Much Ado About Nothing (1993)

Crappy film

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Reading Shakespeare is nothing like watching Kenneth Branagh direct Shakespeare. He interprets the Bard in a way that commands your attention and allows you to have a good time doing it. I actually first viewed the 2012 version of this movie done as a modern day retelling of Shakespeare's classic comedy, and I have to say, I found this work much more satisfying. It was much grander in scale and the characters came to life in a much livelier fashion. All of the principals did a fine job in their roles, and I'll go out on a limb here by saying that I enjoyed Michael Keaton's Dogberry character the most, just because he brought so much humor and wit to the role. That's not to take away from the romantic elements at the center of the story, as the principal players all turn in marvelously impassioned performances. What I wonder about is how the actors can memorize their lines of Shakespearean dialog and deliver them with such stunning ability and competence. It seems there's not a wasted phrase or moment that doesn't add clarity to the story. This is one Shakespeare inspired film I could watch again and again.

It's been decades since I've read any Shakespeare, so I don't know how closely this BBC production follows the bard's original. I suspect it's very close, if not exact. This film rendition of "Much Ado About Nothing" is by far the best. All the technical aspects are excellent, and the acting and direction are superb. Kenneth Branagh scores a triple hit with his adaptation, direction, and acting (in the part of Benedick). Most of the performers excel. The incomparable Emma Thompson shines as Beatrice, opposite Benedick. Richard Briers is wonderful as Leonato. Denzel Washington does a very good job as the initially magnanimous Don Pedro, then the quiet accuser and withdrawn observer. Robert Leonard plays the part of Claudio near perfectly, opposite Kate Beckinsale's Hero. And, Keanu Reeves is at once disliked for his stark portrayal of the pouting, hateful and envious Don John. All the rest of the cast give top performances. Even then, one smaller but meaty part stands out above all these other wonderful roles. That is Michael Keaton as the chief constable, Dogberry. Keaton steals every scene in which he appears. He gives marvelous life to his hilarious character. I laugh every time I see him in a scene, and even when I think about him at other times – as now. I would love to see Keaton in more Shakespeare comedy. Some people may shy away from Shakespeare because they find the language difficult. I highly recommend this production of "Much Ado About Nothing." It's an ideal film to introduce people to Shakespeare. And, I'm sure most will find it easy to follow. This film not only is my favorite rendition of this play, but it's my favorite film of any Shakespearean work.

Much Ado About Nothing 1993 is one of the most boring and worst films released in 1993.where is the plot its just everyone talking nonsense and what the hell were actors like Kate Bekinsale,Denzel Washington & Keanu Reeves were doing here wasting their talents.the dialogs are written by kids almost everything is below average including direction & locations,there is no comedy here & no romance this film is a lie.1993 was a great year it had many great cinematic releases like hard target,sleepless in Seattle but this one is boring piece of junk.much ado about nothing 1993 is a waste of time & money my rating for this is 1/10:Avoid it at all costs.

Not my favorite Shakespeare play, lacking the rich, playful complexities of some of the Bard's other comedies, I've always felt on a pure plot level this feels more simplistic, ill-logical and forced than most of the works by the greatest writer in the English language.That said, Branagh's adaptation has some sensational elements. The best of all is the relationship between Branagh and Emma Thompson (then married in real life) as Benedick and Beatrice. As they showed in their brief time together in Branagh's "Henry V" the two are both magnificent at making Shakespeare feel human, spontaneous, modern and above all fun. Both create terrific characters – two bull headed intellectual wits who obviously belong together, but who managing to use their words and wit to keep tripping themselves up, like some Shakespearian version of the best of Tracy and Hepburn. The star studded cast all do good work, although the much lesser known Richard Biers is perhaps the most wonderful in his simple, warm human reality as Leonato. The film looks great, filmed on an estate in Tuscany with beautiful grounds and that Tuscan light forming a backdrop too our story. But, in the end, the play's the thing, and much of the other character's stories. well acted as they are, feel too melodramatic and heavy handed for the fun, light feel of the film (Robert Sean Leonard and Kate Beckensale both do excellent work as Claudio and Hero, but their storyline's over-dramatic swings are hard to overcome). The score also feels over-the-top, especially in the more dramatic sections, which in turn adds to the feeling that there's something too uneven in the tone. The comedy (e.g. Michael Keaton's very weird but entertaining Dogberry), is so broad, that it's hard to put it in the same film with the over- sober tone of the story of the young lovers. None-the-less there's a lot to like if one overlooks some unevenness in both story and presentation.