A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

This is a famous comedy, maybe the most famous comedy by Shakespeare. It was made famous by Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton but it stands apart in Shakespeare's comedies. In most comedies we have four couples getting married or re-united at the end. In this one we have only three women who get married to three men of course. Three in Shakespeare's style is the incongruous and disorderly rhythm that breaks the perfect iambic harmony of two or four. In his language anything coming by three is a sign of some disruption, some tempest coming, some imbalance that menaces the normal peaceful course of events. So there is an element of disorder in this ending. And there is another in the number of ternary elements the final speech of Katharina at the end, a speech to her sister for her to understand she has to submit to her husband for the good of the couple and for her own comfort. The number of ternary elements is dense. Let me give a few examples: "thy lord, thy king, thy governor", "it blots…, confounds… and in no sense is…", "thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper, / Thy head, thy sovereign." (1 + 3 + 2 = 6), "warm at home, secure and safe", "but love, fair looks and true obedience". But the acme of this imbalance is brought by a pentacle, a group of five elements, the devil in the story: "…froward, peevish, sullen, sour, and not obedient", "but a foul contending rebel, and graceless traitor" (3 + 2 =5, or Adjective + adjective + noun + adjective + noun = 3 adjectives + 2 nouns = 5). This is clear enough and it is the absolute meaning of the speech to the sister: submit for your benefit, and of course you can think as much as you want, as long as you have peace you can. This spirit of women in fact getting the best out of their husbands for their own sake and not for their husbands' sake, is the central meaning in this play. Women are no hypocrites or liars or simulators in any way. They are just taking care of their best interest and what the husbands may see as submission is the guarantee for women to have their independence and freedom. Apart from this general meaning, which is ahead of its time as for women in society in the 16th century, the play is such an accumulation of disguises and servants playing masters and masters playing servants, and sons and fathers, and fathers and daughters, without counting all the suitors, that we are literally made slightly dizzy. The language, the puns, the innuendo, the playing on words and all the wit, some of it openly gross, some insinuating some grossness, make this comedy real fireworks of fun and pleasure: water music one century early. This BBC production is fair enough and the setting is wider than a stage which enables the angle of vision to change which gives to our perception of the public or private space a dimension it probably does not have, in between a natural setting and a sound stage. The dynamism of the actors is just fun, including the final song of the banquet which is just amateurish enough to sound plain true.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

Watching Shakespeare is tricky business. Its because the material is so deep and dangerous, that it can cut and ruin lives of innocents just as it can build and weave. Part of the danger comes from not being aware of the edges, of thinking that what you see is a comedy as toothless as something from TeeVee. But part is also a matter of decisions the director makes.There are a few major traditions the director can follow. A focus on the sweep of cosmology, on the (usual) intricacies of plot. On the fabulous language, its structure and ever-more layered metaphors. Its emotional shivers, yes even the comedies. Sometimes the way chosen is to map it to some other era and its trappings to increase "relevance," as if "West Side Story" had the stuff from which one builds imagination.But the most dangerous choice of all, I believe, is when the director chooses to make the play about humans, to make it emotionally real. I mean "emotionally" here in the modern theatrical sense where screams and actorly attunement really can connect. Its probably a bad choice because when you try to make these characters modern, natural, as if you could encounter them in life, you fool yourself into thinking you understand the thing. You see familiar people, reacting in familiar ways, lifelike. But that's not how these plays are put together. There's always the majority of it just out of reach. There's always more, even if you read it slowly. That's what makes this magical. It isn't Ibsen. When the director takes those heavens away, the knife becomes dull and there is no instrument on earth as dangerous as a dull knife.Just look at the comments here on IMDb, celebrating the accessibility of this production. Yes, it is probably more comprehendible than Zeferelli's zany snappings. But that had the language, and it preserved the cadence as poetry, and thus indicated how layered were the metaphors, how nested were the rhythms, how integrated the language was with human intercourse, how dissymmetry is behind the tension the keeps love afloat.Nothing of that is here. This is a marvelous play. The staging is particularly wonderful and the characters engaging, A good play — a good production, but dangerously far from Shakespeare.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

John Cleese in The Taming of the Shrew?!!!That was my reaction, too. But I couldn't resist tuning in, and boy was I glad I did. I enjoyed Richard Burton's version and considered it the definitive take on Petruchio -- until I saw Cleese's. Simply magnificent. That acid wit of his was the perfect tool for taming Kate. Highly recommended.

Unlike Taylor, Burton, and Zefferelli, who run roughshod over Shakespere's script and chew the scenery like buffoons; Jonathon Miller's intelligent direction and John Cleese's droll performance illuminate the true depth of the play. Cleese is ever mindful of the brilliance of Katherine's intellect and seduces rather than browbeats her to be his love. While at the same time being seduced by her mind and deeply loving heart. Not a farce as it is most often produced, but a true battle of wits, where both combatants win.