tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post8847247058388009301..comments2024-03-19T07:27:06.216-04:00Comments on VOTARIES OF HORROR: Much Ado About . . . What?!Katherine Woodburyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14364517253667798449noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9721761.post-38591902342008618142014-11-06T13:51:21.562-05:002014-11-06T13:51:21.562-05:00First, the look of this film is awful. I understan...First, the look of this film is awful. I understand Whedon used black and white so he wouldn't have to repaint his house and worry about color balancing. However, the result is a flat, muddy mess. Restrictions on framing and composition are understandable, but still dreadful.<br /><br />With very few exceptions, the acting was really bad. (I dislike Clark Gregg in general for reasons I can't quite pin down, though in part because I never believe him in any role--to me, he's always Clark Gregg reciting lines.) Nathan Fillion is a good actor, but still pales in comparison to Michael Keaton's performance in Branagh's version, which does illustrate how much Whedon and many other directors miss the point--much of Shakespeare, especially his comedies, is intended to be over-the-top (playing Romeo and Juliet straight is boring and even macabre while playing it with a bunch of insane teenagers and gangsters works.)<br /><br />Incidentally, even more than Fillion, the real standout "graduate" of Whedon's "stable" is Amy Acker.<br /><br />(Incidentally, one of the interesting aspects of long run TV series with young actors is how they mature differently as both people and actors, which often causes what I'll call unbalanced acting [one of the most important aspect of casting is that everyone be about the same skill level else the bad acting becomes really glaring.])Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04450897654318345683noreply@blogger.com