Will (2017) User Reviews

pretty fun

[danrobbins1 · 8/10 · 11 July 2017]

I've read the previous reviews about the historical inaccuracies in the show. I actually have a Ph.D. in Theatre History and say that a lot of this is accurate. The areas around the theaters were carnival-like with bear baiting, theaters, taverns, and bordellos. There was a very nasty attitude towards Catholics that did include horrible public torture. In addition, Topcliffe, the Queen's torturer, was truly an evil man. My only real disagreement is the portrayal of Marlowe. He was suspected of being a spy, but I am not sure if he was looking for Catholics. The recreation of the theater is quite good as well. I think this show has excellent prospects!

This show is about those years when we truly know nothing of Shakespeare's life and how he became a part of the London theater scene. This is a fun fantasy of "what if?"

Exactly how the bard would have written it

[robbarlow-54198 · 8/10 · 29 July 2017]

It saddens me that people are complaining that London is too colourful, that the characters are too simple and clownish, when that was exactly what Shakespeare himself did. He was bright, sexual, crude and clever and so was this. Maybe it's a little messy but it has so much spirit, so much fire. Every moment is interesting, and that was exactly how the man himself wrote.

Not Historically Accurate, and Proud of It!

[m_imdb-905-691213 · 8/10 · 10 July 2017]

As you might have guessed by now, Will makes practically no attempt to be historically accurate.

Critics everywhere have cried out in collective grief. But who cares? Da Vinci's Demons had very little to do with the real-life Leonardo -- that didn't stop it from running for three seasons!

Like Demons, Will is "historical fiction". Not a biography; not a serious reconstruction of the life of The Bard. It's a drama loosely based on characters loosely based on vague descriptions of people who lived at some point.

It's entertainment. And in that, it does a pretty good job. There's your usual cable TV "must-haves": violence, sex, backstabbing -- general depravity. Everyone's a little greasy, one way or the other. There are crazy sub-plots. If they hadn't called the main character Shakespeare, the critics would have been much happier with it.

But, alas, Shakespeare appears to be sacred. And maybe, that's the cow Will is trying to slaughter. Set the table, we're having steak.

Great story telling and good show

[beowolfhounds · 10/10 · 1 August 2017]

Who cares if historically accurate, it is a good story line and 100 percent worth watching. Mixes modern and old together and I love it. The story is set in 1589 in London, with the Protestant church rallying against the Catholics. You have your good guy, who makes mistakes, the girl or love interest, the villain and all the rest. It's just entertainment, don't take it as fact.

Everything Negative that is Tehart's Review: a Counterpoint

[bajmahal · 9/10 · 11 July 2017]

Please note: I am not knocking Tehart. It's just that other than Hamnet's age, these happened to be mostly the same points that I had noted while watching too. I'm not trying to be snarky or obnoxiously contrarian, I mostly just felt the opposite of Tehart.

1. "The music is awful..." Sure, "London Calling" was a bit too on the nose, but I actually enjoyed the moment in the second episode where members of the theater troupe, in celebratory glee, break into a modern pop song sung in the style of a 16th century "Hey Nonny Nonny". That part was a genuine hoot.

2. "Hamnet's the wrong age..." Meh. Per the Full Cast list, he's only in this episode... so...

3. "Torture porn.." Completely agree. It was off-putting, especially because it was unexpected. The only positive was to give a visceral sense of urgency and inherent danger to Shakespeare's bio and that it may not become a feature (fingers crossed) because the torturer's boss was pretty annoyed that they had snatched the wrong man and states that genuine investigative work is more effective/modern than the old slice'n'dice methods. This fits nicely with the setting: the beginning of the Elizabethan golden age.

4. "Christopher Marlowe..." Completely agree and not really sure why Tehart saw this possible foreshadowing as a negative.

5.& 6. "The secret Catholicism..." & "the street kid..." I think rosaries, in general, would be an important enough thing to keep because that was major part of the whole point of keeping to your beliefs at the risk of death. Also, Will is careless about this whole intrigue because it was pressed upon him by his parents and not something he wants to think about. He didn't properly hide it (so the kid stole it easily) because he wasn't all that engaged in that particular task. Also, Will actually caught the kid, but the kid pulled a knife and wounded Will before escaping once again. I don't think Shakespeare was supposed to be a superhero. He's not even particularly macho. Also, I was wondering if the kid is supposed to be a young John Webster -- like the street kid in "Shakespeare in Love"? The cast list apparently states that the character's name is Southwell. That's a shame, it would have been cool if it had been Webster.

7. "... Elizabethan stage is not punk rock..." Now me, I liked this Baz Luhrmann/Tom Stoppard mash-up. I like the sensibility. I loved the iambic "rap battle" in the pub. I loved the way people around Will use versions of lines that he will eventually write into his plays and how he pulls out his notebook to make note of what he hears. I love that Alice cross-dresses, which gives a possible reason for Will's future use of this plot device. And I really loved how the playwright who dies so that Will might take over his position in the company and become the Great William Shakespeare(!)is named Baxter. He's literally The Baxter. How can one not love that?

nice experiment

[Kirpianuscus · 13 July 2017]

it is strange to hope more. because the fragments of biography, the opportunity to use imagination to complete it, the Elisabethan London and the theater of this period are great temptations for a series who could be cool and small door for teenager to the work of the most important playwright of entire history. so, it is, in same measure, provocative , subjective and decent. the good point is Laurie Davidson who gives a Shakespeare full of noble intentions, sparkles, vulnerability and in permanent grow up in the atmosphere of the city. and the script is the recipes who contains all the ingredients and the way to be more than a tasteful dish but an impressive one.

I love this series!

[foxytigger · 7/10 · 13 August 2018]

I do hope that there will be another series. This was so interesting and captivating it would be a shame for there not to be another series!

Shakespeare Would Have a Few Choice Epithets for This

[tehart · 1/10 · 9 July 2017]

Possible spoilers. Comments on historical v fictional portrayal

1. The music is awful. It's not appropriate to the time period, and even for the current time period it's awful music.

2. Hamnet was played by a boy who might have 7-10 years old. The historical Hamnet was about 2.

3. Torture porn. We see a guy being disemboweled, and his intestines are pulled out before our eyes. Then we see a guy being tortured, and some object is forced down his throat.

4. Christopher Marlowe, who probably was one of Walsingham's secret agents, telling an actor that he's a secret agent. He'd be a pretty poor one too, if he blabbed it all over town. Though that might explain his real life death in Deptford.

5. Shakespeare as Catholic. This is a matter that is disputed. He may have been; he may not have been. My own belief is that he was probably Catholic, but played at being Anglican to avoid torture and nasty stuff like that. His mother thrusts a rosary on him. That makes no sense at all. These people are terrified of persecution for being Catholic, so they give their son a rosary to take with him?

6. He has a secret letter stolen from him by a kid, and can't catch the tyke. He's so out of shape that he can't catch a poverty stricken little brat?

7. The Elizabethan stage was not some punk rock scene. Whatever it was, it wasn't that.

Avoid this dreck. Read Shakespeare instead. Your brain will thank you, and your stomach will be saved from retching at the torture porn.

Love It.

[savannah42000 · 10/10 · 2 August 2017]

Fab casting. I love the trade off betwixt Olde English and New Age acting. The Music is a breath of fresh air and of course its not true to history completely , its entertainment, stop being so stuffy. I adore it. Period pieces can go one of two ways either pomp or fun , this is fun at its best . Bravo to all and Laurie Davidson ... you totally own the screen.

Nothing remarkable, but yet it's still a pleasant escape.

[paulellerman · 7/10 · 26 July 2017]

The plot is a bit out of focus and random, but somehow everything still manages to come together and provide above average entertainment. The actors are very spirited which is one of the biggest pluses. There are very few period piece TV shows that I have found to be worth watching, but this is one of them. The sets are done well enough so that it really kind of brings you back to another day and age. The music, even though it doesn't necessarily fit the period the show is set in, still adds a youthful and vibrant touch to the show.

Too Ridiculous & Not Ridiculous Enough

[LouieInLove · 4/10 · 10 July 2017]

To ask an audience to believe (which this Series does with the tag-line 'Before he was Shakespeare he was...') authenticity must be present. Will is simply too Ridiculous for belief. London has been made to look like the Rio Carnival & I was half expecting a song from Oliver to come bursting out from the hammy wee scamp who steals from Shakespeare at the very beginning. Consider Yourself - cringe worthy?

There are some really notable cast members, but they have been let down by Legs Akimbo amateur dramatics. If only a writer had been employed to push the ridiculous into overdrive, Will may have worked as a comedy/farce. As is, it doesn't work due to not really knowing that it isn't a play but a TV series.

You can get away with some of the nonsense seen in Will within the confines of the theatre but not on TV. TV is for a mass audience & not a theatre clique.

Out of touch writing & production are employed. I can imagine those involved blaming the audience for any criticism received & the inevitable failure. Then again, I could be wrong.

Am I being too harsh? No! I'm not. Don't sell me steak then give me pop rocks.

Using Shakespeare's Name in Vain. Minimal Spoilers -- no real details.

[susan-317 · 4/10 · 10 July 2017]

I'm not sure what they were going for with this. I don't mind the music being modern - that was done first in a Knight's Tale with Heath Ledger. However, there is, as the other reviewer mentioned, torture porn, a plot-line about whores, and a plot about Catholics or anti-Catholics. Honestly, I am exhausted by people persecuting people because of religion. Why is that such a thing again? And - warning - actors do the can-can on stage.

I don't think that this is a good representation of the period, nor do I think that Shakespeare was the idiot they portray him to be. And why is everybody so young? The average age of the stars in this movie must be about 24.

I was really looking forward to this show and am so disappointed by the lack of historical accuracy. If you want to see something really good about Shakespeare, watch "Shakespeare in Love". That is awesome and, honestly, I cried during the performance of Romeo and Juliet.

Punk rock Shakespeare

[relo999-601-496040 · 10/10 · 11 July 2017]

I like to state, as someone growing up within my local punk scene that emulated the early punk scene (late 70's/early 80's) and has a history of art, I love this series. It tries to show the story the early days of Shakespeare as if Elizabethan England is going through a punk phase. And does so amazingly without it being overbearing, and is something you can see back in the clothing, music choice, hair styles, posters, etc. this all to the point that, seemingly, a lot of other reviewers actually haven't noticed it aside from the music.

Take the clothing for example: most major characters wear something like leather jackets that are studded with patterns, this all without it being terribly out of place within Elizabethan England. Or a more obvious example are the posters, they look nothing little to nothing Elizabethan era posters however do look like cheap punk concert posters with some Elizabethan flair thrown in for good measure. And lets be frank in what late 1500's world would they have used, what looks like, cut out photocopied letters for a wanted poster?

But I could continue to list all the small details and how amazing it works within the setting.

The story as of yet has also been top notch in my opinion, not to shallow but not so deep that it requires art history major to understand. It also doesn't, if you notice the punk elements obviously so, to be historically accurate.

All in all, great show.

I think Shakespeare would love it

[dawnkelleyart · 10/10 · 15 June 2020]

He loved modernizing things....if this was true to time it would be disgusting... read some history! The royals were disgusting.

I love this show! It explored some historical "tabloid material" with no true claims, but the theory's being exposed; was enjoyable! The costumes are mind blowing ....It makes me crave to bring some of these adornments to our current fashion.

This is definitely a period piece

Trash

[bozx-71318 · 1/10 · 23 July 2017]

Yet another travesty of a program. Butchering history, drunk on political correctness, content to both speculate about contentious theories (his religious faith) and to simply make stuff up (the cheating on wife, anachronistic dialogue, etc). This is not a tribute to Shakespeare, it is not a celebration of his genius, it is not even an entertaining fantasy: it is a slap in the face. This show proves for the millionth time why postmodernism is cancer and delights in nothing more than spitting on the past, tarnishing tradition, and putting mediocrity on a pedestal - saying it is a brilliant or clever "re-imagining" of the era or some such rot. No, you want to make money - and think this rubbish will appeal to the kiddies. Not so.

Olde London Calling

[jrg-ras-266-436267 · 10/10 · 10 August 2017]

Just watched the first episode last night. Aside from the garish colors and the punk overtones, I was enthralled. Like Shakespeare's stage directions, the bio for historical Will is sparse leaving ample room for dramatic embellishment. I thought it was clever the way the writers wove ideas and fragments of speeches from the plays throughout the first episode. Especially enjoyed the "duel" of words between Robert Greene and Will in iambic pentameter. If the rest of the episodes prove as entertaining and engrossing as the first, this series will be a treat! Oh, and after about the first 10 min I was over the garish colors and punk overtones.

MIGHT continue watching. . . . .

[buffalogal3-953-389347 · 5/10 · 11 July 2017]

The jury is still out for me on this one. . . I was looking forward to this series with considerable anticipation, and after seeing the first night's episodes, am now not so sure this is one I will faithfully make an effort to see each week.

I was immediately put off with the graphic, nothing left to the imagination, disembowelment scene at the beginning of the show. While some might argue it was to provide a necessary component depicting a level of the barbarity of the times, I never feel it is a requirement to include something that disgusting, ever. Filmmakers have been capable of conveying what they want you to know/feel, without having to go that far, for decades. Apparently the folks producing this show don't think alluding to the barbarity is enough, or that the audience is capable of using their imagination, because they then followed up shortly thereafter with another guy being gruesomely tortured. I came to be entertained, not grossed out.

I was secondly very disappointed that they felt it necessary to borrow the cast from Mad Max and then dip dye and tattoo them all, whilst clothing them in apparel that looked like something straight out of a 1980s rave. Really? While I expected the show to have SOME fun with artistic license, this was ridiculous. I found it difficult to concentrate on the story line because so many people looked so out of place. C'mon. Folks were not running around with shock blue, hot pink, lime green, pale purple and neon yellow hair on half shaved heads and spiky hair back then, with tattoos of objects that did not exist yet on their arms and necks. (And could someone tell these folks that plastic, reflective sequins and trim didn't exist then, either?)

I'm not crazy about the music chosen either. What is the flavor they are trying to create here? I'm not sure. Knight's Tale it ain't - that was supposed to be humorous. If it was supposed to be humorous here, it didn't work. It just seemed odd and out of place. Using music appropriate to the time would have provided better flow, although I'm sure there are plenty who might not agree.

I also expected bawdy and lewd to be in attendance, given the time this is set in. Be forewarned that you do not want your children in attendance while you watch this, though, or anyone with whom you would be uncomfortable sitting through sex scenes, with everything on display but the "private bits". Additionally, the manner in which the theater actors kept forcefully and loudly slinging themselves about the stage seemed over done. Maybe that was to provide a backdrop against which the acting becomes more refined under Shakespeare? Don't know. Remains to be seen I guess.

Given the above, one might wonder why I would continue watching at all. Well, I have always been intrigued by this time period, and I do find the manner in which Shakespeare is being played/portrayed interesting, so I guess I'm hoping this will get better.

I'll give it a couple more episodes before I decide whether or not to give up on it.

Give this a chance

[GoJackets79 · 10/10 · 21 July 2017]

Binged through the 9 episodes available so far on TNT's app and can't wait for the next (one, two, three...?)

If I were a HS English teacher, having the students watch this would be the best way to get them interested in Shakespeare (probably have to field complaints from uptight parents about language, nudity, etc. etc.).

Just because not everyone is wearing brown or black doesn't mean this isn't historically accurate; maybe London was like a renaissance fair? The backstory on the characters seems to be on target.

Not to be

[larosat-32821 · 1/10 · 11 July 2017]

Thought it might have a chance but it's not be. Awful production. London looks like Mardi Gras. Everyone looks or acts like a clown. Will is so weak he can't fight a 12 year old kid who apparently bathes in mud. No deception about Will's sexuality right off the bat as he seems attracted to the incredibly ugly, effeminate character played be Jaime Bower who ruined Camelot by playing a girly man King Arthur ( why is he given roles I'll never understand ). Unlike Da Vinci's Code whose first 2 seasons were outstanding; this is an outright mess right out of the gate. Go watch Genius for quality TV and pass on this travesty. Bad year for anything Shakespeare with that other abomination on ABC that must have had SJW's salivating in delight. The poor Bard.

Some Missed Opportunities but Good overall

[jon7057 · 8/10 · 31 July 2017]

Like others, I had some reservations about a punk rock take on the early days of Shakespeare's career until I saw the previews and was intrigued by what WAS historically accurate. I can say it's a mix of 75% enjoyable and 25% frustration. None of the frustrating elements have anything to do with it being punk rock but everything to do with missed opportunities.

I enjoyed seeing the football-like atmosphere of the theater as this is exactly what a theater would have been like. I liked seeing a young and unsure Richard Burbage where both he and Shakespeare had to learn their trades. I like seeing James Burbage in action and the unsung theater support staff through Alice and her mother. A full of himself and dangerous Kemp. The ever-partying but emotionally empty Marlowe and Southwell's Catholic underground with all of its darker treatments. In my opinion, episodes 3 and 4 were some of the best as you could probably make entire films just out of Shakespeare's Catholic connections and his relationship with Marlowe. I enjoyed his relationship with Alice.

What I didn't like were the missed opportunities. When his wife, Anne, showed up I was hoping for someone who matched Shakespeare as a believable partner. One who could read as there is circumstantial evidence that she could. Someone who could plausibly stand in for Shakespeare in business matters when he was working in London. Instead, we just got the really old stereotype of the illiterate wife who just "doesn't understand" her artist husband. This was quite a let down and a yawn that it fell into such predictability. Also, no relationship whatsoever with his daughters just the son. You had a real opportunity to delve into Shakespeare's personal life and explore questions like: What did an 18-year old wanna-be poet see in a 26-year old landowner's daughter? What do lines in Sonnet 145 where Anne "saved my life" mean? How was his daughter Susanna like Shakespeare?

The other major let down was Marlowe. After getting such a great setup where Marlowe came across as this Mercutio-like figure of being both a friend and dangerous man he disappears from Shakespeare's direct story. I really thought that when they got to the writing of Henry VI that the show's writers would tie in the recent scholarship that Marlowe had collaborated on them. In such a setup you could get the in-jokes of how early Shakespeare imitated Marlowe, have Shakespeare and Marlowe bounce ideas off of each other, talk shop about writing, and further the relationship set up in the first 4 episodes. There's even a juicy domestic comedy dealing with murder that they are supposed to have collaborated on. None of that.

The worst part was the kid Presto. This story was boring and ultimately led nowhere.

I'm intrigued by the introduction of the mixed race Emilia Bassano. I'd love to see a second season where they would explore Shakespeare's and Bassano's love affair and love triangle with the Fair Youth of the Sonnets. Eventually leading up to and dealing with Marlowe's death.

Overall, great effort and hope there's more.

Another interesting show cancelled

[seashell36 · 10/10 · 4 July 2018]

This show is very creative and entertaining. I don't know anything about Shakespeare to comment on historical accuracy, but haven't all the naysayers heard of poetic license? After all, Shakespeare didn't listen to "London Calling" by the Clash back then - even I know that!

uncomfortable mix of the historical and the modern

[cherold · 4/10 · 24 September 2017]

The problem with Will is not, strictly speaking, that it's historically inaccurate. The problem is an inconsistency of tone that comes out of a particular approach to historical inaccuracy.

The series wants to both have an edgy modern quality and give a fun sense of Shakespeare's time, and that's a straddle it cannot hold.

This is why the debates here between those complaining about historical inaccuracy and those mocking people for complaining about historical inaccuracy are beside the point. Monty Python and the Holy Grail was historically inaccurate, but it created a consistent world using pieces of history and fantasy and modernity. Same with Xena Warrior Princess. But Will just feels like a hodgepodge of ideas that are thematically incompatible, and it lacks the flair necessary to pull it off.

The end result is not a show that fails because of inaccuracies, but rather a series that is just kind of annoying.

Inaccurate? Sure. Fun and in the Shakespearian spirit? Absolutely

[cathyweeks · 9/10 · 18 July 2017]

As a former English Teacher, I just had to watch this, and so far, I like what I see.

Using modern music to make it feel contemporary is no problem for me. Lots of movies do this (hard rock in Wonder Woman set in WWI? A variety of modern music - and shoes - in Marie Antoinette?) I'm sure when WS's history plays were performed, they used Elizabethan music, and not the music from the time the plays were set. Totally valid.

The use of color was strange, inaccurate, but amazingly beautiful. Dyes were expensive. Bright colors wouldn't have been worn by the groundlings. By the actors and by the nobility - sure, but not regular folk. On the other hand, it was lovely to look at - an explosion of color and textures, and it totally added to the atmosphere.

Was he or wasn't he Catholic? We simply don't know. The show suggesting that he was, adds interest, and allows for other conflicts that he must get himself out of. It's no different than filling in any other of the blanks in his life.

The poetry slam was great fun, as was his rescuing the important scene in his play by bursting onto stage, to get Burbage Jr. to stop shouting his lines.

I also loved the hint of danger and politics (for those who think Theater has been a safe space - think again. Actors have always used their stage to make statements).

And, I loved the grunge, the earthiness, and all that. The Elizabethans were in no way prudish.

What Would Hunter S. Thompson Say?

[vidiot49 · 3/10 · 11 July 2017]

I'm still reeling from watching the two episode premier. I won't rehash the criticisms made regarding the weirdness of mixing punk hair styles, hair coloring and music with an Elizabethan historical setting except to note that I agree. I found myself wincing every time the audience at the theater was shown. I kept dreading the time when Boy George or that girl with the upside down eye makeup from Bow Wow Wow would show up as audience members. Or maybe even the guy with the late 50's Cadillac fin hair from Flock of Seagulls. If they really wanted to do the 70's/80's music thing right why not go for "Hit Me With Your Rhythm Stick" by Ian Dury and the Blockheads or "Fame" by David Bowie? I will say that the photography is gorgeous as are the sets and costumes (even though some of the costumes seem as much from a future time as the music). I just wish that Hunter S. Thompson could come back and write a "Fear and Loathing" about "Will".

Totally gripping

[woodajoseph · 10/10 · 30 July 2017]

This is probably my favorite show next to game of thrones. It may not be 100% accurate but it doesn't need to be the truly artistic form in which it is written takes you on an emotional roller-coaster that is just gripping TV. I would urge people to watch it for what it is and have an open mind and it will truly inspire you and invest you. i knew when i put it on i didn't want to turn it off and i hope this develops and continues into further seasons.