I am a huge fan of Branagh, but I have to say: He blew it with this one. And a great shame it is, as it is one of the very rarely filmed plays, and my expectations of it were rather great. I was seriously disappointed. Love's Labour's Lost is a fairly difficult play to stage well, and Branagh, in this case, was too ambitious, and in the process fouled it up.
The 1930s setting makes no sense, and all the male main characters - incl. Branagh's - are indistinctive and unbecomingly effeminate. My single greatest peeve about this production, though, is Don Armado and especially Moth - these are just about the most HORRIBLE versions of those characters that I can imagine! Fat lumbering fools?! Yes, I have heard of irony, but this is ridiculous! Sure, they are comic relief, but they are also important, substantial characters, and Moth is a child!! A small child! "Moth"! Get it?! Sigh. Guess not.
However, there is also good news. The women in this production are all beautiful and capable and perform exceedingly well. A pleasure to behold. The greatest revelation being of course Alicia Silverstone, who surprisingly pulls this role off to an A+, showing that she's got what it takes to be a real actress, despite allegedly being a shallow teenage celebrity (well, not anymore, but for her that image has rather stuck to her). Shakespeare's words sound really good in her pretty mouth. Again, one is saddened that there were no other similar roles for her; that this was a one-of-kind type of thing, as with John Cleese's excellent Petruchio in BBC's 1980 Taming of the Shrew.
So, well, the female half of this film had some merit, but overall... let's just say we're still waiting for a good Love's Labour's Lost. Meanwhile, see Branagh's version of the sequel, Love's Labour's Won, a.k.a. Much Ado About Nothing, which he filmed with definitive success in 1993. 1993 was a very good year.....
6 out of 10. A low rating for a Shakespeare play.
The 1930s setting makes no sense, and all the male main characters - incl. Branagh's - are indistinctive and unbecomingly effeminate. My single greatest peeve about this production, though, is Don Armado and especially Moth - these are just about the most HORRIBLE versions of those characters that I can imagine! Fat lumbering fools?! Yes, I have heard of irony, but this is ridiculous! Sure, they are comic relief, but they are also important, substantial characters, and Moth is a child!! A small child! "Moth"! Get it?! Sigh. Guess not.
However, there is also good news. The women in this production are all beautiful and capable and perform exceedingly well. A pleasure to behold. The greatest revelation being of course Alicia Silverstone, who surprisingly pulls this role off to an A+, showing that she's got what it takes to be a real actress, despite allegedly being a shallow teenage celebrity (well, not anymore, but for her that image has rather stuck to her). Shakespeare's words sound really good in her pretty mouth. Again, one is saddened that there were no other similar roles for her; that this was a one-of-kind type of thing, as with John Cleese's excellent Petruchio in BBC's 1980 Taming of the Shrew.
So, well, the female half of this film had some merit, but overall... let's just say we're still waiting for a good Love's Labour's Lost. Meanwhile, see Branagh's version of the sequel, Love's Labour's Won, a.k.a. Much Ado About Nothing, which he filmed with definitive success in 1993. 1993 was a very good year.....
6 out of 10. A low rating for a Shakespeare play.