Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

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.

sarastro7 The simple truth about Shakespeare's plays - especially the comedies - is that they can be delightful beyond one's wildest imagination. I consider Much Ado About Nothing to be by far one of the most pleasant comedies of Shakespeare, but upon watching The Taming of the Shrew, I come to realize that it, when well produced, can be just as wondrous. The wisdom and humor contained in a play by the Bard are nigh-infinite, if only we have the eyes to see it.Having said that, this classic BBC production may indeed be classic, but apart from John Cleese it is fairly pedestrian. The delight, for me, comes from the words rather than the stage production, and then, of course, from John Cleese. I had my doubts about him when I heard he was in a "serious" Shakespeare play, but the second I saw him my doubts evaporated. He carries this show, being easily the best thing about it, and it should be obvious to all that Shakespeare and John Cleese is a match made in heaven - a mad mating, to use a pun from the play! One is grief-stricken that Cleese did not go into Shakespeare acting as a full career; woe is we who have spent our lives lacking a comedic giant such as Cleese in the Shakespearean art form!In short: Cleese is superb, utterly and completely. The rest of the production is adequate, but Cleese absolutely steals the show.My rating: about 6-ish for the rest of the production, with two points added for Cleese's brilliant performance, coming to an 8 out of 10.

au561 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.

KimAC5 I recently studied this play in Brit Lit, and I definitely think that even though this version might be a little slower than the Zefferelli version, it is better. The Zefferelli version reverts back to the physical, cheap humor that Shakespeare obviously steers clear of, because in his day there were a number of those kinds of plays out there, but they were cheap, superficial plays. Also, Zefferelli leaves out the falcon soliloquey. I think that John Cleese is just a genius with comedy, and I am also a big fan of Frank Thorton. Besides that, I think that the makers of this film understood the real themes of Taming, and tried to portray them in the movie, as opposed to Zefferelli, who added extraneous things to make it more "amusing", but thus led it further away from Shakespeare's true meaning.