I thought “Much Ado” was a fun piece of work marred by some weird decisions, starting with the look of the film, which was oddly garish and cheap — or maybe he just had less of a budget than he really needed to get the right visual tone. (Certainly Branagh’s “Henry V”, while perhaps no visual masterwork, was definitely more apt.)

And then there were some odd choices — casting Keanu Reeves at all, and the way he allowed or coached Michael Keaton to do a bad variation of Beetlejuice as his character. I understand it’s the broadly comic part of the piece, but I’m sure they could of come with something better;Washington’s role might not have been a terribly imaginative interpretation of the part, but if you’re going to have someone play a standard, “hail fellow well met” kind of guy, he’s more than up to the task. I actually haven’t seen any other versions of this play that I can remember (though I think I have), so it’s hard for me to visualize another way to play it. Also, the scene were Emma Thompson rejects his romantic overture (I’m sure most of the women in the audience were asking “why?”) is very nicely played.

I haven’t seen all of the films you mention, but it’s hard to argue that Denzel Washington is a phenomenon worth spending a lot of time on. I have one disagreement with you, though. I thought he was terrible in Much Ado About Nothing, though you’re quite correct that I had no trouble believing him in the role. I think the clash of styles - American and English Shakespeare - did not work. Perhaps it was not Washington’s fault, but rather Branagh’s for not setting a consistent tone.