Much Ado About Nothing

Much Ado about Nothing is actually one of Shakespeare's plays that I have neither read nor seen. So coming into this movie was like coming into any other movie, this movie just happened to be based on a Shakespearian play. One of the other big draws about this movie was the fact that Joss Whedon directed it.

Something that I didn't know until I watched the film was that Joss Whedon basically called up all his friends from projects he had worked on before, Buffy, Angel, Dollhouse, Firefly and The Avengers and had them all come together to work on this film.

Much Ado About Nothing is the modern retelling of the Shakespearian play by the same name. It accounts the story of a wealthy man (played by Clark Gregg), his daughter Hero (played by Jillian Morgese) and his niece Beatrice (played by Amy Acker) being visited by the Prince of Aragon (played by Reed Diamond) and his companions, Benedick (played by Alexis Denisof) and Claudio (played by Fran Kanz)

As in any Shakespearian comedy, characters fall in love right away and it is matched up as Claudio falls in love with Hero. Benedick and Beatrice immediately find a certain distain for one another and both swear that they will never fall in love. Then comes the plan of their families and friends to get them to fall in love with one another.

All the while the Prince's brother (played by Sean Maher) and his companions have a secret plan to create mischief and turmoil for his brother and his hosts.

Honestly, there's a lot that happens in this story. There's the plot that Claudio is in love with Hero, then the plot to get Benedick and Beatrice together, and then there's the plan to persuade Claudio that Hero has been unfaithful, then there's the plan to fool Claudio into thinking Hero is dead. All the while Beatrice and Benedick are falling in love with each other under the false pretense that the other one is falling in love with them.

Its a really fun story and I'm actually kind of surprised it has taken me this long to hear the story.

Now is it Shakespeare's best comedy? Not at all. The characters have these long monologues about how they'll never fall in love and its painfully obvious that they're going to end up together in the end. Don John, the Prince's brother, is the antagonist of the movie... I guess? At least in the film he is a very underdeveloped character and just wants to cause trouble... well because.

All that being said, the movie is fun. While I don't love the story, it still is Shakespeare, its still good and the actors give a good interpretation of it.

The way this movie comes off as, it looks like this was not Joss Whedon's Magnum Opus, it was just a fun pet project he was able to do upon the success of the Avengers. Which I have to give him credit is actually really cool. Just getting your friends together to do Shakespeare sounds like a director's dream.

Now with that, I have to say I don't know if I really saw any real signs that this was absolutely a Joss Whedon film.

Before I begin this rant, I want a little bit of a disclaimer: I really like Joss Whedon. I loved The Avengers, I loved Firefly and I know he's a really talented director and writer.

That being said, I get a little peeved when people oversell Joss Whedon. We all know he's finally getting the credit he deserves with him helming a lot of the Marvel Cinematic universe but I will not be one to say that he's only done gold his entire career.

I think Buffy the Vampire Slayer is good... ish. I personally don't think its as ground breaking as some people do. I have not seen Angel. I loved Firefly but I'm not one of the many that think it should be brought back. Would I enjoy it if it was brought back? Yes. Is it a necessity? No. While it didn't deserve being pulled off as early as it did, it had problems and was not a perfect show. Dollhouse I can't really speak on but there had to have been a reason for it being cancelled so early. Also he wrote Alien Resurrection and did Cabin in the Woods, a movie I enjoyed only because it was a little quirky but most people did not enjoy... again, not all his stuff is gold.

Even The Avengers I don't think you can give all the credit to Whedon. You have to remember that the Marvel Cinematic Universe was started before Whedon was brought in and it was only after all the characters had been developed and starred in their own movie that Whedon took the wheel and knocked it out of the park with The Avengers.

Coming back to Much Ado, its good. Its not ground breaking. And if I didn't know that the majority of the cast were people that Whedon worked with in the past, I would have no inclination to think that Joss Whedon directed this film.

As far as individual performances go, its a pretty solid cast.

Alexis Denisof is a strange actor because I'm not totally sure if I like him or not. The minute I figured out he was in this movie, all I could think about was Sandy Rivers from How I Met Your Mother.

Muy Caliente!

He's a little over the top which I know Shakespearian actors need to be because often the text is too complex and non-verbal acting is required to bridge the gap of understanding the play. But Denisof just has this very strange method of acting. I'm still out on whether or not A) I like it and B) It's good.

Amy Acker plays Beatrice and by god is she gorgeous.

The one problem I had with Amy Acker's interpretation of Beatrice is that almost all of her dialogue seems like she's talking sarcastically. I don't know if that's true to the tone of Beatrice in the play, but if it is, its kind of annoying that every single line of dialogue she brings is sarcasm. Now Amy Acker does it in such a cute way that I would not be surprised if any man would fall in love with her if he overheard someone else saying that she had fallen in love with him. But its just overused and it gets a little bit stale after a while.

The other actors in the movie are quite good. Clark Gregg just reminds me of Coulson the entire time, Sean Maher is fun although under utilized in my opinion. There are a lot of good performances but again, like the film, this doesn't seem like an award seeking or winning movie, it just seems like a fun chance to do Shakespeare.

But if anybody in this cast stole the show, it was definitely Nathan Fillion.

Now if there is any fads or beliefs that I have jumped on the bandwagon for when it comes to Joss Whedon properties, its that Nathan Fillion needs more work. I personally thought that the man deserved more than a CGI cameo in Guardians of the Galaxy and needs to be a superhero sooner rather than later.

But in Much Ado he's the head of the Prince's security or head of the night's watch. Him and Tom Lenk just give this super funny performance whether its physical comedy or how they deliver their lines. Unfortunately their parts really aren't that large but if you're going to remember anything from the film, its probably these two. Now I won't say that this is the film you should look to to see that Nathan Fillion needs more work, you can look to Firefly or Castle for that. But this, again, seems like just a fun chance to do Shakespeare, nothing more.

And perhaps thats all this movie was meant to be. It wasn't meant to be ground breaking, it wasn't meant to be a great movie, just a good one. If you're looking for a good interpretation and modern take on Shakespeare, I don't think you have to look much further than this movie.

Again, lets not oversell this movie or Joss Whedon and say its the greatest thing since sliced bread, lets just say it was good, not great, but good.

Oh and if you're wondering why its in black and white... well I have no idea...

But those are my thoughts on Much Ado About Nothing. Have you seen this film? What do you think? Do you think people oversell Joss Whedon or do you think people aren't selling him enough? Comment and discuss below.

I'll leave you with this. I may have put this up before but I think since this is a Joss Whedon film, it might interest you to hear the theory of how all of Joss Whedon's works are connected. Enjoy!