arbarnes "Dancing With Shakespeare" is the direct translation of the title this film was given in Norway, and it is quite an apt description not only of the film's content, but the fundamental, gnawing weakness of the film: a play that above all plays with language seems ill at ease in a jacket marked "dancing". When you dance with Shakespeare you don't want to get out of step, and Love's Labour's Lost doesn't QUITE come together. And it's very sad because it's a film you so much WANT to work, because its heart is in the right place, and its intentions are good and creative and exciting and bold. Yes, it's enjoyable and frothy, silly and sincere in equal measures, beautifully shot with a camera that plays a part in the best Hollywood-golden-age manner, and sometimes it's very funny and works beautifully. But frequently the novelty of turning one of Shakespeare's most language-reliant comedies into a nostalgic romantic musical simply works against itself, and the result is then flat rather than uplifting. And this is not because people don't TRY –everyone involved in the film really gives it a good go, and clearly wants to try to make it come off. It very nearly does, but not quite –there is an unevenness about it that keeps us from getting fully engrossed in what we see, and this is the sort of film that needs that to work. I was lucky enough to see this film originally at a special screening introduced by Kenneth Branagh and Alicia Silverstone, which boosted the preview audience into a higher gear of excitement and expectation than would be usual, so the experience was a little like the prospect of drinking lots of champagne –delightful, but somehow never as good as the idea of it!Upon re-watching the film recently, I think the film in fact rather MORE resembles one of those very fancy, colourful cocktails you order when on holiday, with tiny umbrellas and exotic fruit and flowers sticking out and looking enormously tempting on the menu and when brought to you, but always somewhat impractical to drink and with ingredients that don't quite mix together satisfyingly enough. With Love's Labour's Lost the conceit of transforming Shakespeare's rich ideas into classic Hollywood musical numbers to bring across certain moods and emotional moments is a fun recipe, but it seems to me to clash too often with the actual text the film is based on. Now, admittedly much of Shakespeare's play is very obscure and difficult to understand compared to other plays he wrote, and severe editing was going to be inevitable; but putting in musical number after musical number as a replacement seems more a way of padding the film to arrive at a decent length rather than really moving the story along. In fact, many of the musical numbers –skillfully and cheekily staged though some of them are– just get in the way of things, and frequently I found myself wishing that Branagh had been even more faithful to Shakespeare and instead kept in more of the actual play itself. Thus I was pleasantly surprised to find a number of deleted scenes on the DVD of the film that sadly never made it to the final cut. I think these should have been kept in because they help make more sense of the story. The diversity of performers that comprise the cast is quite interesting and there are some magnificent individual performances, though again the range of different styles doesn't always gel on screen. To a certain extent this was also true of Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet. Everyone is doing their own little film, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Timothy Spall's Don Armado is perhaps one of the most outrageous performances ever seen on screen, but it is totally in keeping with the character as written. And both he and Nathan Lane (as Costard the clown) bring an essential element of sadness to their otherwise comic roles that is very moving. But the double quartet of lovers that form the central romantic story of the film is a very mixed bag indeed. Branagh understandably gives the plum role of Berowne to himself and sells his Shakespeare with that admirable deftness that is uniquely his, but he is really too old for the part and this works against him here. I also feel at times he should have directed himself more astutely or had better assistance at doing so, for it is largely the scenes in which he does not appear that work best –simply because at such times he, as director, is able to concentrate fully on the other performances. The film also seems unable to break itself totally free from its staginess to become the truly filmic musical it aspires to be.So, I am quite ambivalent about this film. I DO like and enjoy it, and applaud Branagh for tackling a lesser-known Shakespeare comedy, and with such gusto, but I SO wish I were able to like it more and be fully satisfied by it –and by the greater film that is in its heart..

grantss Surprisingly light on substance.A Kenneth Branagh written-and-directed adaptation of the Shakespeare play. Set in WW2 for the movie, The King of Navarre and his three best friends have sworn off wine, women and song for three years, in the interests of studying. But then the beautiful princess of France, and her equally-lovely ladies-in-waiting arrive, and their oaths are quickly and sorely tested...Fun and funny at times but ultimately quite empty. It is short to begin with - about 85 minutes. Then you have the fact that this version is a musical and the amount of actual movie time is even shorter. In the end it just seems so full of empty schmaltz, fluff and padding. Reasonably moving ending though.On the subject of the music, I generally dislike musicals but the choice of music here is pretty good: George Gershwin, Cole Porter, Kern and Hammerstein, Irving Berlin. While I would still have preferred no musical numbers - it just wrecks any plausibility and continuity - it could have been a lot worse.Decent cast - Branagh, Alicia Silverstone, Alessandro Nivola, Natascha McElhone, Emily Mortimer, Nathan Lane, Timothy Spall - who put in solid performances. Don't know what Matthew Lillard is doing there though (note that I didn't include him in the "decent cast" list). He is conspicuous by his lack of acting skills and should stick to C-grade frat farces.

TheLittleSongbird I love Shakespeare and musicals, and I have a great respect for Kenneth Branagh. Love's Labour's Lost was not as bad as I'd heard, but I can actually understand the criticisms as while it does have its charms it is a heavily flawed film. The play is one of Shakespeare's weakest due to how overly-wordy it is, so I knew that when I heard about this film that it can go either way. I will start off by saying that Branagh does deserve credit for trying to make Shakespeare's work accessible to wider audiences, but it uncharacteristically came in mixed results here. I often praise Branagh for his respect and understanding for Shakespeare, but his other films especially Much Ado Nothing, Hamlet and Henry V did this much better. Other than the title and some of the dialogue, which is not the most poetic and witty Shakespeare has done but has evidence of both, there's not really enough that of that Shakespeare feel. That is largely because while making a noble attempt to make the play accessible Branagh oversimplifies the writing and consequently loses the story's consequently making it here thin and too much of an excuse to string song-and-dance numbers one or another.Another consequence is that as a directing job it is on the unimaginative side and feels like too much West End not enough Branagh. There are also two miscasts. Matthew Lillard is a tall, handsome and likable guy, but here he constantly sounds and looks like he's got something up his nose. Even more problematic is Alicia Silverstone, who I liked in Clueless, but I thought she was pretty awful here both as a singer-dancer and as a Shakespearean actor, she can barely sing a note without being breathy and out of tune and is often behind the beat in the singing, and in terms of acting her delivery is always forced and awkward especially in the darker shift of tone. Finally, I usually like Timothy Spall a lot but his I Get a Kick Out of You was for me an embarrassment.On the plus side, the 30s setting is evoked absolutely beautifully, and it is well filmed too. The songs from the likes of Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Irving Berlin are outstanding, and the dancing sequences in the film do have a lot of charm and pizazz, especially Let's Face the Music and Dance, There's No Business Like Show Business and They Can't Take That Away from Me. Even though the singing is not exactly great, it isn't entirely awful, the best voice of the entire cast easily comes from Carmen Ejogo. The characters are not that developed, due to the oversimplifications but do have a lot of easy-going charm and likability that I can't hate them. Some members of the cast, namely Branagh, Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan do show an understanding of Shakespeare, how it should sound and feel. I did like most of the performances. Branagh is not entirely convincing age-wise but is enthusiastic at least in his role. Briers and McEwan are splendid, while Nathan Lane is hilarious. I especially loved Natascha McElhone and Adrian Lester. McElhone plays her role with such beauty and depth, and Lester is sublime in his equally sublime musical set piece.All in all, has its charms but for me it is not one Branagh's finest hours. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Tineke M I've read comments that you shouldn't watch this film if you're looking for stirring Shakespearian dialogue. This is true, unfortunately, because all the stirring dialogue, this wonderful play contains, has been cut, and replaced with songs. I've read this play, and recently was lucky enough to see it performed, at it remains one of my favourite Shakespearian Comedies, but this movie seems to take all that I like about it away. The Princess, though no doubt doing what she was directed to do, had no regal bearing, and all the girls seemed to lose the cleverness of their characters - also affected by unwise cuts, which not only took away the female characters already sparse dialogue, but took comments out of context - it was a little unnerving to hear the Princess proclaim; "We are wise girls to mock our lovers so!", when mocking had not taken place at all. The news reels throughout the film also disrupted the flow, and took away many excellent scenes, as they showed the information in the scenes after them, and were in modern phrasing. In conclusion, an excellent play, ruined by an odd concept, and unwise cuts. Kenneth, I usually love what you do. What were you thinking?