Pretty straightforward question, brought to my attention by Miru's literture counterpart. Let's discuss the best, the worst, and the boring.

Everyone jumps to say Henry V was the best of all time, and I know Branagh developed quite a reputation for it, but I guess Henry is just not my favorite play even to begin with. Branagh's follow-up Othello was boring and dry, and sadly killed Irene Jacob's entrance into American film.

The other play of his I saw I was unenthused by was Midsummer Night's Dream that came out recently with Kline, Pfieffer, Rupert, etc. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't something I remember much either.

The Greats for me where these 3 definately.

Much Ado About Nothing


The Taming of the Shrew


The Tempest


Much Ado is an excellent ensemble and somehow manged to maintain such a frenetic atmosphere that was compatible with the excitement of the men visiting the village. This is the perfect match of editing/cinematography with tone and script. Taming is a Taylor/Burton vehicle, but it works so well because of the personal history the two actors bring to the screen. Their depictions were quite intimate and aggressive in a way that really transcends for other couple's have played off eachother. They were pretty vicious, and I think part of that came from their off-screen history. The costumes were my favorite as well. Very lavish and bright. Tempest is a heavy handed affair by Jarman, but with an agenda. The director really took the play and used it as a springbored to explore different forms of sexuality, camp, and power. Very intense, and also a good sign of things to come in his pockets of brilliant imagery. Later on he did films (I'm thinking specifically of Carravagio) that fully recognized his painting history, but in early '79 you just get sparkling bits and pieces that really stay with you. Very fresh, raw, and intelligent.

We are watching The Taming of the Shrew in my English class where I am heading in a minute...

More comments later.

I wouldn't jump to say that. Sorry, I had to say that.

I remember seeing that Henry V, even the day that I went and the theater location, about 57th street in Manhattan and I didn't think it was as great as everyone talked up. I thought it was good, not great.

In talking about Kenneth Branagh's films, I would go with his Hamlet version.

The other one that I would mention would be Laurence Olivier's Hamlet.

I'm not that familiar with Shakespeare films, but, my favorite is the Richard III adaptation directed by Richard Loncraine that stars Ian McKellen, Jim Broadbent, Robert Downey Jr, Maggie Smith, Kristin Scott Thomas, and Annette Bening.

Richard III is my fav. of the Shakespeare plays I've read (also Romeo and Juliet, As You Like It, A Midsummer's Night Dream, Julius Caesar, and parts of Hamlet) so the wordplay, plotting, and characters also play a role.

I liked Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet too.

Marlon Brando's Julius Ceasar was, in British terms, bollocks.

Hehe. Well, okay, almost everyone. I remember a whole enthusiasm around it where all of a sudden every theatre troupe in the area was performing it, etc. We recorded it off the t.v. too. So apparently someone in my family thought it was good enough to own, and that we'd watch it over and over.

Hmmmm. The Hamlet he did? It wasn't the one with Mel Gibson was it? I am familiar with Olivier's but haven't seen it.

I tend to stay away from Shakespearian drama when it comes to movies. It just doesn't come across as particularly complex and tends to be over-dramatized as though on stage, but with the close-ups and space of a movie.

Also two I totally forgot about, [b]Romeo and Juliet[/i].
I've seen both the Zeffirelli and Luhrman versions, and admit I liked them both. Their not my top three, but they're very close.

OMG...Brando did a version of Julius Ceasar...I have to get me that to watch. I'm pretty sure it was painful to sit through. What made you possibly put yourself in such a situation to begin with?

I finished Zefirelli's The Taming of the Shrew today. It was a decent adaptation of the fairly good play. The play The Taming of the Shrew is written very well as all Shakespearean plays are, but in comparison to some of his other plays, its theme appears rather dated. That is conveyed to the movie is well. Zefirelli's is a good director, obviously, but some transitions from the play to the movie could have been made better. I liked that he decided to reduce some verbal redundancy from the play and replace it with more cinematic terms, though. Some parts could have been done better, like the initial introduction of Lucentio and Tranio and the revealing of their names. That felt a bit artificial. The dialogue in the movie was great, no question, but you have to keep in mind that 95% of it came from Shakespeare who has never lacked in that department. The true highlight of the movie is Richard Burton as Petruchio. His performance was throughly enjoyable and I think he deserved at least an oscar nomination for his role. Overall the movie was pretty well done and the cast was well-chosen. However, I think that seeing the movie right after having read the play somewhat ruined the possible effect of the movie.

Its interesting you called the theme dated, because one could argue that Shakespeare was clearly grounded in a particular era, and all his work feels dated today. Its more about using his plays to delve into long-standing questions. That's why Jarman's Tempest won me over. As for Zeffirelli, he tends to be a bit more literal and lavish with his productions, so yes, its not particularly profound. Then again, neither was the recent Midsummer. I think the kind of severity between Taylor and Burton was actually more astute of the situation between marriage, gender roles, and marital hostility. I have always been a little hesitant about the ending of this play, which is why when Taylor comes out dragging the other two, but is still sort of aggressive and screeching a take a little comfort in it. It still wasn't all that sugar-coated compared to some other renditions of the play I saw.

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1800084347

Apparently, it was nominated for Best Picture.

We watched two versions in class; the Charlton Heston version and the John Gielgud/Marlon Brando version. And, ignore my other comment. I don't remember which I liked better. I liked one and disliked the other, and I had thought it was the Marlon Brando one that I disliked.

And, PLEASE rent the Richard III adaptation, if you haven't already seen it.

It was indeed not sugar-coated. The whole context of the movie/play does seem outdated to me. I mean basically it is about the positions of a man and a woman in a marriage as they were considered right back in Shakespeare's times. The complete surrender of a woman to her husband was what Petruchio has achieved and what was considered a norm back than. As Katherina desrcibes it in her famous speech, the disobedience of a woman made the woman undesirable and in fact caused a natural disorder. The values and ideals are very much different nowadays. I mean a love story like Rome & Juliet is eternal and a comedy like Midsummer Night Dream is always just a fun read, but I do consider The Taming of the Shrew dated.

My all-time fave is Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing - it was the first time for me that I heard the language so clearly and effectively spoken that I could get every nuance and every joke on the first viewing - it's awesome.

I also liked Lurhman's R&J, and Branagh's Hamlet.

...and OOPS! - how could I forget Julie Taymor's Titus - as great an adaptation of a Shakespeare tragedy as Much Ado About Nothing was as a comedy adaptation - I loved it!

I'm by no means an expert on this topic, but I really loved Much Ado About Nothing. Branagh and Thompson made a great team. They should really get together! :wink:

I watched Titus about 5-6 months ago....very interesting. Visually interesting with strong performance by Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange, but just too gruesome, esp. in the final act. Fans of horror and gore should check it out.

No, those 2 aren't the same.

Mel Gibson did his in about 1990.

Kenneth Branagh did his in about 1995. This is the better of the 2.

His included Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet, Kate Winslet as Ophelia, and also included Richard Attenborough, Julie Christie, Judi Dench, Gerard Depardieu plus others.

I've only seen three, so they must be on my top 3!

1) Romeo and Juliet (Leo version) - 8/10 (B+)
2) 10 Things I Hate About You - 8/10 (B+)
3) "O" - 7/10 (B-)

Luhman's version gets a little rap for its sort of MTV edge, but I actually thought it was really good, and not cliche at all.

I totally forgot about 10 Things (Taming of the Shrew), I thought it was pretty decent too. I wouldn't put it at the top of the top, only because it still felt a bit too cute, and all the edges were cleaned up very neatly with easy explanations (her past, etc). But it was very pleasant, and was pretty subtle in adapting the text. Most people didn't even know it was a version of Taming.

I haven't seen O, but I know its supposed to be a version of Othello starring Julia Stiles as well.

The ones I've seen.

1. Hamlet (Kenneth Brannegh version): ****
2. Julius Caeser (with Marlon brando): ***
3. Midsummer Night's Dream (with michelle pfeiffer): **
4. Romeo and Juliet (Leo DeCAP!): *1/2
5. Hamlet (Eathan Hawke): *

I liked Branaugh film version of Othello, certianly its not as good as seeing the play live, but Branaugh's performance really sold me on the film.

The ones I have seen:

The Taming of the Shrew (Zeforelli's) - 7/10
10 Things I hate about you - 7.5/10
"O" - 6.5/10
Midsummer Night Dream (with Kline sand Pfeiffer) - 7.5/10
Romeo and Juliet (Luhrman's vision) - 7/10 ( a bit too hip for its own good)
Hamlet (Branagh's version) - seen too long ago to grade

Sure, there's a bit 'o the old ultra-violence, but that is only the beginning of the tragedy in this super-stylized adaptation of Shakespeare's most depressing play...

Glad someone else remembers it. And highly liked it.

Sure, there's a bit 'o the old ultra-violence, but that is only the beginning of the tragedy in this super-stylized adaptation of Shakespeare's most depressing play...

Oh, right, I forgot one.

1. Hamlet (Kenneth Brannegh) ****
2. Julius Caesar (Marlon Brando) ***
3. Hamlet (Mel Gibson) **
4. Midsummer Night's Dream (Michelle Phfeiffer) **
5. Romeo and Juliet (Leo DeCAP) *1/2
6. Hamlet (Eathan Hawke) *

I've seen O and 10 Things on the far out adaptian side. They were so so.

Ive also seen R+J (I love Leo, so, naturally, I like this one), and A midsummer night's dream. It was very blah. I remember watching it in school. Everyone was laughing when Kline got turned into an ass. Thats all I remember. (In other words, it sucked)

Sorry Dolce, but the main thing I get from your last 3 threads, whether it's Henry V, Clerks or Spaghetti Westerns, is you don't get "guy" movies.

:evil: I L.O.V.E. the Spaghetti Westerns. I've seen The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly twice on the big screen alone, and I own the poster, plus I've seen Once Upon a Time in the West on big screen also. I was defending Leoni, but pointing out what someone else (whom I fought with over it btw) had said about it being boring. :evil: :wink:

And I didn't dislike Henry V...I just didn't think it was as fantastic as everyone made it out to be. I thought Branagh's direction was a wee bit too melodramatic for the big screen. The emotions were so outwardly performed it felt like it would work better on stage. BTW, I've seen Henry V on stage and it did work better. I think film calls for a bit more subtlty when it comes to drama, even Shakesperean drama, than does the stage. I think that's why the comedies translate better to screen.