Wordiezett So much average

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Ephraim Gadsby This "The Taming of the Shrew" directed by Jonathan Miller and starring John Cleese is probably as good as we'll ever get.William Ball's 1976 commedia dell'arte version with Marc Singer (shown on "Great Performances" and available on DVD) is fun, but perhaps too freewheeling. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Franco Zeffirelli's 1967 Taylor/Burton film is no fun at all.Miller and his excellent cast seem to hit the right note. A few of the actors do fall into that Shakespearean trap of reciting their lines as if they're in a race to finish, rather than speaking them normally. Most of the actors do a good job.The major flaw in this "Shrew" is that it abandons the Christopher Sly framing device, without which the play becomes impossible to understand. I suppose the Sly device tends to make the play-within-a-play a silly entertainment that cannot be taken seriously, while Miller's intentions seem to be to present the characters as real and believable as possible. Cleese's Petruchio comes off as thoughtful and heartfelt, while the Sly device perhaps forces a rambunctious, over-the-top performance, a la Marc Singer. It strikes me as curious that this "Shrew" can be presented as near-letter-perfect Shakespeare without Sly.Nevertheless, it's as good as possible, I suppose.

viaus This production is what sparked my interest in Shakespeare. I was able to see the characters as real people, not just actors in period dress slapping their thighs at the funny bits and spouting verses. John Cleese showed a great deal of depth and compassion in his portrayal. The entire production was thoughtful and entertaining. It was understated for a comedy, but that allowed the leads in the play to focus more on the subtleties of Elizabethan culture. The end was not the triumph of a man's will over a woman. It was a triumph of self-control over a wicked temper. It was about putting aside anger and frustration and finding the humor in the situation. Cleese's Petruchio was no boisterous braggart as the character is often portrayed. He was real. He showed genuine sympathy for Kate and her predicament. I saw this on PBS and there was an interview with Mr. Cleese and the director shown afterward where they discussed the culture and characters. I found it interesting and informative. A great experience all round.

paulrubin Miller's production of Taming of the Shrew had a shortcoming it shared with many of the other BBC Shakespeare series productions; It was produced as a theatrical piece and not as video/film. This was more than offset, however, by the brilliant performance of John Cleese as Petruchio. Cleese played Kate's suitor with an understated, british style that at once illuminated the bard's words and drew a direct line between Shakespeare and Monty Python. Listen to him trail off on his 'Think you a little din can daunt my ears' speech and you will understand that humor has not really changed in 400 years.

Rosabel Jonathan Miller manages to take all the fun out of this play - even the casting of John Cleese as Petruchio was a disaster. When this play was first broadcast on PBS, it was followed by an interview between Miller and Cleese, where they smugly compared their dismal version with that of Franco Zeffirelli, who they thought was much to blame for filling his film with high spirits and humorous images. Don't show the Miller/Cleese version to your children, unless you want to kill dead any interest in Shakespeare they might be developing.