MovieChat Forums > Much Ado About Nothing (2013) Discussion > Maybe something strange about the user r...

Maybe something strange about the user reviews...

posted 11 years ago by Balthazar-5
156 replies | jump to latest

I love Shakespeare's play - probably his greatest comedy - and Kenneth Branagh's version of it (even though I don't rate Branagh as a director). I currently live in France and there is no announced date for the release of this version in France (maybe there is a reason for that), so I cannot comment on the film, however I have been fascinated to read the user reviews of the film.
The most interesting thing for me has been the frequent expression 'I love Joss Whedon's work' (or some such).... So I check out Joss Whedon's filmography.... TOTAL, TOTAL TRASH!!! If, therefore, the reviewers had said 'I went along to see this in spite of Joss Whedon's track record', I might have thought - 'OK, let's see'.
So maybe, maybe, this is a labour of love that truly does justice to Shakespeare's masterpiece. And maybe, maybe, it has been shot in black and white for a stylistic reason not to make it look 'different' ('arty' is a word I never use - it has one 'y' too many)'.
But I think maybe, maybe, this is a film for those whose warped aesthetics allow them to love Joss Whedon's work.
Good luck and my sympathy to them.

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

[–] maliha-parveen 11 years ago

There is indeed something very strange about everything on IMDB. Especially, everything.

The first strangeness I have come across by browsing through this discussion is that every moviegoer should apparently know who the hell Joss Whedon is.

So, this Joss Whedon guy wrote few stories and screenplay for movies/tv-series and I am supposed to worship him? He directed pretty less movies as well. Are all the posters here from USA? I am going to assume that majority of them are indeed US Americans with few exceptions.

You know, I did watch few of this J-God's work but somehow it bored me to let me continue. I didn't even know who he was and now it seems like I am going to be murdered for blasphemy against this J-God's petty works. I can't believe someone actually said that the dialogues by Joss Whedon saved movies? lol

See, unless you are someone who grew up watching Buffy or Firefly kinda American stuff, I doubt you would be impressed by his work. There is one way that you can though but that would require you to join the cult of J-God and get along with these obsessive worshippers of a B-grade director/writer.

To obsessive J-God worshippers: Get a friggin life. Just because you know this guy enough to worship him and will do literally anything to watch 'movies or tv series' that has his name written on it - don't expect the entire world to feel the same.

[–] WoodCheese 11 years ago

Don't pay attention to geek fanboys living in their parents' basements.

I'm not saying Whedon is bad, but he's definitely no big deal (to geeks giving up lives for comic books -- which this board is full of naturally -- sure, maybe). Firefly was not that good (rip off of different cliched stories turned into Sci-Fi so that dumb ones would see them as original). Buffy is just... no, just no. Avengers, what can I say, good for fanboys. As a standalone film, not so much.

He's the much better version of Michael Bay who can actually write and direct, but I don't see what can he offer to people looking for FILM rather than another MOVIE. Hopefully this Shakespeare film can change my opinion about him as I'm about to watch it now, and I am approaching it with an open mind.

[–] mishima_ryu 11 years ago

I just had to say that Firefly really is that good. It's impossible to watch the entire series and not fall in love with the universe and characters. All the nay-sayers I know took it back and converted after watching the whole thing.

[–] grimjac100 11 years ago

I'm trying to figure out the criteria to distinguish FILM from another MOVIE. Most of this thread has been about how certain films are `masterpieces' and certain books are `literature' as opposed to stupid brain-dead genre entertainment crap.

I think the actual criteria is: "If nobody likes or understands it and it sounds like we're smart if we talk about it, it's FILM. If nobody wants to see it, it's FILM. If other people like it outside of our circle, it's just another MOVIE because that means our opinions aren't special and we're not any better than those unwashed cretins."

Newsflash, bunnies: Shakespeare wrote for the ha'penny seats. It wasn't until years and years later that the intellectuals co-opted his work. It endured because it was POPULAR and people wanted to see...and later, read...his work. He wrote fart jokes, stupid puns, turned a man into an ass...very intellectual high-brow stuff.

A lot of Serious Literature can be summed up in a few short words: life sucks, and then you die. "War & Peace"? Life sucks, then you and a lot of people die. "The Brothers Karamazov"? Life sucks and then you die. Most anything written by a Russian? Life sucks and then you die.

Suffering, malaise, and ultimate futility seem to be the hallmark of supposed `literature'. Most `literature' and `FILM' don't encourage you to grow, but instead to give up. Don't reach for the stars, lay in the gutter and moan about your fate...and how life is like the rancid water trickling down the drain of the universe.

Sorry, I like life too much to worry about Real Literature or FILM. This is why I prefer Dumas to Tolstoy...I want books and movies that inspire me with what a man (or woman) can achieve. I want the wonder and excitement of life, not the certainty of an eventual death. I want the possibilities of success, not the inevitability of futility and failure.

Sure, maybe that marks me as low-brow, unwashed, un-intellectual, whatever terms of disdain you may choose to level. I don't hold it against anyone who thinks they're better than me. I have fun and enjoy my life...and my tastes in movies and books. Sneer at me for my low-brow unenlightened enjoyment, my ignorance of True Literature and FILM which assure us that the true state of mankind is misery, so slump your shoulders and trudge onward.

Because, as a somewhat well known and oft-paraphrased book...which might be considered a classic...puts it: the meek shall inherit the earth.

The rest of us are headed for the stars.

"I know you got guts...I can see 'em!" Norbert Sykes

[–] MrCaine 11 years ago

He pretty much became a god after avengers.In case you didn't know witty dialogue=genius filmmaking...at least that what brain dead comic books nerds yell at me.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mwmcclendon 9 years ago

In other words, "I hate everything ever associated with Shakespeare, except this one thing." Quote: "Have had Shakespeare shoved up my wazoo in schools, including honors seminar at an Ivy League [N.M., we are all soooo impressed at your education] univ. Honestly, don't love, just respect him...."
If you, in your infinite wisdom and superlative education only like "The Tempest," why bother posting on any other work? You already hate it, so why should I care about your opinion on any other work?
How seriously would you take me if I wrote, "I hate all Quentin Tarantino movies except for Four Rooms, but Inglorious Basterds was not good."?

Also, OMG: Shakespearean pronunciation is different from modern pronunciation!!!!!!!! Really? That is a point of contention with you? You think that all Shakespearean works should be spoken in our best approximation of the then-current vernacular? Not going to happen.

Here's the thing, translate the heck out of the text, pronounce it as a Canadian would, an Aussie would, an American would... the meaning persists. That is what makes Shakespeare nigh eternal. He wrote plays that (while internalizing some specific mythological references) encapsulate the human experience. "Oh, noes," this does not match with current speech patterns." Do you throw out (most of) the text, or re-write for the modern vernacular? I like a production that is closer to the original text, if you like a modernized script, whatever.

I refuse to be either one of those types of wankers who claim that the plays *must* be done as originally written, or one of those types of wanker who claims that, "we can totally set "Two Gentlemen of Verona" in 1950's Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA where everyone is a gangster and they all talk like mooks.

How do you rate the film version of the Olivier version of Henry the V (in which knights are seriously a-historically winched onto horses and, by-the-way, the acting sucked)?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PreachCaleb 9 years ago

I've read Shakespeare for fun. Still do.

Can't stop the signal.

[–] mwmcclendon 9 years ago

I read Shakespeare for pleasure. I prefer to watch Shakespeare's works well-played, but I do read them for pleasure. If you don't, then perhaps you are not in a great position to criticize. You need to be able to set the scenes yourself, to be the director. If you can't read a Shakespearean play and be in the play, perhaps you are not understanding it as well as you think.
If you read "Romeo and Juliette" without an understanding of contemporary sword-play, you miss nuances. The English hack-and-slash is meeting a new style of continental rapier work... It's all there in the text
Act II Sc. IV
Benv. "Why, what is Tybalt?
Merc. More than the price of cats, I can tell you. O, he is ... [del] He fights as you sing prick-song, keeps time, distance, and proportion; rests me his minim rest, one, two, and the third in your bosom: the very butcher of a silk button, a duellist, a duelist..."
Then, when Mercurtio is stabbed under Romeo's interference, he is dealt a fatal blow (a relatively small entry puncture wound can easily lead to fatal internal bleeding, compared to big nasty looking slashes that look bad, but are not imminently fatal)...

Benv. "What, art thou hurt?
Mer. Ay, ay, a scratch, a scratch: marry, 'tis enough. [del]
Rom. Courage, man; the hurt cannot be much.
Mer. No, 'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but 'tis enough, 'twill serve: ask for me to-morrow and you shall find me a grave man.

One of my favorite moments. Not some abstract, BS, "English Lit." version of Shakespeare. This is a connection to the real life of his time that is attested to historical events, but is also transcendent in the dramatic trope of the hero, trying to do good, but ending in a bad result.

...I'm not really saying that Shakespeare was some sort of universal genius set outside of time, just that he and his ilk are the ones that end up making critical and box-office block busters. So perhaps we should try to understand why.

[–] RhiaAki1185 11 years ago

You, sir, are irritating and frustrating.

[–] Stoshie 11 years ago

You know what they say - everybody has an @sshole and an opinion.

This guy is the former, which makes the latter worthless.

[–] Stoshie 11 years ago

So you are reviewing a movie you haven't seen?

Brilliant!

Maybe next you could tell us about some books you haven't read, or some music you haven't heard. I'm sure we'd be thrilled to hear your opinions!

[–] Rick-34 11 years ago

Classic trolling.