Rating: 
Summary: Terrific Romantic Dramedy
Review: I have to say that I think Gwyneth Paltrow is radiant.
So I'm biased. This was written by Tom Stoppard, who I think is possibly the best living dialogue/screenwriter. There's depth there. This movie is an open, breathing life. I felt I was in the hands of a master from the first act onward.
About halfway in events started to occur in a sort of collage, with Gwyneth playing Romeo and all the cast knowing that she was not what she appeared.. The number of characters and variables in play is something rarely attempted and quite disarming and enchanting when done right.. This was a very ambitious and beautiful project. I only wish it had a happy ending. But as with the Play within the play only one conclusion. And so the audience sees both the euphoria as well as the breakup. We've all been there. The human condition and the movie itself is deeper and greater for having come full circle.
Rating: 
Summary: Another disappointment from the writer
Review: When this beat "Saving Private Ryan" at the Academy Awards for best picture, I thought to myself, "This had BETTER be GREAT!" And I went out and saw the film and watched it with a neutral feeling, giving it a fair chance. I was severely disappointed, and reminded just why I lost all faith in the Academy Awards. First off, this was written by the same man who wrote "Rosencratz and Guildenstern Are Dead." I hated that play. It was like Abbot and Costello...but not good. This movie, like the play, takes all Shakespeare stood for and properly destroys it. It tells a love story of Shakespeare, even though at the time Shakespeare was married with children. Gwyneth Paltrow, type-casted as usual, tries to pretend to be a man but she screams feminism the way Patrick Swayze screamed masculinity in "Too Wong Foo." And I can't help but feel that this movie just isn't funny. The anachronism alone drove me crazy. And, like some other negative reviewers have said, Judi Dench's performance is extremely overrated. Supporting actress? She's in five minutes of the movie!! Its a good thing, I suppose, when a movie about human dignity and sacrifice is beaten at the Academy Awards for a movie about Shakespeare getting laid. Oh well...
Rating:
Summary: A little over-hyped, but great anyways!
Review: My first reaction to this movie was that it wasn't that great, but just overhyped. It was as if I subconsciously wanted to hate it! But I ended up saying to myself at the end, Goodness, Shakespeare's awesome. I loved how Shakespeare's words were used so artistically whenever he thought about Paltrow's character. It was shocking how much this movie made me appreciate Shakespeare's use of language and beautiful words. The synopsis is easy: It's an affair story surrounded by the hopeful opening of Shakespeare's new play, Romeo and Juliet, which is named after a few crazy ideas. They continue to fall in love until a powerful man from Virginia ruins their plans. The acting was phenominal. Mostly by Gwyneth Paltrow, Geoffrey Rush and Judi Dench. The best out of the three was Judi Dench, playing a wonderfully grumpy Queen Elizabeth. Although the role was only eight minutes long, she most deservadly recieved Oscar gold. Gwyneth did not really earn her Oscar over Cate Blanchett. I think that on the silver screen, rather than the television screens, where most voters watched the movies with DVD's they had recieved, Cate Blanchett would appear more powerful than Gwyneth. I still thought Paltrow was great, despite Blanchett's beautifully flawless perfomance. Bottom Line: This movie is a classis play on Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" that will forever be remembered for its great acting and wonderful story. (I give it an A- and five out of five stars.)
Rating:
Summary: The Play Within The Movie
Review: It is easy to see why Shakespeare in Love won so many awards in 1998. The only problem was perhaps that Joseph Fiennes, for the role of William Shakespeare, was largely ignored. Still, this is a film that truly deserves all the accolades that it received, and Gweneth Paltrow was excellent as Viola, the woman that Shakespeare falls in love with. Although purely a fictitious story, there is so much Victorian and Shakespeare flavor to this that gives it its authenticity. This is a movie that is both romantic and humorous. Shakespeare, because of writer's block, goes to seek advice from a counselor about his inability to come up with a script. That is, until he meets Viola De Lesseps (Gweneth Paltrow), who inspires him to writing. One of the great things I noticed upon a second viewing of this was the many allusions to Shakespeare's plays. For instance, a man opposing the theatre is on a platform and yells "A plague on both their houses" (which is a reference to Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet). Later, Shakespeare, while thinking, mutters the phrase "words, words, words" a la Hamlet. The plot is cleverly contrived, as they pick through the details of Shakespeare existence and are able to use the story to explain several events of his life. For example, Shakespeare meets and speaks with fellow Victorian writer and rival Christopher Marlowe in a tavern and they discuss their upcoming plays. (Marlowe gives Shakespeare a little advice for Romeo and Ethel, the Pirates Daughter...before it was Romeo and Juliet). We also see the troubles that Shakespeare and playwrights had in keeping playhouses open due to radicals against it and the plague scourge, as well as the injustice that women had in not being able to participate in plays (Viola dresses up like a young boy to play a part). Shakespeare is away from his wife Anne Hathaway and his children because he wants to think about writing. The way it is presented is in the form of the play Romeo and Juliet, so, in a way, it is a play within a movie. But, still, the main feature of the film is telling or basing a tale about Shakespeare's life and time. The fact that it is not an accurate depiction of Shakespeare's life is insignificant. This is an exceptional movie for the Shakespeare aficionado and anyone who wants to see an intelligent romantic comedy.
Rating:
Summary: Bravo!
Review: Coincidentally, I saw this film and then Elizabeth on consecutive evenings when they both were released in 1998. In the years since, I have not changed several initial reactions which serve as an introduction to this brief commentary. Here are three. First, both deserve all the praise they have received. Second, this film is far more entertaining but that Elizabeth has greater dramatic impact. And finally, then and now, I think Saving Private Ryan should have received the Academy Award that year which was presented to Shakespeare in Love. The basic situation is that young Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) is struggling to overcome writer's block at the worst possible time, given his financial situation and (worst yet) the near-bankrupt status of "The Rose" theatre in which his plays are performed. The owner, Phillip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush), is hounded by especially nasty and persistent creditors. Meanwhile, Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow) has been informed by her father that she will marry Lord Wessex (Colin Firth) and live in Virginia. Viola has a strong attraction to the stage at a time when all parts were played by men and boys. She also feels an attraction to Shakespeare whose work she admires. He finally begins to write "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter." Disguised as a young man, Viola is selected to play Romeo. (Believe it or not, no one recognizes her.) Meanwhile, she (as Viola) and Shakespeare have fallen in love and also feel increasing desperation as her marriage to Wessex approaches. After all manner of complications, the play is finally performed, with Queen Elizabeth (Judi Dench) in the audience. And then.... This is a thoroughly entertaining film which captures not only the "look" but the "feel" of the London theatre world during the Elizabethan era. Under John Madden's direction, the acting is first-rate. Paltrow and Dench received Academy Awards as did those responsible for best original screenplay, art and set decoration, and costume design. It really does seem as if we are there in London, walking through its lively and colorful streets, stopping occasionally for a lubricated conversation with Shakespeare, Henslowe, Richard Burbage or Christopher Marlowe. I especially enjoyed observing rehearsals and then the performance of "Romeo and Ethel" in the authentically recreated theatre. Great fun!
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Perfect
Review: There's nothing about this movie that I can criticize. The acting is perfect, and there are dozens of "inside jokes" that will only be noticed by avid Shakespeare scholars like myself. Even if you're not well-versed in the Bard, however, you'll love the movie: it's a beautiful love story that always succeeds in making me cry at the end no matter how many times I see it!
Rating:
Summary: All I Can Say is WOW!!!
Review: "Shakespeare In Love" has to be one of the most romantic movies I have ever watched. You are immediately are drawn to the characters and into their lives. The film revolves around William Shakespeare and his quest to write another play. With competition all around him, he knows that his next play must be something great! The other main character in this film is Gwyneth Paltrow's character, who loves the words that Mr. Shakespeare writes. Paltrow's character disguises herself as a man in order to audition for a role in Shakespeare's upcoming play. Soon the two characters are falling head over heels in love, which would be wonderful, but Paltrow's character has been promised to another and she must fulfill her duties in order to save her family. The chemistry between Joseph Fiennes and Gwyneth Paltrow is electric! They really make you believe that they're in love and cannot get enough of each other. Even though I didn't like the ending very much, I would definitely recommend this film! There is definitely a reason why this film won the best picture award at the Oscars - it's just plain wonderful!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: This could have been a great film
Review: Shakespeare in Love is entertaining as comedy and romance, but the big problem is the utter fictitiousness of the story. Well it wasn't all fictional: There was a man named William Shakespeare and he did write a play called "Romeo and Juliet", but other than that.... So much effort (or money at least) was put into this film (the sets and wardrobes are excellent Elizabethan recreations) that it all seems a bit of a waste. The acting was competent, but two dimensional on the part of Gwyneth Paltrow and Joseph Fiennes. Paltrow did get the accent down well (most viewers thought she was really British), but it felt like her heart really wasn't in the thing. And I didn't believe for a second that Fiennes was Shakespeare. The story tells how Shakespeare has writers' block (does anyone really believe he ever had it?) while trying to write a play called "Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter". Of course a major distraction from enjoying the film is that here William basically invents the play directly from his life at the time, based on his relationship with Paltrow (who initially is the actor of Romeo). But reality tells us the fictional story of "Romeus and Juliet" goes back at least 100 years (from Italy) before this, and actually back over 1000 years (from Greece as "Pyramis and Thisbe"). The question is why did Stoppard ignore the historical reality to do this? What was good about the film was actually showing the play coming together, the rehearsals, all the way up to the debut performance, and if you know the play well these parts are interesting. But we keep getting the distraction of this William-Viola parallel to the play, not to mention the Duke who keeps barging onto the scene. I would've loved this if they stuck to historical fact...and perhaps got different actors. Finally Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth is good, but again her dialogue doesn't ring true. I understand this was meant to be kind of a parody, but I think they went way overboard. At least there are some good sex scenes and the surreal "Twelfth Night" ending was well done also.
Rating:
Summary: Careful, Viewer, your Envy is showing
Review: In response to an unfair, scathing review, let me say that I have have not heard such mindless, mean-spirited drivel since seventh grade. Who is this Viewer and just how big is the axe s/he has to grind? I would be fascinated to know what movie this Viewer from NY, NY thinks is worthy of praise, but fear that said movie would be forever tainted in MY mind by this nearly inhuman reViewer. Get over yourself, Viewer, so you're no critic--and try ... you might--you're no "insider" either. This movie is fun and beautiful and charming--I'm just gonna guess that these three adjectives have never been used to describe "Viewer." Watch this film again and again and again. . .
Rating:
Summary: An excellent DVD value, and a must-have in any collection!
Review: Pure delight! I feel this film has one of the best scores in film history, and the screenplay is right up there as well. Wonderful humor, excellent cinematography, fine acting (Geoffrey Rush at his best) all combine to make this film a must-have in anyone's DVD collection. There is something for everyone in this movie, and I've yet to meet anyone who didn't love it.
| 
