What did writer-director Joss Whedon do for R&R between the end of principal photography and the start of post-production on last year’s global mega-smash The Avengers? He got his friends together and filmed the latest version of Shakespeare’s comedy Much Ado AboutNothing. Shot in twelve days at the Los Angeles home of Whedon and his wife, producer Kai Cole, the first movie made from this work of the Bard since Kenneth Branagh’s adaptation twenty years ago will open theatrically across the US beginning June 7.
Shot in stylish black and white by Jay Hunter, the
400-year old play receives a joyous, utterly contemporary treatment. Martinis,
cell phones, Jacuzzis, aerial artists and wedding photographers are all right
at home in this tale of manipulative matchmaking. The plot in brief for
those unfamiliar: Leonato, the governor of Messina, hosts his friend Don Pedro, two of
Don Pedro’s officers, and the villainous Don John, whom Don Pedro has
just captured. One of the officers, Claudio, quickly falls in love with
Leonato’s daughter, Hero. Meanwhile, Don Pedro’s other
officer, Benedick, develops a tense relationship with Leonato’s niece,
Beatrice. While Leonato & Co. conspire
to make Benedick and Beatrice fall in love, Don John and his allies plot a
nasty revenge against Don Pedro and Claudio.
The terrific cast of Whedon regulars from such prior endeavors
as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly,
Dollhouse, The Avengers and The Cabin in the Woods includes Amy Acker
(a superb and funny Beatrice), Alexis Denisof, Clark Gregg (now best known as
Agent Phil Coulson in the various Marvel movies), Fran Kranz and gay actors Sean Maher and Tom Lenk. Of course, Nathan Fillion (Dr.
Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, TV’s Castle) also appears and is hilarious as
the bumbling detective, Dogberry.
Whedon’s geek fan base may be perplexed by their icon’s
turn to Shakespeare, but it makes perfect sense for the more-literate-than-most
genre auteur. While the production’s bare-bones budget shows at
times (though not during the extravagant party scenes), Much Ado About Nothing is clearly a labor
of love on the part of all involved. It also serves as a more than decent,
thoroughly enjoyable transposition of the classic text.
Speaking of geeks, the rapturous response J.J. Abrams’
current Star Trek Into Darkness
has received from some fans and critics would lead one to believe it represents
the Second Coming. Well, it does if one is referring to the second coming
of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
(Warning: potential spoilers ahead for anyone who hasn’t yet seen the new
movie.)
The sequel to 2009’s hit reboot Star Trek, also directed by Abrams, finds the
younger incarnations of James T. Kirk, Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy, Lt. Uhura and the
traditional USS Enterprise crew
up against no small number of adversaries. Their initial foil, a
terrorist dubbed John Harrison who first bombs Starfleet’s archives and
then tries to take out its top command, is eventually revealed as the
genetically-engineered superman Khan. British actor Benedict Cumberbatch has
porcelain-like skin and a sinewy physique, and speaks in low, intentional tones.
He works in the role for anyone unfamiliar with Ricardo Montalban, who
originated the megalomaniacal guru in an episode of the original Star Trek TV
series and was resurrected in 1982’s big-screen Wrath of Khan.
What Khan absolutely lacks in the new movie -- written by Roberto
Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof -- is a sense of humor, which in my
opinion is what made Montalban’s Khan so memorable (yes, even more so
than his big, buff, waxed chest). Khan relished being ruthless and didn’t
hesitate to let Kirk, in particular, know it. The new Khan also doesn’t
exhibit the literary proficiency (notably of Milton and Melville) that
distinguished some of his repartee with Kirk during the villain’s original
appearances. Cumberbatch’s Khan is being ballyhooed by some as one
of the greatest cinematic villains ever. Better than Montalban’s?
I stab at thee!
Comparisons to Wrath of
Khan aside (and Into Darkness’s
climax is essentially a role-reversed, shot-for-shot remake), I found the
current sequel to be very well-made and exciting. I enjoyed it considerably
more than the last film, which I felt spent too much time introducing the
almost-juvenile versions of the classic characters and indulging Abrams’
personal fetishes. The female cast members are also treated more
respectfully, despite an embarrassing scene where Kirk (Chris Pine, really
making the role his own) spies on Alice Eve’s Carol Marcus in her
underwear. Kirk’s/Pine’s bromance with Spock/out actor ZacharyQuinto is further and nicely developed here, and the film’s 3D effects
are truly special.
I’m not hating on the geeks, especially since I’m
pretty much one myself. I do hope, though, that the inevitable next entry
in the re-configured Star Trek
series boldly goes where no previous episode or movie has gone before.
Reverend’s Ratings:
Much Ado
About Nothing: B+
Star Trek Into Darkness: B+
Review by Rev. Chris Carpenter, resident film critic of Movie Dearest, Rage Monthly Magazine and Echo Magazine.
3 comments:
I find the description of Zachary Quinto as an "out actor" pointless. It has no bearing on his performance in this movie or even anything else in the sentence the description is included in.
I completely agree with the above poster. There is no reason why being gay should be relevant. What difference does it make if Quinto, Maher, and Lenk are gay? Does that somehow change their performance or acting ability? When reviewing a movie one does not need to say straight actor Brad Pitt, etc. Why would such a descriptor be necessary just because someone is gay?
Gak! If I could delete my post I would. I just realized that the point of your site is to showcase gay friendly movies. Honestly I still don't think it makes a difference if an actor is gay or not and therefore don't see the sense in pointing it out, but I understand what you are trying to do.
Post a Comment