How I felt about it. In the 1960's, Italian director Franco Zeffirelli tackled two Shakesperian plays, The Taming of the Shrew and Romeo and Juliet. Clearly, the former is not nearly as good a movie as the latter. Numerous reasons can be offered, with the truth residing in a combination of these among other unmentioned and obscure factors.
What's wrong with The Taming of the Shrew? Why does it suffer in comparison with Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet? 1. It's a comedy. 2. Star power is misused. 3. It's a weaker play. 4. The director's performance was lesser. 5. The focus is lacking.
Let's break these out. Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy. The Taming of the Shrew is a comedy. Comedies generally aren't as good as dramas, never mind that Stanley Kubrick's best film is a comedy (Dr. Strangelove) and it is nearly his only comedy (Lolita isn't that funny.) In other words, being a comedy hardly condemns a movie to mediocrity.
Star power: Burton and Taylor were the most famous Hollywood couple during the mid-1960's. Burton is best when pensive (The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?). Taylor was best playing a proud, respectable beauty. But in the present film, Burton must act the fool, and Taylor must be a shrew. They have the added burdon of trying to be funny. Their larger than life characters are blown out of focus.
This excuse may have a grain of truth. Burton and Taylor may cherish the play, and give colorful performances. But it doesn't ring true, because their relationship in the play seems artificial (and inconstant) throughout.
Let's largely dispense with reasons 4 and 5, as listed above, which are beyond ready evaluation. It's fair enough to state that Romeo and Juliet has a certain rhythm, or flair, to the plot. The Taming of the Shrew is more chaotic, and thus requires alteration by the director to make it work. Focus on the taming of the shrew, and neglect the stupid father, his stupid hot daughter, the stupid suitors (all three of them), as well as their comic servants. Of course, this means altering the work of the exalted master of English stage. So be it, it is only a movie. Throne of Blood doesn't turn Macbeth into confetti.
Of course, we are really discussing number 3. Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet are two Shakespeare favorites. While hardly obscure, The Taming of the Shrew isn't as popular. The play does raise interesting themes. How should a woman, and a wife, behave? If behavior is unacceptable, how should a husband correct it? Shakespeare suggests that the wife should be obedient, even when common sense dictates a different course. If she is disobedient, she merits punishment, in the form of greatly reduced comfort.
These conclusions aren't amusing, nor enlightening, and the same can be said for the play itself. Forcing your daughter to marry a reckless mercenary stranger doesn't appear to be a good plan, even though the nature of comedies ensures all will live happily ever after. Especially for Michael York, whose blonde is more fun.