Rating: 
Summary: Clever, witty, enjoyable, but Best Picture?
Review: I enjoyed this movie very much. It was very funny and witty, and clever, too. I thought Gweneth Paltrow gave a pretty good performance. She was very graceful and emotional, and she and Joseph Fiennes have great chemistry. Fiennes was great at portraying the smitten Shakespaere, and Judi Dench and Geofferey Rush are very funny and lighten things up. Though this is the only Oscar-nominated film I saw (Didn't see Saving Private Ryan, Life is Beautiful, ELizabeth, etc.), I wonder just why this movie won Best Picture. It was very light, not deep at all. It wasn't a "great artistic achievement", and isn't that what the Oscars are given to? Still, that doesn't mean you shouldn't see it. You'll enjoy yourself immensly but probably, like me, wonder why it won the Best Picture Oscar.
Rating: 
Summary: It's A Comedy, Folks!
Review: Obviously, if anyone who dared criticize the accuracy of "Shakespeare in Love", has seen or read other Tom Stoppard plays/films, they would have no reason to even bring the accuracy question up. "Shakespeare in Love" is not supposed to be historically accurate; it's just a comedy! Other Stoppard plays, such as "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead", are wonderful romps through Shakespeare, unconcerned with historical accuracy."Shakespeare in Love" is awesome, and, despite what some might say, Gwyneth Paltrow is great! Not being a Paltrow fan, I can still state this with extreme confidence. Some time before the Oscars, which, being a film student, I watch every year, I did want Blanchett to win. However, after watching SIL for the sixth time, I began to realize the flawless comedic timing Paltrow possesses in this film. Geoffrey Rush, Geoffrey Rush, Geoffrey Rush! Brilliant! Tom Wilkinson, a.k.a. the Apothecary, is fabulous! What a remarkable cast, however, I do believe Marlowe now deserves his own biopic, with Rupert Everett, of course, portraying the playwright. Please watch this film whenever possible, without trying to pick on everything imaginable. It's much more enjoyable, if you take it for entertainment, not the History Channel.
Rating:
Summary: No one dislikes Gwyneth
Review: No one has anything personal against Gwyneth Paltrow. I felt that Cate Blanchett's role was much more complex than Paltrow's role in SIL. Blanchett had to transform herself from a naive young princess to the wise and resilient Queen Elizabeth in her middle age. Also, Blanchett's character was based on someone who actually lived which means she had the difficult challenge of portraying someone whose personality and life is well-documented. Cate had little room for error in this regard. But I thought that Shakespeare in Love was very entertaining. Everyone in the cast was excellent, and the costumes and sets were wonderful. SIL and Elizabeth took place in the same time period but are totally different genres. I think people got their money's worth in seeing either of these wonderful films!
Rating:
Summary: Gwyneth Paltrow was wonderful
Review: I really have to respectfully disagree with those of you who didn't think Gwyneth Paltrow deserved an Oscar for her role in this movie. Her inspired, passionate readings of the lines from "Romeo and Juliet" made me discover the beauty of Shakespeare's poetry for the first time. I thought Cate Blanchett was tremendous in "Elizabeth", another great movie. But I thought Paltrow's performance was the more fully-realized. And no chemistry! Come on! I have to wonder whether some of you folks have something against her, to be quite honest.
Rating:
Summary: GWENTH PALTROW HAS SUCH A GREAT PERFORMANCE.
Review: Shakespeare In Love is an amusing comedy drama. Never have I seen Gwyenth Paltrow act as good as this before, especially Judi Dench who played a good part of being queen. I also liked the shows they had on stage. Shakespeare In Love is a movie you don't want to miss.
Rating: 
Summary: If I could give this horrible movie no stars, I would!!!
Review: I was shocked when Shakespeare In Love won Best Picture and Best Actress. This movie is good enough, I suppose, for a cheap chick flick, but where's the chemistry? Where's the grace and artistry that Gwyneth Paltrow was supposed to possess in abundance? As a fan of the Elizabethan era, I can only hang my head in shame that such a film was produced. Trust me, if you want a movie that truly shows the Elizabethan era and is worthy of all the Oscars it was robbed of, try Elizabeth. Cate Blanchett was absolutely stunning in this film, more convincing in her demanding role as Queen Elizabeth that Gwyneth Paltrow could ever hope to be.
Rating:
Summary: a good romantic comedy.
Review: I'm glad it won best picture because it is one of the best pictures I've seen.
Rating:
Summary: A Truly Flawless Film
Review: I can't say enough good things about this movie (but I'll try!). I've seen it five times in the theatre, and enjoyed it immensely every time. The first time I saw it was a truly joyful experience. It renewed my dying faith in movies. The writing, acting, cinematography, costumes and music were perfect. And the chemistry between the leads is nothing short of astonishing. It's the most romantic movie I've ever seen, and the best overall movie I've seen in years. Don't miss it.
Rating:
Summary: Shakespeare has many colors
Review: This is one of the best movies that I've ever seen. You want to be inside of it. So many people miss it but the movie introduces us one of the biggest player of our time, Joseph Fiennes who is a new breath to the screen. Shakespeare in love has many colors with wonderful players and amazing screenplay.
Rating:
Summary: Engaging but not great
Review: Yes, Gwyneth Paltrow is beautiful and sexy in her role as Shakepeare's love interest. But to give her the best actress Oscar over the much more demanding and complex performance by Cate Blanchett in "Elizabeth" wasn't kosher. The costumes and sets were wonderful to behold and the cast did a good job keeping things lively in this romance/farce. But I don't consider this a great movie. It wasn't really that memorable. It was lovely fluff, but nothing more. Entertaining, but not a "great" film . If Preston Sturges had gotten a hold of this production, he would have made it sharper with more of a satirical edge. I think that would have made this movie better.
|
