Note: This review contains spoilers, not just for Shakespeare's original plot but for Whedon's interpretation specifically.

Much Ado About Nothing is my all-time favorite play, and Beatrice is my favorite character in all of literature. I've seen the play performed 5 times now, including the Branagh film, Shakespeare in the Park, in community theaters, and now Whedon's interpretation. I also studied Much Ado at length during a Shakespeare class in London. So, that's my point of view in reviewing this film: I know the play by heart, and I have strong ideas about how it should be interpreted.

Joss Whedon's Much Ado is one of the loveliest interpretations I've seen. Forget Branagh -- I would never have guessed that Sandy Rivers from How I Met Your Mother would make such an excellent Benedick!

The movie is filmed in black and white at Joss Whedon's actual house, which gives an intimate yet updated vibe, but he never establishes who the people are and why they're there. The relationship between the prince (Don Pedro) and Leonato is key -- Shakespeare's text implies a compelling and even affectionate backstory for them, complete with the complications of social rank -- but this is largely absent from Whedon's version. Unfortunately, without it, Leonato's horror at Hero's disgrace doesn't make as much sense later on. (Clark Gregg plays that scene so well that it's still breathtaking, but he's working without the necessary resonance the scene deserves.)

In contrast to Emma Thompson's (overly) viperous portrayal, Beatrice is largely toothless in this version. Amy Ackerman delivers an emotional and charming performance, and her love scenes with Benedick are the most convincing I've seen. Still, I felt like I was missing out on the wit and really the *force* that is Beatrice. Ackerman's Beatrice is a gentler, more vulnerable one, perhaps more human than other versions I've seen. But it's hard to understand where Benedick is coming from when he says, "She speaks poniards, and every word stabs." Ackerman's Beatrice may graze Benedick slightly, but she's hardly leaving flesh wounds. Because of this, the audience misses out a bit on the magic of Beatrice's transformation for love.

Some of the issue obviously comes from Whedon's direction. For example, Margaret and Benedick have a flirty scene where he compliments HER wit and beauty. This is played a bit too large in the film, taking away some of his connection to Beatrice.

Likewise, in Whedon's version, Don Pedro's proposal to Beatrice is played as a joke, which I believe is a mistake. Don Pedro's line "Your silence most offends me" and later Benedick's comment ("Prince, thou art sad; get thee a wife") should demonstrate Don Pedro's actual interest in Beatrice. That offhand proposal scene is so important because it establishes how a man of taste, who can have any woman he wants, recognizes Beatrice's value. It also shows how picky Beatrice is -- one blush, and the prince would likely pursue her, but her armor is so strong that she puts even him off with humor. I don't mind that Don Pedro asks in jest in Whedon's version, but the line should also have a "secret truth" to it. Reed Diamond is certainly capable of delivering the nuance, but I guess not in one take.

To that point, some of the actors have mentioned that Much Ado was filmed in 9 days without rehearsals. Basically, if they got their lines right on the first take, that was it. No trying a different interpretation. While I believe that some of the best art can be made under great time constraints, Shakespeare's work is too nuanced to cut-print on a first try.

Some other notes:

* Casting of Conrade as a woman – Riki Lindhome is so funny that she steals her scenes. While this is a great addition to the role of Conrade, and a nice showcase for the actress, it does distract from the menace of Don John. I never thought I'd say this, but Keanu Reeves' Don John seemed more capable of actual malice (despite dismal line readings). Sean Mayer makes a much better Don John -- his facial expressions, line readings, and voice are perfect -- and yet... I nearly forgot about him. He doesn't loom as large as he should, maybe due to editing.

* Dogberry -- I know Nathan Fillion can do better than this. His Captain Hammer is a better Dogberry than his Dogberry is, if that makes sense. The audience laughed at his lines, but that seemed to be more a case of "Hey! That's Nathan Fillion playing a famously funny character!" He knows how to play an ass and land a joke. This performance seemed like he was doing it under duress.

* As for Hero and Claudio, they didn't register as much with me in this version. Physically, they were perfectly cast, with Jillian Morgese the slightly less pretty cousin to Amy Ackerman and Fran Kranz the stalwart young man in love.

So, those are my quibbles with Whedon's interpretation. I still enjoyed every minute of this movie. I just wish Joss Whedon had maybe taken off 6 weeks to film it instead of 9 days. Shakespeare is a smidge more complicated than Dr. Horrible, after all.

I guess I should have known, but wasn't aware this film was done in Shakespearean verse until it began, and even then I thought the opening scene was going to give way to modern dialog. It took some getting used to, but once well under way, the picture turned out to be quite entertaining. I'm not a Shakespeare buff, so the material was all new to me and the actors involved did a fine job of presenting the play. Maybe this would be a good way to introduce classic literature to an otherwise disinterested audience. I recently watched "Shakespeare in Love" and that was cleverly done as well, however the black and white filming using a present day setting in this film was rather unique. For added poignancy, I think I'll now seek out the Kenneth Branagh version for comparison. I might become a Shakespeare buff after all.

Well except when they get done like this, like in this case/instance. It's really great to see a movie like this, even if the tag "poor version of the Branagh" movie is not as wrong as it sounds. But it sounds horrible because "poor" is offensive in the context and not literal, which in this case is the truth. Joss Whedon made this in his own backyard, so there is not really a budget involved here (also casting friends, which in this case are also really good actors of course) in the making of the movie.

Comparing the two movies wouldn't be fair though (and I think the Branagh version, budget wise alone is winning that comparison), but this is a great interpretation of a Shakespeare story that is well known by now. I can't be mad at a movie that is as good as this is though, especially when the fun the people had making this, translates well onto the screen