Love's Labour's Lost Review
by Ian Waldron-Mantgani (Ukcritic AT aol DOT com)April 8th, 2000
Love's Labour's Lost **
Rated on a 4-star scale
Screening venue: Odeon (Manchester City Centre)
Released in the UK by Pathe on 31 March, 2000; certificate U; 93 minutes; counties of origin UK/USA; aspect ratio 2.35:1
Directed by Kenneth Branagh; produced by David Barron, Kenneth Branagh. Written by Kenneth Branagh; based on the play by William Shakespeare. Photographed by Alex Thomson; edited by Daniel Farrell, Neil Farrell.
CAST.....
Alessandro Nivola..... King
Kenneth Branagh..... Berowne
Adrian Lester..... Dumaine
Matthew Lillard..... Longaville
Alicia Silverstone..... Princess
Natasha McElhone..... Rosaline
Carmen Ejogo..... Maria
Emily Mortimer..... Katherine
Richard Briers..... Nathaniel
Nathan Lane..... Costard
Timothy Spall..... Don Armado
Kenneth Branagh's "Love's Labour's Lost" conceives many good ideas on how to inject life into one of Shakespeare's most inane plays, then spoils them with bizarre execution. It's one thing to intersperse the Bard's original dialogue with Busby Berkeley-style musical numbers, and quite another to fill the frame with actors who look like they've been smoking crack.
In the story, a young king (Alessandro Nivola) forms a pact with several countrymen, who pledge to lock themselves away for three years and dedicate their attentions to study. They will sleep only three hours per night, fast frequently and avoid female company. It's a bit like boarding school, I guess, except without the buggery.
The early scenes show words of concern coming from Berowne, the character played by Branagh, who doubts whether he and his chums will be able to live without romance. This is an accurate prediction, and soon he and the king, as well as fellow scholars Dumaine (Adrian Lester) and Longaville (Matthew Lillard), are bewitched by the charms of four French ladies -- Princess (Alicia Silverstone), Rosaline (Natasha McElhone), Maria (Carmen Ejogo) and Katherine (Emily Mortimer).
Neither the play nor the film explain what possessed the king to lock himself away -- is it intentional that the man seems mad? If so, why do none of the characters ever mark his insanity? More importantly, what is supposed to be so entertaining about men and women sending each other messages of love, shuffling away tittering, discussing the process and then repeating it? That's the ridiculous game that fills most of "Love's Labour's Lost". Hardly Shakespeare's finest hour.
Because its story is so very lame, I was grateful for the film's singing and dancing -- at least some energy is brought to the proceedings. Wouldn't you rather hear songs such as "Cheek to Cheek" and "There's No Business Like Show Business" than the frivolous chatter of sub-standard Elizabethan drama? The movie's problem is its excess of reaction shots, and its performers' over-the-top gestures, bulging eyes and sweeping hand movements. Especially irritating is Timothy Spall, who attempts to be a jester by way of an embarrassing fake Spanish accent and clumsy walk.
Branagh loves the work of William Shakespeare, and UNDERSTANDS it, which is why his screen adaptations garner so much acclaim. "Hamlet" (1996) was one of cinema's great directorial achievements. "Love's Labour's Lost" is a film of ingenious concepts put into practice with disappointing clumsiness.
COPYRIGHT(c) 2000 Ian Waldron-Mantgani
http://members.aol.com/ukcritic
More on 'Love's Labour's Lost'...
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
