marketing crowd from stuffing the responses with false positives, and there seemed to me to be too much unanimity in what was being said in the positive user reviews for a film that at the time had a score of just 6.5 and, frankly, I detest the idea of corporate greed distorting the view of films reflected in these pages.

If it turns out to be great - cinematically - I will be as happy as anyone.

I think that whoever pointed out that dialog is his strength is slightly off track (in my humble opinion). While he is great at creating fantastic dialog, it is his ability to know "the moment" of each scene and to get the absolute MOST out of that moment that sets him apart from most others. A wildly popular episode of Buffy the Vampire slayer, HUSH, is mostly without dialog...yet it has moments that are more impactful than anything he has ever done on that show. So to corner him into one lane and say "_____ is what defines him" is a little short sighted.

I will say this. He can take a scene places that I think most writers/directors are not only scared to take them but are not skilled enough to make it pay off. He continues to impress me with most everything that he does. And while this movie, as you pointed out, is through the words of someone else, it is his actors that make the difference. Joss, for this movie, is working almost exclusively from a talent pool that he has been growing since the 90's. He trusts them, and they him. It leads to a beautiful thing when it plays out on screen.

http://twitter.com/superman_7731

reply

[–] Qapla5 11 years ago

And what ONE film would one recommend first to a person wanting to check out the works of Orson Welles? His masterpiece "Citizen Kane." Not the later "The Magnificent Ambersons." Not the later "The Stranger." Not the later "Touch of Evil." As good as all those films were, the average would recommend "Kane" to a Welles newbie.

What difference does it make WHEN Whedon's work was made? If you're wanting to see his best work, why not go with the best? You can also check out a couple of magnificent episodes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"--most notably, the musical episode, "Once More with Feeling," the nearly all silent episode, "Hush" (and if that doesn't creep you out, you're NOT remotely human), and "The Body." And then, there's always the oh-so-charming "Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog."

And of course, a little movie that did just so-so worldwide business in 2012 called "The Avengers."

reply

[–] nilbog44 10 years ago

Find it at a reasonable price? It's streaming on Netflix. And so is his other fantastic (better imo) show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Or are you too highbrow to have Netflix?

reply

[–] Balthazar-5 10 years ago

Having run a cultural cinema for most of my adult life, and knowing many filmmakers personally, I do not subscribe, literally or figuratively to the notion of downloading films. Feature films are made to be larger than the person watching them, and not within the control of the viewer.
TV series, with, to my knowledge, the single exception of Twin Peaks, do not operate at the elevated level of expression of high level feature films. I watch TV series on DVD as divertissements. I have seen enough of the Buffy series at a time when my daughters enjoyed it to know of its qualities and limitations.

Keep watching the masterpieces....

reply

[–] lulumary123 11 years ago

My feelings exactly! I'd even say Whedon is a direct disciple of Shakespeare (trolls, get stuffed!) I can't find this film anywhere, though, and I live in New York, help!

I do find it hard to forgive him for the total crap lapse of personality that was "The Avengers" though. So bad.

"A sword is useless in the hands of a coward" - Nichiren Daishonin

reply

[–] Franco_Zed 11 years ago

"I can't find this film anywhere, though, and I live in New York, help!"

Try the link in the thread posted by Frieda. It helped me find the movie.

___
All insults will be interpreted as an admission that you cannot contribute to the discussion.

reply

[–] lulumary123 11 years ago

I did find it, many thanks!

"A sword is useless in the hands of a coward" - Nichiren Daishonin

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

I enjoyed'The Avengers' very much. 'Much Ado' only played here in the North of Scotland for a very short time, but I am looking forward to the DVD being released. If you want to see a very good Much Ado you cna do worse than watch the David Tennant one on YouTube. Like Whedon's, it is in modern dress.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] lulumary123 11 years ago

Thanks - love Tennant and Tate, couldn't find a link to video of the entire production, just scenes. Is there one?

"A sword is useless in the hands of a coward" - Nichiren Daishonin

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Not on YouTube. I got mine from my niece as a birthday present. She found the DVD down in London. The Joss Whedon one is going to be released in October here in the UK. Amazon.co.uk has it and also another one that's very good. It's the one filmed in the Globe Theatre. There are alot of good productions out. As it is one of my favourite comedies I have 4 different versions of it. I'll have 5 when my cope of Wheedon's @much Ado' is released.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] lulumary123 11 years ago

Thanks, and I did find it, at digitaltheater.com, you can order a download or rental (in British pounds), here's the direct link:

http://www.digitaltheatre.com/production/details/much-ado-about-nothing-tennant-tate

Whedon flick is playing NOW in New York, der -- seeing it this week!

"A sword is useless in the hands of a coward" - Nichiren Daishonin

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

I really enjoyed it, but then I'm a big David Tennant fan. And Catherine Tate as well. I like the Globe Production, it's a whole lot of fun. I hope to get down to London next month and hopefully I'll get to see something, at least I'll do the tour and then hit Harrods. I just love London.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

Hi, summeriris!

I just last night watched Joss Whedon's "Much Ado," which play is also one of my own favorites. I first saw it on Broadway at 14, a lovely production which had moved from Shakespeare in the Park, starring Sam Waterston as Benedick and was set in the Spanish-American War, Gibson-Girl era.

Unlike the OP on this thread, I have no cinematic background, but as an actor with decades of stage experience, including Shakespeare roles and training, and as someone raised on the Bard since I was pre-natal, I absolutely loved it.

For the very first time, a film actually captures something of the immediacy and excitement of a live Shakespearean performance. Amy Acker is a real delight as Beatrice (I like this actress), and Nathan Fillion succeeds beautifully as Dogberry where such lights as Michael Keaton and James Stiller failed sadly (Bernard Hughes, in the production I mention above, with the Watch as Keystone Kops, was perhaps the best Dogberry I've seen, but Fillion is priceless).

I am recommending this film to Shakespeare buffs and those as yet unacquainted with his work alike. It will satisfy the former, IMO, and invite the latter to a new source of pleasure.

Cheers!

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

I loved it. It's weird that you wrote to me today, I just took the DVD off the shelf to watch it tonight. I'm glad you liked it and Nathen Fillion was a delight.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. And I have groupies, Atomic Girl said so.

reply

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

Serendipity. I expect I will be watching it again soon - with a friend who does not know the play and whose exposure to Shakespeare is extremely limited. I anticipate a revelatory experience for her.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

I really love Much Ado. Beatrice and Benedict are really rather wonderful. Beatrice is fierce in defence of her cousin, Benedict needs no more evidence than Beatrice's word that her cousin is wronged to challenge the young man who was like his brother...and to leave the Prince's service. They are both of them head and shoulders above Shakespeare's other characters IMO.

Joss Whedon made this film as a relaxation exercise after making 'The Avengers'. I think he is one of the best directors in Hollywood. I don't know if you noticed it but most of the cast are actors that he has worked extensively with before.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. And I have groupies, Atomic Girl said so.

reply

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

For, me, any number of Skakespeare's characters are rather wonderful, because of the depth of humanity the writer endows them with. But I agree - and Beatrice and Benedick have remained a blueprint for Western lovers ever since. I see here cinematic references to both screwball comedy and film noir, if OP is interested. Possibly also Fellini.

I had looked up the film's particulars of provenance before I watched, so I do know those things - I think he made the film between finishing the shoot and beginning post-production on The Avengers, yes? Also that these players had all (or most) been involved in Wheaton's Shakespeare Sundays (I love this SO MUCH about the man).

I'd assert that the film is evidence of Wheaton's talent, intelligence, and love for and deep understanding of Shakespeare's work. In some ways, it is probably the most satisfying filmic adaptation I've seen.

ETA: Oh, let me say particularly how much better is Benedick than Claudio, who almost in the next breath after declaring his whole-hearted love of Hero is ascertaining her inheritance. It is unimaginable that Benedick could be so un-self-aware as to do that.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

Oh Claudio, what did poor Hero ever do to deserve him? I try to keep in mind that a girl's settlement on marriage was very important, still is in some cultures...but still? Benedict never mentions Beatrice's, and she would have one as well as Hero. And I also try to keep in mind that he is not the hero, Benedict is. Not even the Prince looks good compared to Benedict. In Beatrice's big speech where she talks about what they did and how they did it, she's quite right. Both the Prince and Claudio planned to humiliate Hero in the worst possible and public way. I wanted to eat their hearts as well. They believe Don John without even thinking about it and he is an enemy who is basically a POW. He has never been in Leonardo's house before but they believe he has inside information that Hero is meeting a lover the night before her wedding. They come across as a pair od pompous prigs who don't feel any guilt in causing the death of a young girl. This version cuts the scene where Leonato confronts him and they laugh about it after he leaves. But they don't come across very well.

Much Ado is one of the darkest of Shakespeare's comedies. They are all pretty dark but Much Ado balances on a knife's edge of tragedy. He pulls it off superbly. And the text, what can anyone say about the text. It's fabulous. Shakespeare invented the screwball comedy for sure.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. And I have groupies, Atomic Girl said so.

reply

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

Summer, I agree that the Prince, as well, looks bad, but not, for me, as much as Claudio. And there's always rationalization - the Prince starts out in holiday humour, coming off a successful campaign, he gets a bit intoxicated on the happiness, and proposes such silly antics as wooing Hero for Claudio - he's playing dress up. I adore the "Say what?" look Claudio gives Don Pedro at that point!

And, Don John is Don Pedro's brother - Don Pedro wants to think well of his kin - that's pretty much canon, as why else would he pardon the traitor so easily at the start of the play?

But you are so right - publicly shaming Hero is a dreadful thing to do to Leonato, even if Hero were guilty.

And isn't that scene marvelous here, with Hero and Leonato sobbing their lines, clinging to each other for support before they are at all reconciled. A profoundly affecting bit, for me.

I've been in touch with webrowser over at LiveJournal; she's not yet seen this film, but will do so, and we will discuss. Care to join? I'd love to do a compare-and-contrast with the Branagh version (which does have its excellences). But we can just talk about this one, if that's what seems best.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

I would love to discuss this, let me have the web address. I too have a Livejournal although I haven't been on it in ages. Let me know when Webrowser has seen the film, I'll be waiting.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. And I have groupies, Atomic Girl said so.

reply

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

Will do. We're already friends there - you read my "Emma" opus.

Yes, it's dark. I noted earlier that I see references to film noir in Whedon's film, as well as screwball comedy - and I've since read that he considered it a "noir deconstruction of a romantic comedy." That take resonates perfectly, for me.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] summeriris 10 years ago

I think the fil is much underated by the Shakespeare fans. Yes I've read your 'Emma' Easssays. I'l get back to you. This week is kind of frantice, I'm having the living room carpet replaced and right now I'm in the throes of packing everything up, It's not fun but it has to be done. I've got two boxes of junk to take to the recycling depot.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. And I have groupies, Atomic Girl said so.

reply

[–] pillix 11 years ago

Well i have never heard about Joss Whedon either. I looked for him in this website IMdb and found exactly what I could call a very "commercially successful" tv script writer. Good for him! I must say, thou, the only interesting stuff we wrote, for me in my own personal and humble opinion, is Toy Sory. About Buffy well you should like the Vampires and warewolfs genre...

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Well what can one say to that? There is none so blind as those that refuse to see perhaps? I could try pointing you to an episode of Buffy called 'The Body'. It was in Season 5 of Buffy. Watch that and tell me again how inconsequentiall Joss Wheedon's work is, I am taking it for granted you didn't pay much attention to this film.

'Warewolves', I know that it is an automatic forfeit of an arguement to mention spelling, but that just tickled my funny bone. I love it. Is it dinnerware or glassware that we should guard against, I suppose the silverware is safe? Joss Whedon would be proud.

But in all seriousness, watch 'The Body' with an open mind, it might just lead to why Joss Whedon is held in such high regard by his legions of fans.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Degree7 11 years ago

While Joss Whedon's work isn't complete trash, he doesn't exactly have the most interesting resume. Mostly lots of work in comic book and TV.

He wrote the screenplay for Alien: Resurrection.

He directed Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers. Nothing too impressive.

A director is only as good as their last film.

reply

[–] NVDan 11 years ago

He directed Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers.

He didn't direct Cabin in the Woods.

___
Aliens? Us? Is this one of your Earth jokes?

reply

[–] Balthazar-5 11 years ago

I concede that my original remark about Whedon's work was sweeping and not based on any close knowledge, but... sci-fi and vampire slaying and comic book heroes do not usually make for a very profound view of the human condition, nor of the art of the cinema.

As I previously said, maybe, maybe this film is a labour of love and has great value, but IMDb has its own way of preventing the marketing crowd from stuffing the responses with false positives, and there seemed to me to be too much unanimity in what was being said in the positive user reviews for a film that at the time had a score of just 6.5 and, frankly, I detest the idea of corporate greed distorting the view of films reflected in these pages.

If it turns out to be great - cinematically - I will be as happy as anyone.

'Wisdom would be to see life, really see, that would be wisdom.' JLG.

reply

[–] rhiaa 11 years ago

I find it interesting that you stated that “... sci-fi and vampire slaying and comic book heroes do not usually make for a very profound view of the human condition, nor of the art of the cinema.” I find that sci-fi and fantasy genres usually give a more in depth portrayal of humanity and how we struggle with the everyday issues of life, as well as showcasing social issues in a accessible way (Tony Starks’s apparent PTSD in Iron Man 3 for example). Out of curiosity, do you just dismiss anything that falls under genre work as not capable of enriching your life, if for nothing other than entertainment purposes? Which I personally find no fault with, we all need to be entertained.

I did view the film last night and enjoyed it, it may not be to everyone’s taste but that is what makes for lively discussions. I thought it was well acted and also enjoyed the music used within the film.

reply

[–] MelanieSwift 11 years ago

Clearly you have no idea of the critical praise Whedon received for his 2012 postmodern satire, The Cabin in the Woods.

No, this is not part of my post.

reply

[–] windtunneldan 11 years ago

"sci-fi and vampire slaying and comic book heroes do not usually make for a very profound view of the human condition, nor of the art of cinema."

Really? 2001, 1984, Solaris, blade Runner, Brazil, primer, gattaca, Polanskis fearless vampire killers, Werner Herzogs Nosferatu, Able Ferras The Addiction, the Watchmen, uzumaki, road to perdition (based on a comic), History of violence (based on a comic), Ghost World (based on a comic.)

My ever-growing film Collection http://daytrip.dvdaf.com/owned

reply

[–] Balthazar-5 11 years ago

The word was 'usually'.... you have 16 in that list.... that's out of how many in those genres.... even in the last couple of decades.
Incidentally there are plenty of reasonable vampire films, but only a couple of great ones - you missed out the greatest - Murnau's Nosferatu on which Werner Herzog based his film of the same title. But few of them are very profound. The profundity is usually in the integration of the 'nature' of cinema (the art of darkness, and the preserver of dead people) with the theme of the film through the visual exposition.
1984 is based on a major philosophical novel which trumps its generic origins - hardly sci-fi, more futurist distopia. There are several on your list that I haven't seen so will not comment.
Many of the greatest films - Citizen Kane, Vertigo, La Règle du Jeu, City Lights, and, more recently, The Tree of Life, are either completely outside genre or differ from other genre examples so completely that the genre association is meaningless.
Trying to find the quality in a film by examining its genre credentials is like looking for physical beauty in someone by gazing at their rectum. It is looking in the wrong place.

'Wisdom would be to see life, really see, that would be wisdom.' JLG.

reply

[–] BlueeyedSara 11 years ago

"Trying to find the quality in a film by examining its genre credentials is like looking for physical beauty in someone by gazing at their rectum. It is looking in the wrong place."

But that is exactly what you did in your original post. Without seeing this movie and only by looking at Whedon's filmography, you dismissed this movie and him.

reply

[–] joshuajudah 11 years ago

Wow. I hate people like you.

Get that bottle of wine out of your ass.

reply

[–] fritz-59 11 years ago

"...sci-fi and vampire slaying and comic book heroes do not usually make for a very profound view of the human condition, nor of the art of the cinema."

You, sir, are a pretentious fool.

It is not the genre that determines the quality of the work, but the execution. Science fiction, fantasy, and even comic book genres are, at their best, *exactly* examinations of the human condition. If you can't see past genre to the theme, you're not much of a critic.

As for Joss' "Much Ado About Nothing", it was absolutely a labor of love, and it shows. I just watched the film on Saturday, and it was fantastic, with some brilliant staging choices and fine performances from all involved. I have watched innumerable film adaptations of Shakespeare, including the vaunted Branagh version of this same play, and this may be the first adaptation that felt truly *alive* to me. Is Joss' film perfect? No. But it made me laugh, and cheer, and even on occasion brought a tear to my eye. As far as I'm concerned, any Shakespearean adaptation that can do that while using the original text is a wildly successful one.

"Cum simioli e culo meo volent."

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ChiaroscuroJean 11 years ago

First, usually very little can be done to save a bad screenplay, but a lot can be done to ruin a good screenplay. I don't know if Whedon's Alien: Resurrection screenplay was good or not, but I do know he was very displeased with how the project was handled when it left his hands.

Second, Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers are impressive movies, but are not even close to the best of Whedon's work: Firefly, Serenity, Buffy, Angel, Dr Horrible. Why did you all of his best work out?

Third, "Mostly lots of work in comic book and TV." So? Comics and TV can't make up an interesting resume?

reply

[–] Degree7 11 years ago

Cabin in the Woods and The Avengers are impressive movies

Well here's where you and I differ.

I enjoyed Buffy back in the day, but it's not exactly the Twilight Zone is it?

A director is only as good as their last film.

reply

[–] ChiaroscuroJean 11 years ago

... No, Buffy isn't the Twight Zone; they are two different shows.

Mentally, I know what I would say about TV before Buffy, the experience everytime Whedon broke the rules and trampled over my assumptions during the show's run, and seeing the new shows using techniques Whedon used on Buffy. I could write essays on the topic, but my arthritic hands would hate me. Fortunately, lots have people have written essays and bookk on the Buffy's impact, if you want talk knowledgably about the topic.

reply

[–] Degree7 11 years ago

Look, I'm sure Buffy was impactful back in the day, but that was 10 years ago!

So far, from what I can see, Joss Whedon might have been a talented and inspired writer at first, but he has really sold out hard when he made The Avengers or wrote Cabin in the Woods. I realize that we all have to put food on the table, but by simultaneously dumbing down cinema and entertainment just to please the audience is something I find almost sinful.

Those films add absolutely nothing to the language of film, they don't require an ounce of brain cell capacity to discern anything worthwhile or interesting from them. Even children's movies like Toy Story have more thematic meat to their bones than anything Joss has made in the past decade.

To me, he is just not a very interesting filmmaker at all, and this huge, devout following he is a bit of a disappointment to me for a man who has absolutely nothing to say. And now with this adaptation of 'Much Ado About Nothing', seems like some self-indulgent, film-school student work that rides on the coattails on the idea that it's independent cinema. It's about as independent as my left nut. Which is why I agree with the OP. Waste of time.

A director is only as good as their last film.

reply

[–] DexterReborn 11 years ago

I can see saying he sold out with The Avengers. It's clearly not up to par with what he is capable of. And that's coming from a huge fan of it.

But Cabin is something that Drew Goddard and Joss had been discussing for years. Something they did out of love for the horror genre. I know I can't change your mind about it, so I'm not going to attempt to. I'm just saying, I think it's a bit odd to say Cabin in the Woods was him selling out.

I have a tender spot in my heart for cripples, bastards, and broken things.

reply

[–] ChiaroscuroJean 11 years ago

Phrases like "He sold out" are highly over used. Whedon may be a particularly brilliant and creative geeky fanboy, but he's still a geeky fanboy. Accepting an opportunity to play with toys he's always wanted to play with makes him a purist (doing what he loves, not what people think he should do), not a sell-out.

I'm not going to discuss CitW. You're clearly stuck on "It's a genre movie" rather than seeing anything deeper.

Though I came to this board out of curiosity, I actually don't intend to see Much Ado About Nothing. Apparently, this was a labor of love for him, but in this instance our tastes don't intersect. I've enjoyed the versions of MAAN I've seen, but not enough to go see another one. (OTOH, I didn't intend on seeing The Avengers either and I ended up having a lot of fun watching it.)

The Avengers 2 should be entertaining, but I hope he does some more original science fiction. Firefly is still one of my most favorite things ever (and for a guy with nothing to "say", he sure did contribute a lot to a few different genres and to the quality of TV drama and genre shows). Whedon could write Oscar bait; he has the skills. If he does, I'll consider him a sell-out. Selling out what he loves in order to impress...well, people like you.

But I'm not worried. I have faith in Joss. He seems to be pretty stubborn about doing projects that make him happy, not catering to other people's expectations.

reply

[–] elegoo 11 years ago

Ah wonderful. You've basically said everything I wanted to say, but better.

I have always felt with Joss that he does what makes him happy, it's the studios and peoples expectations that have worked against him. He has written plenty of scripts that have then been ruined by studios, Buffy for example.

His choice to direct The Avengers was (probably) based on his love of comic books, and his work with Marvel over the last few years. Which film maker wouldn't want to chance to write and direct their heroes? I found the Avengers an incredibly fun and well written film, a step above the usual popcorn action film.

As for Much Ado About Nothing, just watched Joss on BBC Breakfast news saying how this whole project came out of him and his friends hanging out at his house and reading the Shakespeare plays that they love. I thought that was lovely.

As far as I'm concerned we're talking about two very different projects done for exactly the same reason - Joss Whedons pleasure.

Oh and to the OP, no need to feel sympathy for me, I can feel joy, something you seem to be missing.

”Do the stars gaze back?" Now *that's* a question.

reply

[–] thunderztorm 10 years ago

How on earth was CitW sellout? It was a brilliant movie that played around with all the established tropes of an entire genre.

reply

[–] Degree7 10 years ago

Pretty sure you're talking about Scream.

~ There is nothing more pathetic than an aging hipster.

reply

[–] PreachCaleb 10 years ago

That one too. Scream played around with the slasher tropes.

Cabin in the Woods went for more general horror tropes.

Does IMDB hate apostrophes?

reply

[–] Balthazar-5 11 years ago

This is really the nub of the matter. One can see cinematic and quasi-philosophical subtleties in some genre films. That, it seems to me to be beyond dispute. But great cinema almost invariably transcends genre. Welles' films are not in any identifiable genres. The same is of Renoir's films. They may look like comedies, or dramas but these are not really genres. John Ford made a lot of westerns, but Ford's westerns frequently created genre conventions rather than following them, and Hitchcock's thrillers were not great for being thrillers, but in the exquisite visual expression and deep psychological and moral insights contained within them. If Joss Whedon's work had anything approaching Hitchcock's cinematic qualities, I think someone would have brought him to my attention before now.

Was it really so dreadful, therefore, to doubt that someone who had worked within a 'genre sensibility', might do untold mischief to one of the greatest comedies of the greatest literary genius who has ever lived?

To make a literary analogy, Stephen King is, a fine, prolific, writer with brilliant ideas. But put his work beside that of Victor Hugo, or Dostoevsky or Tolstoy and they are just not 'there'. My IMDb ID refers to the transcendental work Au Hasard Balthazar by Robert Bresson. My taste is in what one might call the upper echelons of the cinema.

That is not to decry genre cinema, as such, just to recognise that there are different areas of cinema and when one 'area' is compared to another (rather than individual works being compared) there is a sort of hierarchy at the top of which, one does not find genre cinema.

Historically, genre cinema originates from the large studios' attempts to minimise their exposure to risk. They wanted to follow formulas that had proved popular in the past, rather than let 'creative minds' run riot and risk leaping too far ahead of the audiences.

I worked for 35 years in cultural cinema. Throughout that time I saw 250-300 films a year, on average. Even after I retired - eight years ago - I saw about 100 films a year in cinemas. But in the last five years that I have been in France, I get to see very little cinema, and I want the films that I do see to be worthy of my time and effort - I live 25 miles from the nearest major cinema.
Hence, especially since the death of Andrew Sarris and Roger Ebert, whose views I much respected, I use IMDb increasingly to plan my film viewing. So I don't like the idea that it might be being manipulated by unscrupulous marketing moguls.

'Wisdom would be to see life, really see, that would be wisdom.' JLG.

reply

[–] DexterReborn 11 years ago

You really want to know what Joss is all about?

Find the episode of Buffy called "The Body" online. It'll tell you more about Joss than any of us could hope to say. It deals with the aftermath of losing a family member. And I'll tell you right now, it's the most accurate portrayal I've ever, ever, seen on film.

And I, like you, have seen a lot of movies. A lot.

I have a tender spot in my heart for cripples, bastards, and broken things.

reply

[–] jmattingly428 11 years ago

You seem like an educated individual. You throw the names of literary figures here and there to sort of spice up your argument with intellect. I understand that you highly value the integrity of cinema and its place in society. You've repeatedly included your experience in cinema and culture, as well as your location in France. From reading your posts on this thread I have concluded that you are an intellectual, a horribly pretentious intellectual. Have you seen the film Midnight In Paris? I'm sure you have considering your background. Well, you remind me very much of the character Paul. If your memory fails you - I mean, you have seen 250 to 300 films a year for 35 years, on average of course, so I can understand if a few characters are forgotten here and there - Gil refers to him as a "pseudo-intellectual", a tour guide calls him pedantic, and overall he is simply portrayed as the obnoxious intellectual. He is very well educated and very well informed, however, he is a caricature. You seem to embody this caricature quite well, but I mean this with all due respect. I simply ask you to stoop to the level of us serfs and to view the production from the pit without pretense. I do not question your knowledge, only your ability to give it an appropriate voice.

reply

[–] Balthazar-5 11 years ago

I am, perhaps an intellectual, but not a pretentious one. The views I hold are genuine and based only on my conviction that the cinema is a great art. It seems to me that most people regard a pretentious or pseudo-intellectual as one with whom they disagree, or don't have the knowledge to be able to judge his/her opinions. One can be wrong without being pretentious. I have sufficient of a body of work behind me to not need to be pretentious.

Joss Whedon, in this film, has chosen - doubtless for honourable and sincere reasons - to move from the popular domain of genre cinema to the cultural domain of 'serious' cinema. In so doing, he must expect to be judged by a different set of criteria.

I have already admitted to my error and apologised for calling his work trash. I have read some of the reviews of the film and it certainly seems to be worth a look. I do not look down on 'popular cinema' it is simply trying to achieve something different from cultural cinema. All film is art, but great cinema is great art. Film that is not great art can be great entertainment, fun, even beautiful without being cinematic. It can also be trash.

My entire professional life was spent judging and presenting and writing about films that I regarded as having contributed significantly to the art of the cinema. I was not often found wanting in the judgments that I made.

I find it strange and sad that I spent a lot of 2011 defending Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life against ignorant attacks by people who couldn't or couldn't be bothered to open their eyes to the wonder of that masterpiece. Then I was pretentious because I could see what the detractors couldn't - in spite of it having won the Palme d'Or at Cannes. Now I am cast as a villain because my training as a writer/wordsmith alerted me to similarities in early user reviews of the film that seemed more than coincidental.

Tens of thousands of people read user reviews on IMDb and for 'small' productions like this, that can be the difference between cinemas keeping the film on for several rather than one week. My only intention in the OP was to alert users to the possibility that some of them were not genuine.

'Wisdom would be to see life, really see, that would be wisdom.' JLG.

reply

[–] jmattingly428 11 years ago

I can better understand where you're coming from now, and excuse me if I came off a bit harsh. I did not mean to call you pretentious because I disagree with you, it was only because your choice of words in a few comments came off as a bit snobby. I only feel that what Whedon has been able to create from your run of the mill sci-fi premises is worth considering in his potential to create a respectable Shakespeare adaptation. I agree with you about Tree of Life, my mother runs a small art house theatre and complained around the holidays about ignorant patrons asking for refunds because the film was not what they expected. I was blown away by the film and felt offended that 1. other patrons went into the theatre expecting an exciting Brad Pitt blockbuster and 2. that their disappointment was grounds to ask for a refund. For all I know Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing could prove to be an embarrassment, but I am still keeping an open mind for the outcome. I would place much of Whedon's work into the category of "Film that is not great art can be great entertainment...without being cinematic." which would be somewhat disappointing for a Shakespeare production, as I would hope for a great adaptation. However, I would not expect trash from Whedon in dealing with a production such as this, which would soil his image in many circles. I do respect your opinion and I do not mean to be a nuisance but I was just interested in hearing more of what you had to say on the subject.

reply

[–] mr-c-deacon 11 years ago

I can understand someone seeing his filmography and thinking "genre trash" due to it being all superheroes, horror and sci fi, however if you actually followed his work you would see that he does indeed transcend the genres he has worked on.

I would suggest watching Buffy episodes "once more with feeling" (where he uses musical storytelling) "hush" (where he forces himself to use the silent medium) or "the body" (where he deals with sudden grief in a very realistic way)and you will see just how versatile a story teller he is, even when working on something as frivolous cheerleading vampire hunter.

reply

[–] Franco_Zed 11 years ago

I would suggest watching Buffy episodes "once more with feeling" ... "hush" ... or "the body"...

I agree that those are 3 standout episodes in a series full of standout episodes, but I think that they may not be the best introduction to the series, because they are atypical. I suspect that a viewer unfamiliar with the characters would not find these episodes anywhere near as impactful as the regular viewers.

Unfortunately I think it's impossible to experience the full impact of Buffy without watching at least a half dozen episodes -- perhaps watching a string that starts with a fairly general episode and proceeds to one of the big turning points in the series. Example: Season 2 from What's My Line to Innocence.

___
All insults will be interpreted as an admission that you cannot contribute to the discussion.

reply

[–] Krustallos 11 years ago

since the death of Andrew Sarris and Roger Ebert, whose views I much respected

You might find Ebert's reviews of Whedon's work interesting then:

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-cabin-in-the-woods-2012
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/serenity-2005

He's also very complimentary about "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" which was Whedon's breakthrough hit and the series I'm most familiar with.

I'd say Whedon's stuff does transcend genre, or at least uses genre to aim at more fundamental truths - "Buffy" isn't really about killing vampires, for example, but about the trials of growing up and finding your place in the world.

No, he's not Bresson or Tarkovsky, but then Raymond Chandler isn't Dostoyevsky. Frankly I'm a little surprised that someone who claims to have been a professional film critic knows nothing of his work.

This version of "Much Ado" is fine, by the way. I think I prefer the Branagh version overall because of the Italian setting, but this one has its own charms and certainly brings out the darkness in the comedy.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] Krustallos 11 years ago

Having said all I that, I do agree that some of the user reviews are absurdly sycophantic. So much so, in fact, that I don't believe anyone's marketing department can have been behind it. Either it's truly obsessive Whedon fans or it's him or his friends trying to wind people up.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bossysheryl 11 years ago

You, in the Present. have no way of evaluating where King stands in relation to any of those authors.

All of them were considered "hacks" by the critics of their day. Their work never rested on the evaluation of their contemporary critical establishment. I'm sure that Stephen King's final place it the "canon" will be determined in much the same way that Hugo, Tolstoy and Dostoyevski's were--because people can't put it down.

reply

[–] Balthazar-5 11 years ago

I, obviously, can't foretell how King will be judged in the future, but I can compare what I see in his work with what I see in the works of the other masters of the novel, and in terms of scope and density of expression, I don't see as much - by a long way.

There is a whole lot of tosh that is engaging enough to be 'un-put-downable'. That art is defined and judged by its ability to stand the test of time is my mantra, but that doesn't prevent those with a sense of cultural history and aesthetics seeking to measure today's culture with that of days or eras gone by.

I don't see many people on IMDb showing that kind of respect for the cinema's greatest works - almost all of which were made before the vast majority of contributors to the debate ( me included) were born.

If I were the sort of person who was mainly concerned with contemporary cinema, your observations might have some justification, but I am, at heart, a film historian and so see modern cinema in terms of how it does or (mainly, regrettably) does not advance the cinema aesthetically when put beside the great works of the past. Instead of standing on the shoulders of giants, most contemporary film-makers seem as if they wish to emulate minnows.

'Wisdom would be to see life, really see, that would be wisdom.' JLG.

reply

[–] redcapjack-514-563537 11 years ago

I've read a lot of posts on IMDB but this is the one that I think may just take the cake as being the most pretentious, arrogant, and dismissive thing I've ever seen written. This isn't really an opinion or thought on film, this is the result of years of being told WHAT is good by a cadre of supposed "intellectuals". There isn't an original or introspective thought to be had... it's just repetitive film school regurgitated for the sake of proving just how "in line" their opinions are with their fellow elitists.

Roger Eberts' opinions on specific films constantly changed with the culture of the time, with constant revisions to try and re-rate the films he originally hated to make it seem like he had always been its' strongest champion all along. He was an elitist snob, plain and simple. Once Ado About Nothing was well done and I enjoyed it immensely. I was a fan of the 92 movie, I've seen the play twice, and was also looking forward to Whedon since I've enjoyed many of his earlier movies and television shows. Not entirely certain what's been missed, but his work often utilizes genre conventions to tell much more in depth stories about characters in a situation... which is the crux of any decent story. Characters in a situation, facing a conflict from both within and without. It's about their transformation and how it effects the conclusion as it draws near. Whedon is very good at building character dynamics and in getting his actors bring the best of their abilities to his lens.

reply

[–] msdantemax 11 years ago

I'm sorry but I fail to agree with you. To me Whedon has produced some of the best shows existing and some great movies as well. You will laugh but up untill 2011 I wasn't even aware to have enjoyed so many shows created by the same man. I usually read his name in the credits but never cared much for it and immediately forgot that he was somewhat involved (call me ignorant, I used to be 'that guy' that always left before the credits, this has drastically changed now tough). But after finding out that this man created Buffy (my favourite show ever), Angel (close second), Firefly (my favourite sci-fi show next to Star Trek TOS) wrote Disneys' Atlantis and did the screenplay for Toy Story I started following him. Most of his work is simply great and belongs to the best in their genres.

Now, I haven't seen Much Ado about Nothing yet and I'm not really expecting too much since I know that the conditions it was shot in were a lot more lighthearted than in other productions but saying that this is something just for people with a warped vision of art is just a slap in the face towards people that enjoy his work or generally...art lovers. That has nothing to do with Whedon but telling people that their enjoyment of a certain piece of art is just there because they have been exposed to too much of its kind that their vision on art has degraded is plain and simple ignorant.
Hell, I don't like a lot of stuff but I won't tell people that enjoy it that their enjoyment is unjustified...the more I think about your comment the angrier I get...I should calm down now and stop picturing you as a pretentious frenchman with a baguette in the one, a glass of whine in the other, a cigarete in your mout, a moustache above your lips and a song called "I'm sooo much better than all of you"" playing in the background (no offense towards you guys in france, that was joke)
Before you tell me that this isn't art tough I'll just post my view on art here: art is what makes you question wether it is art or not.

On your comment about the user reviews were 'manipulated' as a marketing stunt: the film was produced with an almost non-existant budget and has the hype surrounding Whedon to back it up. There's no need for manipulating user reviews.

reply

[–] Degree7 11 years ago

did the screenplay for Toy Story

He only added the Dinosaur and Mary characters.

A director is only as good as their last film.

reply

[–] msdantemax 11 years ago

The I was obviously giving him too much credit for this one, still I loved the dinosaur.

reply

[–] patrick-413 11 years ago

Both your taste and judgment are suspect if you can say "TRASH" about films you haven't seen. Whedon is one of the best writers of screenplay dialog currently working in the English language, period. If you haven't seen anything he's done, then you have absolutely no credibility, and more than a little bit of self-important pretentiousness.

If you simply think "Oh, he's done something *popular* - I sniff my nose at him"... then MY sympathy to YOU.

reply

[–] Balthazar-5 11 years ago

Strange if his forte is dialogue, he chose to make a film using someone else's.

Whether a film is popular or not has nothing at all to do with its quality... see, for example, the works of Bresson and Dreyer on the one hand and Hitchcock and Chaplin on the other.

'Wisdom would be to see life, really see, that would be wisdom.' JLG.

reply

[–] siren34 11 years ago

To the OP. I think this film is not for you.

From what I have read about this film, Joss has friends over his home that he works with routinely in film and TV. While there, for fun, sometimes they would read and act out plays.

This was shot in like 12 days, in his home, with his friends and co-workers.

Watching this is like being invited into his home to watch. Here is a Quote from an article interviewing him:

The film is also a delight for Whedon acolytes who like to play Spot the Actor, because just about everybody in this film has previously appeared in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse, or one of Whedon's movies. After becoming friends on past works, they were invited to Whedon's home (where Much Ado was filmed) for a Shakespeare brunch, in which they would read a play, get smashed, and sing some tunes — which gave the writer-director the idea to turn one of those plays into a film.

He did not toil for years to make a "perfect" adaptation of this play. He made his version, with his friends. I am looking forward to seeing it.

reply

[–] Balthazar-5 11 years ago

I sincerely hope you enjoy it and I have great admiration for the director's choice of play, I wish a few more industry stalwarts would do the same, it might greatly improve their work.

'Wisdom would be to see life, really see, that would be wisdom.' JLG.

reply

[–] erilaz 11 years ago

Strange if his forte is dialogue, he chose to make a film using someone else's.

Whedon had his actors come over to his house for regular Shakespeare readings, so the film is a natural outgrowth of that, and indeed one that many Whedon fans (including myself) have desired for a long time.

Even with someone else's words, Whedon still manages to inject his wit into the film, without resorting to the inclusion of inauthentic dialogue. One such moment is a bit where Dogberry and Verges discover that they have locked themselves out of their car. It's played without any dialogue, it's perfectly in character, and it's most assuredly not in Shakespeare's original stage directions.

Of course, Whedon has long since proven that he doesn't even need words to create great dialogue. Some of the funniest "lines" in the "Hush" episode of Buffy are nothing more than gestures and facial expressions.

reply

[–] Balthazar-5 11 years ago

Fine - I've spent/wasted so much time on this thread that I am by now looking forward to seeing the film, so I hope I will not be wasting even more time.

'Wisdom would be to see life, really see, that would be wisdom.' JLG.

reply

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

I have seen works by all these filmakers. I would put Whedon's work up there with them. Unlike you I have no wish to emulate the critics of Hitchcock, who dismissed his greatest films as, 'gratuitous entertainment for the masses'. You remind me of all those critics who dismissed Dickens as not worthy of being taught at University, Austen as being just a woman. Tolkien and JK Rowling were going to be forgotten in five/ten years time as well. Living in France is no excuse. It was the French critics who never dismissed Hitchcock, who defined a series of Grade B movies from Hollywood as Film Noir and helped elevate John Ford's 'The Searchers' to iconic masterpiece. Critics in the USA dismissed it as just a genre piece. French critics are amongst the most discerning critics in the world. You are not a critic, you are a pretentious snob.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

reply

[–] Balthazar-5 11 years ago

Unfortunately 'film studies' tends to value analysis of popular films more than it does that of more (obviously) serious work.

'Wisdom would be to see life, really see, that would be wisdom.' JLG.

reply

[–] lanina001 11 years ago

Just because something is popular, in any sense of the word, doesn't mean it's not serious. It's like saying Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire is not serious because it's main character is a vampire. That's absolute hogwash.

And yes, your amazing ability to divine whether a project is serious or not is pretentious whether you object to the characterisation or not. Those types of judgements are the reason why academics are going back to 17th-18th-19th-20th century literature and having to re-evaluate classics that were once thought of as "not serious".

reply

[–] Balthazar-5 11 years ago

a) I am not against popular cinema.
b) You haven't really been following the thread as I very clearly stated a bit more than a week ago that it is clearly not the case that genre cinema cannot be serious.

But just because a filmmaker's work is popular or has a loyal, devoted or obsessive following does not make it good either.

I am awaiting my box set of Firefly. Since I have been assured that this is Whedon's 'masterpiece', I will pass judgement after I have seen it....

'Wisdom would be to see life, really see, that would be wisdom.' JLG.

reply

[–] DexterReborn 11 years ago

Then you have to watch til, at least, the episode Out of Gas. Gives you time to get to know the characters before punching you in the gut.

With awesome.

Okay. That metaphor kind of fell apart

I have a tender spot in my heart for cripples, bastards, and broken things.

reply

[–] joey-tribbiani 11 years ago

Or maybe it's just a film that uses the content of the play to make a film and the idea of something doing "justice" to something doesn't usually come about - particularly because it's difficult due to different tastes and responses to film and stories.

reply

[–] redeem147 11 years ago

Because he's far from total trash.

reply

[–] SuperMan7731 11 years ago

by Balthazar-5 (Sat Jun 8 2013 16:08:23)

I concede that my original remark about Whedon's work was sweeping and not based on any close knowledge, but... sci-fi and vampire slaying and comic book heroes do not usually make for a very profound view of the human condition, nor of the art of the cinema.

As I previously said, maybe, maybe this film is a labour of love and has great value, but IMDb has its own way of preventing the marketing crowd from stuffing the responses with false positives, and there seemed to me to be too much unanimity in what was being said in the positive user reviews for a film that at the time had a score of just 6.5 and, frankly, I detest the idea of corporate greed distorting the view of films reflected in these pages.

If it turns out to be great - cinematically - I will be as happy as anyone.

The great thing about his movies is that the supernatural and sci-fi aspects are just the window dressing. The back drop in which he places his characters in front of. That is almost the whole "joke" of Buffy. You know that the world is never really going to end, so the bulk of the series is about human interactions. Insecurities. Loss. That in the grand scheme of things, even when the world is in peril, we are still working through the problems and pitfalls of our own selfish needs and wants.

This man deals in character development like a baker deals in flour. He, if to reuse a term from earlier, has a masterful control over the subjects in these properties.

In less than one full season, Joss created one of my favorite fictional tv characters. Captain Malcolm Reynolds. To call him a man of honor would still not properly describe the love, respect and duty that he feels is owed to his "crew". A conflicted man that is still fighting a war that is long over with (and lost). A fantastic character.

Even Angel, who I greatly prefer over Buffy, is a tortured soul that is written in a way that portrays a lifetime of eternal loneliness. Never completely letting those that love him in because of fear that he will hurt them. constantly fighting his urges to do what is natural to him in order to do what is right.

I am a fan of him, obviously, but I am a much larger fan of the vivid worlds that he has created for me to enjoy.

http://twitter.com/superman_7731

reply