Rating: 
Summary: A better movie than you think....
Review: From the very beginning of the film, I was struck by the vivid depictions of London life in the late 16th century. I felt it was all so real, I was transported through time.The actors are all wonderful, especially Gwyneth Paltrow, and the screenwriters didn't miss a thing; the story is so tight and well-polished and has a thorough knowledge of Shakespeare. It's a wonderful film, but don't knock it if you haven't seen it.
Rating: 
Summary: ALL IT LACKED WAS A GREAT SCRIPT
Review: The sound quality of the movie was terrific as was the photography and the costumes. The acting, especially of Gwyneth Paltrow and Joseph Fiennes was top notch. The fast pace and the premise were great. Where this movie really falls apart is in the lacklustre script. What could have been so funny simply isn't. I bought the video hoping to find a really entertaining and comical romp. Instead, I found something to put me to sleep at night. A shame.
Rating: 
Summary: INCREDIBELY OVERATTED bookbasher@hotmail.com
Review: I must say that I don't understand what was all the fuss about this movie. It's good, but very prone to be catalogued as a cliche. I will not really review this one as much as use it as an example that the academy awards have sold out (they might have been before, but since I'm contemporary with the later years I've come to notice now). Of the five movies nominated for best picture this one deserved it the least, and I'm pretty sure that saving Private Ryan was second in the ballots, which didn't deserve it either. It seems that Hollywood thought that life is beautiful should've been content with winning best foreign film and the thin red line was just happy to be in such "illustrious" company and had no merits of its own. Back to Shakespeare, it was a very flawed and disturbing film, nothing like a real art house production, it was funny at times, tried to be deep sometimes but never really accomplished anything. The acting was nice, probably because it was full of many household names was a reason hollywood liked it, "hey they speak in english accents, it must be sophisticated", phonies. Well I think I'm reaching a 1000 words. Shakespeare in love was a nice but very overrated film, trying to fulfil the art film genre and at the same time aspiring to be main stream. It didn't accomplish either, so it was stuck with an, I mean 5 or so Academy Awards. If you are one of the common, unintelligent viewers who actually enjoyed this movie, feel free to email me with your opinions (my email says I bash books, but, as you can see, I do the same to bad movies).
Rating: 
Summary: great movie
Review: this is a really great movie and totally worth the Oscar it won...however, i have to say that i detested the ending. it wasn't supposed to happen that way!
Rating:
Summary: Shakespeare in Love
Review: I've heard this movie is horrible and I don't know why it keeps popping up in my recommendations. It's nothing like the movies I appreciate.
Rating:
Summary: Romantic movies are not to my liking, but this one's great.
Review: What's great about this movie? The acting, the period sets, and the comedy complimented by a rapid pace. This movie will probably offend those who insist on historical accuracy, but it was never meant to be a documentary. Neither is it just empty entertainment, or another "diversion" (of which our age is filled to excess). This is a story told well and with sufficient fidelity to history to satisfy the intellect, witty humor for mirth, and emotion to engender empathy. The music is well done also. The two commentaries are necessary because of a curious lack of economy in their presentation. Still, the DVD extras are noteworthy. I give the movie 5 stars and the DVD 4.
Rating:
Summary: A really good, fun movie
Review: Yes, I think that this is a trully good movie. No, it is not one of the great cinamatography events of our life time but you should not expect it to be. I think that if you didn't like it, thought it was too childish, or boring you were expecting way too much from this movie. It will not give you any great insight into the life of William Shakespeare or why he wrote Romeo and Julliette. This is just a fun movie with some pretty good acting (especially Judi Dench as the queen) as some good jokes. This movie gives you some stuff to think about if you at first accept that it isn't true, and was never ment to be even close to it. You just need to see it for the experiance. I recomend that everybody sees it and if you don't like it than you have tastes that are different than mine. Going by the Grammys though and my talking to people I have found that most people agree with me so the chance is high that if you rent it you will love it.
Rating:
Summary: Truly preserves the intricacies and wit of Will
Review: Stoppard is a great writer, the same person who wrote the awesome play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead (which I also highly reccomend) This movie is great at preserving the same kind of wit that Shakespeare used in his own writing. Moreover the level of detail and intricacy that is packed into every line of dialogue is amazing. The random references to Shakespearean lines throughout the play are enough to satiate even the most trivia hungry bardolatrist. The way that Stoppard works the text of the play Romeo and Juliet into many different scenes of the movie is very interesting and worth watching. Overall this is a wonderfully written movie with some pretty good acting. Definitely worth the price of admission.
Rating: 
Summary: Sappy predictable movie
Review: This movie is not worth two hours of your time, let alone an oscar for Gweneth. P..lease! Romeo and Julliet is much better than this...(Not the one with Clare Danes...)
Rating:
Summary: Not of an age, but for all time. And better on DVD
Review: Purists who turn up their noses at Shakespeare in Love don't know what they're talking about - or rather, don't know what they're missing. This was, after all, written by Tom Stoppard, author of some of the very best plays of modern times (Arcadia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead - the latter filmed with Gary Oldman and Tim Roth). He's done a splendid job of balancing accessibility with genuine wit. The screenplay is littered with allusions to the bard's works, and gives some great - albeit hypothetical - insights into how and why he wrote. Beyond that, in true Shakespearean style, we are offered the "play within the play" - in this case Romeo and Juliet. Excellent editing gives us just enough to convey the mood of an Elizabethan performance, leaving us wanting more. This film does a great job of broadening the appeal of the most popular writer. And don't miss the topical in-jokes - the "cabby" rowing the boat, and especially Glenda Jackson saying she knows what it's like to do a man's job (she plays "M" in the Bond movies). Bill S. would have approved. High praise indeed.
| 
