User reviews

This is such a great adaptation. The actors speak their lines with clarity and emotion. The cinematography is great, and the movie is in turns very funny and tragic. A lot will be written about how Hero would never simply die because she was accused of 'not being a virgin', well she didn't. For once when I was watching it I got a sense of what was driving Claudio, his sense of betrayal and hurt. What he did was reprehensible but you could understand that he did have what he thought was good reasons. And for once I got a sense of real threat from Benedict's challenge. Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof made a delightful Beatrice and Benedict. You could feel the attraction there and you knew why Don Redro had such an easy time of it convincing his fellow conspirators to get them together.

What really impressed me about this film is how obvious it is that the cast is having a good time. The acting seems to be effortless and it is all spot on, and Clark Gregg/Nathan Fillion/Reed Diamond are hilariously funny. I think this is how Shakespeare should be done, as simply great entertainment. When you have that, you have the complexities laid out before you and like Claudio's anger you can see the reasons for the actions of the characters plainly.

'Much Ado About Nothing' has been very well served by Wheedon and his company of players, such a joy and that can be so rare in films nowadays.

I was lucky enough to see Much Ado at the UK premier last weekend, and I'm very glad I got the chance. I've been a big fan of Joss Whedon's work for a long time. However my knowledge of Shakespeare is very little, so I read the play first, which really helped me understand the text and the time period and appreciate some of the humour. I would highly recommend any Whedon fan who isn't familiar with Shakespeare to read the play before you see the film.

Much Ado struck me as a lovely little independent film. It's a delight for fans of Joss, as we get to see many fan favourite actors clearly having a great time. Alexis and Amy both shine, and Nathan was hilarious and great, despite this being his first time doing Shakespeare. The acting from the entire ensemble is consistently engaging, and most importantly, the film is funny throughout. Filmed entirely at Joss's house, which is a beautiful location and made all the better in glorious black and white. This and the understated music really add an interesting atmosphere to the film. After all, it is a 500 year old play put in a modern day setting, so it's kind of other-worldly. As for what this interpretation adds to the much loved play, certainly there are some subtleties of the characters and their lives which Joss has expanded on.

This film is the first to be released through Joss's independent production company Bellwether Pictures, and it bodes very well for the future of Joss's independent film work.

Well Joss, you have done something no one else has ever accomplished....got me to watch a Shakespeare film. And all I can say is what a treat! For years, I have read about your Shakespeare get togethers at your home and it is nice to see an extension of that on the screen. When I first read that you had filmed this at your home and in only 12 days, I thought it would be unpolished and only available online or via DVD purchase. It appears I was wrong on both counts. This is a great production for anyone that knows your work and the cast you have worked with so many times before. If they do not know your work and see this because it is Shakespeare, I don't believe anyone will leave the theatre disappointed. Congratulations also regarding North American distribution rights being sold at TIFF.

Thanks again on an excellent bit of entertainment and congratulations to you and your amazing cast and crew!

I was pleasantly surprised to discover this movie on Hulu a few night ago, and since Much Ado About Nothing is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays, I was eager to dive in.

For the most part, it doesn't disappoint. Whedon, as usual, has a good eye for mood and for how dialog impacts action. The visual of the "mourners" coming down the hillside with candles was in itself an amazing feat of cinematography and setting, for example. The acting was superb as well, and in general this modern translation of the play captures its essence and impact.

Some specifics for me:

1) The actress playing Beatrice -- amazing job. Hate to say this, but I think she may have done a better job of interpreting the role than Emma Thompson in many ways. Very believable incarnation, and this helped to make the humor of her biting wit more comprehensible.

2) The backstory -- Not that every little piece has to be specifically addressed, but I didn't quite get what Don Pedro was the "prince" of. Not sure if he and his "soldiers" were Mafia, or actual royalty, or what, but that lack of clarity seemed to hurt the credibility a bit.

3) The actor playing Benedick -- I've seen him before in other things, and he's generally good, but I don't think this was the role for him. As much as Beatrice sold her role to the audience, Benedick did not, especially in the dramatic scenes. He was okay in the purely comedic scenes, granted, but for me and others, his lack of "presence" hurt the relationship between him and Beatrice. Benedick is a difficult role, and perhaps another Whedon associate could have done it more justice. Tudyk, perhaps? Or put Fillion there instead of Dogberry?

4) General interpretation -- Lots of little things throughout to really help make the action and the words clear, or perhaps to put a little different twist to things. When Claudio sees Hero faint, for example, he instinctively starts to go to her but is restrained by Pedro; nice touch. The music is fun, and I'm going now to find this version of "Hey, Nonny, Nonny." Not quite sure why black and white was chosen, but no complaints; it adds some "classiness" to this movie. Acting in general was good -- Don John, Don Pedro, Leonato, Claudio, Ursula -- nearly everyone gave Branaugh's version a run for its money.

5) Diversity -- Not sure why this was so very, very white. I think there is a danger in diversity for diversity's sake, but no major roles in other ethnicities at all?

6) Dogberry -- It's going to be difficult for anyone to top Michael Keaton's take on Dogberry, but Nathan Fillion does a pretty good job here. I think one weakness is that somone (Whedon?) decided that Dogberry ought to have some credibility, so Fillion had to navigate tricky waters with the character. Not sure it completely worked, but Fillion did what he could with what he was given.

All in all, a fun rendition of a great play. I enjoyed the risks Whedon took, and the overall feeling of "a party gone wrong and then put right again."

This Shakespeare adaptation hit the perfect tone for me. It felt intimate yet, after the story started to flow, was a delight to follow. Sometimes, Shakespeare on screen can be a labor for those with more modern sensibilities. That is not the case here at all. The first fifteen minutes or so were tedious but after those establishing scenes everything hit a great stride and became a delight to watch. Nothing seemed stuffy or pompous and everything flowed quite well. I'm very impressed with Whedon's ability to induce such a wonderful coupling of performance and story in just a few days worth of shooting. I'm not surprised given his intelligence and talent but it's still impressive. The cast was superb, every last one of them.

Greetings again from the darkness. The previous movie version of William Shakespeare's play Much Ado About Nothing was directed in 1993 by Kenneth Branagh, who also directed Thor (2011). This modernized, much simpler version is directed by Joss Whedon, who also directed The Avengers last year. It's difficult to imagine a more oddball movie symmetry than that! Whedon's production plays almost like a home movie, and in a way it is. Filmed at the director's Santa Monica house with a cast featuring mostly a close group of his friends ... those that frequently gather for Shakespeare dinner parties ... this one exudes a certain joy and love of the material from all involved.

I have always been more attracted to Shakespeare's comedies than his more famous tragedies. His startling wordsmithing is always filled with an edge and is borne of real personalities we all recognize. Combine that with director Whedon's love of rapid-fire, wise-cracking dialogue and we get something from the ilk of Preston Sturges or Howard Hawks screwball comedies.

The banter and battle of wits between Beatrice (Amy Acker) and Benedick (Alexis Denisof) are at the heart of the story. Their flirtations are recognizable as two who doth protest too much ... as if it could hide their mutual attraction. In one of the most pure comedic roles from the pen of Shakespeare comes Dogberry, the detective on the case of the dark conspiracy occurring right under the noses of most characters. Nathan Fillion ("Castle") plays Dogberry in such a manner that he steals every scene in which he appears ... both verbally and physically. He provides some laugh out loud moments.

You will recognize some of the others in Whedon's acting troupe: Reed Diamond plays Don Pedro, Clark Gregg as Leonato, and Fran Kranz as Claudio. Newcomer Jillian Morgese plays Hero, the wronged bride-to-be, whose misfortunes lead to the great Dogberry scenes.

The temptation here is to say that a very entertaining movie can be made simply, cheaply and quickly (12 days filming). Of course, as wonderful as Amy Acker is, the real star is the story from William Shakespeare ... even in this modernized setting. As we all know, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Whedon and his cronies prove this.

Transposed to an American setting, Joss Whedon's MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING proves a highly entertaining romance. The two central characters Beatrice (Amy Acker) and Benedick (Alexis Denisof) begin the film as deadly enemies, but it's clear they're attracted to one another. They are brought together due to a combination of clear-headed thinking and clever machinations by their friends. Denisof is very good with his body; in one sequence he stretches and preens himself in front of Beatrice, much to her disgust. Acker has an equally funny scene where she tries to conceal herself beneath a kitchen unit. The supporting cast are equally good: I particularly liked Clark Gregg's Leonato, concealing a passionate nature beneath a cloak of respectability, and Jillian Morgese's Hero, a well-brought up girl wrongfully accused of adultery. Shot in atmospheric black-and-white in a country house over a period of sixteen days, the film makes wonderful use of light and shade. The verse-speaking is clear and lucid, and the story abundantly clear. I really admired this film; definitely worth a second look.

I love Shakespeare. I love Much Ado About Nothing so was looking forward to this, but was royally disappointed. The only really good thing about it was the Script, and hey-ho that was written by The Bard! Whedon's direction was all over the place and the actors - or talking props as I will hereafter call them - were just reading the words on a page rather than performing them with any character. Has no-one seen Kenneth Branagh's version? What a delight that was by comparison.

What was with the black and white? This is supposed to be a joyous happy and exuberant play, and whilst it was set in modern times, it was decided to do it black and white. Why? What was the point? It added nothing and I think was a cheap attempt at "artiness!". The modern take largely worked well, and the grounds and setting of the house were very good but not one of the actors was stand out impressive for me. All were wooden and even Nathan Fillion's role as the Policeman Dogberry (one of the funniest roles in the play - in the Branagh version played brilliantly and filthily by Michael Keaton) was only funny because of the script and little because of delivery. The physical humour in the acting, which was sporadic, seemed incongruous given the serious-style of the rest of the performances, and just didn't gel with the overall story/humour of the piece. There were some terrible performances. Don Jon's dark and dastardly character had no threat or malice - no real darkness - and Conrad and Borachio didn't seem bad at all. Conrad as a woman too? What! I have see Much Ado done on the stage quite a few times and Branagh's version is a favourite, and this just didn't hold up next to it. Shakespeare (comedies) are bawdy, silly, witty, physical and over the top. This was trying to be Downton Abbey or something - heavy drama - with a few laughs. It just didn't work.

Fans of Whedon will no doubt love the who's who of "actors I've formerly worked with" but he needed to find actors that could actually handle Shakespearean comedy to give it a run for the money. Such a waste of good material, and it was the material that saved this film from being one or two out of ten. I give it a four because most of the acting performances were TERRIBLE. Shame. Crying shame.

It really shows when a director is heavily interested in his project. It was clear to anyone that this was a very well thought-out and beautifully crafted rendition of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing".

The script speaks for itself. Whedon kept his version honest to the script and didn't overplay anything, as you see in many other renditions. He also fitted his direction very well with the play, and it wasn't a forced modern adaptation.

All the humor was genuine, and wasn't cheap at all. The humor from the script itself and the actions that the actors took really played well together, making it a very enjoyable movie.

The pace made sense, and Joss really made this his own production. You could tell he knew how he wanted to see the scenes and how he played them out. The levels between the actors (which, for those who don't know, is the use of height with the actors to make a scene more interesting) was really well played in some of the scenes. The directing was flawless, and really told the story beautifully. It wasn't too fast or too slow, it was just right. The acting from everyone was really well done, and kept you absorbed in the film. The film also followed the theme that Joss chose perfectly, and the use of locations was incredible.

If I haven't convinced you to see this film yet, I'm obviously not conveying what I want to say. This movie was a masterpiece, and very easy to enjoy. I would give it a ten out of ten, but I'll save that for when I watch the movie again (which should be very soon). Overall very easy to enjoy, light-hearted, very easy to understand, beautiful acting and directing, and probably the best modern adaptation of Shakespeare I've seen to date.

Joss, please make another.

I should preface this with the statement that I enjoy Whedon's work. I was excited to see how he would direct actors from his previous series. I was especially excited about this being a play with which I was already very familiar. I also make allowances for the fact that it was filmed in a particular fashion, within a particular timeline, for particular reasons. I know that makes it "arty" and critically or technically better.

That all being said, I found the film lackluster on several counts:

First, the acting seemed flat. Shakespeare (the comedies in particular) is supposed to be bigger than life. It is supposed to be over-acted in some respects. The characters in this version act in a rather flat way, almost as if they are afraid of showing too much emotion.

In some ways, this may be because the actors chosen were not necessarily ones who fit those particular roles. I liked all of the actors in other roles. Nathan Fillion, for example, would have made a wonderful Benedick. Amy Acker, similarly, seemed ill suited for the role of Beatrice and might have played a far better Hero.

Second, and perhaps this was specific to the theater in which I watched the film, but the sound seemed rather flat. That may even have been choice, but the sounds just didn't seem very layered.

Third, hearing Shakespearean dialogue done with a purposefully plain American accent is a bit harsh on the ears. That may sound petty, but the choices Shakespeare made regarding word order fit a British accent far better than an English accent.

Finally... I really had a tough time with the setting. I don't mind a Shakespearean comedy being staged in a non-traditional context. In fact, I am very receptive of it. Unfortunately, this particular setting didn't really work. Don John has been apparently arrested for "standing out against his brother," but he gets free run of an estate. He is a guest of a government who cannot afford actual handcuffs, just zip-ties. This is just one example of how the setting didn't really seem fitting.

OK, using "Shadow" in the title is a poor attempt at a pun over the use of black/white film... Which never works because there's never enough contrast. There is no Black, there is no White... It's tedious Grey, start to finish. Comparing this to the 1990's version is completely unfair, as in spite of 20 years of technological upgrades, the "original" sounds, looks and just feels better. This is using a TV-actor cast, and it unfortunately shows, as it's just wooden. The charm, banter and wit of the original (movie or story) is completely lost because nobody looks like they are actually enjoying themselves - making for a very strange "comedy".

I had to watch the Thompson/Branagh version as soon as I finished with this, just to get the poor taste out of my head - and I'm glad I did.

Much Ado About Nothing by Joss Whedon is the latest adaptation of the Shakespeare's comedy.

The good. Excellent ideas. Very funny settings and actions. Nice choice of actors. With visual, it's always possible to add non spoken actions to original dialogs and Whedon made some clever extensions. Great photography.

The actors. My favorite performance were by Nathan Fillion, Sean Maher, and Tom Lenk, although I came to appreciate those of Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof a lot.

The bad. The concept of war as spoken in the piece doesn't translate well in modern time.

The ugly. Nothing.

The result. Solid entertainment for those who like modern transposition of Shakespeare's work, A must for any Whedon fan.

"Sigh no more, ladies, sigh no more, Men were deceivers ever, One foot in sea and one on shore, To one thing constant never." Much Ado about Nothing

Deception for good and bad is the stuff of the popular Shakespearean comedy, Much Ado about Nothing. Joss Whedon's modern dress adaptation preserves in lovely fashion the Bard's meanings while making them readily applicable to modern times. The airy location at Whedon's Santa Monica estate, with its easily overheard conversations, allows men and women to deceive and be deceived and be caught but not fast enough to prevent some major hurt.

The battle of the sexes is best evidenced in the verbal roughhousing of Benedick (Alex Denisof) and Beatrice (Amy Acker): "I wish my horse had the speed of your tongue" (Benedick). The battle takes a grim toll when evil Don John (Sean Maher) sets up Claudio (Fran Kranz) and Hero (Jillian Morgese) for her infidelity and his refusal to marry her because of it. Contrarily, deception brings Beatrice and Benedick into a loving relationship, so the game of love is apace and indiscriminate.

Shakespeare has it both ways, a considerable feat, to bring the right lovers together and punish those who would destroy the love. The film shows in revealing angles (those bird's eye shots from the ceiling area are effective giving the overheard and peeping-tom points of view) and close-ups the ambiguities of love. Even when Benedick falls under love's aegis, that state continues to be difficult for both him and his love.

The striking black and white strips the romance of unnecessary frivolity while reminding the audience of the halcyon days of screwball repartee that such stars as Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant made high art:

Beatrice: "I would not deny you, but by this good day, I yield upon great persuasion, and partly to save your life, for I was told you were in a consumption."

Benedick: "Peace. I will stop your mouth."

Shakespeare plays out the battle of the sexes with his genial finesse, never forgetting the divisive nature of love:

"Friendship is constant in all other things, save in the office and affairs of love." Claudio

Although I am a devotee of Kenneth Branagh's 1993 adaptation, Whedon's takes a comfortable place in my favorite canon.

If you love Elizabethan comedy and you also admire Joss Whedon, then his Much Ado About Nothing will send you over the moon. The Bard's language, in the hands of a smart director with access to accomplished actors and other film artists, is as lively, lovely and accessible as any contemporary rom-com might be.....Benedict and Beatrice have inspired many screenwriters, but few seem to have as much fun as Whedon does.

The black and white budget makes other over-budgeted mainstream fare seem bloated. From the party scenes to the love scenes to the detective scenes, everything is perfectly pitched with cameras capturing the complexities of Shakespeare's comedy with clever but unobtrusive effort. The staging is simple but imaginative, and the costumes are hip without being too trendy.

I'm delighted to see that today, June 23rd, is Joss Whedon's birthday. How lovely that he shared this pretty package with film lovers like me.

I don't know why I'm caught up on all of Joss Whedon's films without watching any of his TV shows. It seems futile. While I enjoyed The Avengers and Dr. Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog to nearly a casual fan degree, I really disliked Serenity. His filmography has a tendency to require pre-requisite viewings. You gotta watch Firefly to enjoy Serenity (though some may disagree but I really didn't get it). You gotta watch the other relevant Marvel cash-grabs to enjoy The Avengers. And it appears you have to watch Angel to enjoy Much Ado About Nothing as its cast reunion is more-or-less the best thing it's got going for it (and you have to watch Buffy before Angel. That's a lot of commitment, Joss). Unfortunately, at first, Much Ado feels more like an awkward student film than anything cinematic.

I eased into it a bit after a while but its pacing, tone and sense of humour really didn't seem to click. It feels like the black and white choice is just to cover up the occasionally poor photography. But okay, this is supposed to be breezy, lightweight, peering into a Whedon-style get-together type of affair. I can deal with that. But Shakespearean dialogue brought unchanged to a modern setting still doesn't work for me. It was passable in Ralph Fiennes' Coriolanus but intolerable in Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet. Only a handful of actors seem to be able to execute it with conviction and they single-handedly save the film. Amy Acker in particular is a highlight who feels like the actress who most wants to be there. Fran Kranz is the heart of the film, so glad he's proving his chops after impressing in The Cabin In The Woods.

Clark Gregg manages to not let Agent Coulson define him forever and Nathan Fillion reliably delivers the comedy goods. Unfortunately it's Alexis Denisof who spoils the party. Some love him, but he was absolutely awful and charmless. I really disliked it when the attention was drawn to him. However, there are moments when the tone really does work and I enjoyed it, and I think it was mostly due to when the soundtrack choices really hit the spot. The factor that would've helped clear a lot for me is some clear exposition to the staging of the story. I kind of got the character's relationships but I wasn't clear on who they were exactly with their backstories. I guess that's the obstacle with bringing Shakespeare to modern day since you can't break the concept to clear the ambiguity. Fortunately, the pros outweigh the cons and lifts Much Ado to more-or-less above average.

6/10

Much Ado About Nothing is a good title for this play. True love is destroyed by a jaded third party with baseless accusations. Two jaded wits fall for each other with the help of well-meaning friends...who make baseless accusations. Love is a real thing often created or ended through unlikely circumstances. Along the way, you'll enjoy beautiful language, brilliant insights, thought-provoking situations. None of this would have worked so effectively had it not been for smart direction and acting, displayed here in abundance. Everyone in the cast understands their lines, essential to make the antique language come alive. You might be surprised how many productions fail with clueless line readings. Apart from the movies of Kenneth Branagh, it's a rare achievement that a cast does this well. The preciosity of plays of this vintage was never more skillfully avoided. That being said, there is something about Much Ado that never seems to work. When life-and-death violence arrives precipitately wrapped in coal black emotions, it somehow rings false, almost embarrassingly inapposite to the champagne that has flowed before. This schizophrenia might be eliminated by figuring out how to direct the first two thirds of the play more like the denouement.

Okay - I'm a hard-core Firefly fan, quite enthusiastic about Avengers, and was really looking forward to watching a Director I enjoy, with a cast I've come to be quite fond of, take on the Bard - I had high hopes for this.

Black and white cinematography - a bit of a surprise, and while I've seen it used to add impact that mere color cannot add, it wasn't used, really - it came across as self-consciously arty. Bringing the setting time into the present wasn't a problem - Shakespeare time-travels quite nicely, and there was no reason to not try for it here.

One of the great things about Shakespeare is that, properly read, the archaic language and phrasing translate quite well across the years. A Midsummer Night's Dream from 1999, or Hamlet from 1990, are wonderful examples of this - the original lines sing to the audience, as they've always been able to do.

But the words must be read, not recited - and here, we have good acting talent putting almost nothing into their lines - almost as if they're reading a teleprompter, with no understanding of the meaning of what they're saying. This is, ultimately, the job of the director to ensure - and it's the worst Whedon work I've ever seen. The actors, if in a bit less of a hurry to recite the lines before they've been forgotten, had been encouraged to put some feeling in, could have done better - I've seen them do better elsewhere. Joss Whedon can get a very complex performance out of his cast - I've seen him do it elsewhere. I just wish I'd seen them all do the work that I know they're capable of in this flick.

I really didn't like this version. Much Ado must be my favorite of Shakespeare's texts, and I saw a tremendous potential in a modern transposition. Sadly, it is poorly treated. Benedict and Beatrice sound like a pair of bickering, sourpuss ex spouses, rather than the witty, smart, fun pair they should be (how sorely I missed Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson!); "Sicily" is more like a California backwater, with CA plates on cars (barely out of focus) and large American style kitchen; one cannot just pretend that pouring rivers of red wine in all glasses starting at breakfast and filming in black and white will achieve Italian realism.

Adherence to the original text is great, and I really appreciate it, but it require an acting tour de force the cast did not stand up to. It feels artificial, and all the fun is gone.

One great scene, not sufficient to redeem the whole movie: the extravagant masked party, that comes together apparently effortlessly, and looks magnificent.

Sad. I didn't even stay until the end.

Love Amy Acker, Alexis Denisof, Tom Lenk, Nathan Fillion, Ashley Johnson and Clark Gregg. It was interesting enough, but I mostly watched it because of the actors.

As I watched Joss Wheedon's energetic yet flavorless black and white contemporary movie version of Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing I found myself paying more attention to the set than to the actors. The film was shot at Wheedon's own house in Santa Monica. Wheedon directed Marvel Comics' The Avengers, which last year made $623,357,910 domestically, nearly tripling the production budget. Given that kind of bankroll, you can't help wondering where he chooses to bunk down. And this is a very nice house indeed, but quite free of conspicuous display. It's big, airy, light, pretty, tasteful. It looks like a great house for entertaining -- and indeed the play, as shot, unreels like a party, with characters continually pouring each other drinks from omnipresent wine bottles and bars. But the house also feels stripped of anything personal, as if "staged" for showing by a real estate agent to potential buyers. The pictures are bland, the chandeliers quiet. Contents of bookshelves look uniform. It's hard to tell if they contain books or DVD's. If they're books, does he read them, I wondered, or are they just filler? Outside there's a little hill and what could be a park beyond. It's luxuriously quiet. All very posh, understated -- and bland.

This movie is bland and neutral too. The processed black and white images, "fifty shades of gray," typically for digital lack the voluptuous richness of classic black and white films. Wheedon has added bits of pop music and some energetic stage business, but not much excitement. The result has the feel like a dressy college or small town production -- the clothes don't look cheap -- with a few pro actors sifted in to help things going. Nevertheless at times the rhythm is gone (if there is any) and the action goes momentarily quite disconcertingly dead. The delivery of lines is generally fluent; an effort has been made. These are good looking people. Nothing extraordinary. Most of the cast are said to be Wheedon regulars, the whole production sort of a "stunt" or a "lark" executed in a couple of weeks.

Of course one can only admire Joss Wheedon for spending his spare time in such a literate manner. But as I watched I was haunted by a damning memory of Cate Blanchett in a trailer of the new Woody Allen shown just before this film came on. The intense comic spin she put on her one or two lines blew away all the dialogue of Wheedon's Much Ado. Perhaps in the effort to shape it to contemporary American rhythms foreign to their original tone, the Much Ado dialogue is made curiously colorless. Clever ripostes lose their punch; elaborate parallelisms are muffled. To liven things up, slapstick gestures are added. Somebody falls down. A man flops around outside a window in a pathetically overwrought effort to make his eavesdropping comical. Someone has a cocktail in a swimming pool wearing diving goggles. Alas, a swimming pool adds nothing to Much Ado.

Shakespearean texts aren't easy to follow at the best of times. They're full of words whose meanings have since changed. The comedies have tricky plots with a galaxy of curious Italianate names to learn like Benedict, Claudio, Borachio, Leonato. This time, it's even harder. The actors aren't very easy to distinguish. Color, and colorful costumes, would have helped, but are absent. All the visuals and action are bravely contemporary. But the dialogue, though trimmed, is still Shakespeare. Hence there is a disconnect. The look, the behavior, the intonations are so far from the Elizabethan world, the sensation is like watching a film while listening to an unrelated sound track. One can scarcely credit that these words are coming out of these mouths.

I don't mean to imply that Wheedon's Much Ado is a total failure. Its neutrality may be seen as a virtue compared to such overbearingly baroque extravaganzas as Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet. Its light touch explains how Anthony Lane of The New Yorker could choose to call it "a filigree of a film." Wheedon may take too much away, but he also doesn't add too much. In principle I would certainly totally agree with Lane in saying we should "laud the fact that this movie was made at all." Imagine the director of The Avengers, the violent high-concept horror film The Cabin in the Woods and TV series like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" bothering to make a movie, just for a lark, of a Shakespeare comedy. Lane is right, but quixotic, and doubtless tongue-in-cheek, in voicing the hope that "other large-scale directors will be inspired to launch similar ventures. Michael Bay does Congreve? J.J. Abrams blows us away with 'Lady Windermere's Fan'? Bring 'em on." Maybe. But it's not gonna happen.

Still it's hard to see how this movie has received so many good reviews. The mystery is partly solved by knowing that Joss Wheedon is a "cult" director, and that the Toronto debut of Much Ado had plenty of has fanboys and fangirls on hand, laughing uproariously at every effort to draw a chuckle, delivering a final ovation on cue. Once the ball gets rolling, critical acclaim tends to follow. And the critics' hearts are in the right place: they want to encourage "culture" on US screens. But American film goers in search of the best in stage-to-screen entertainment might do better to watch one of those UK import "National Theatre Live" productions.

Much Ado About Nothing, 107 mins., distributed by Roadside Attractions, opened in the US 7 June, with the UK release date 14 June 2013.