Rating: 
Summary: Shakespeare does Titanic...Ta-Dahhh!
Review: Like so much Shakespeare I've seen on stage or screen for the last 40+ years, this is not William so much as it is Earnest Shakespeare, with little magic in the handling of the language but plenty of big music, spectacular costumes & lots of nyah-ha-ha acting. A pity because every generation seems to become more distanced from the real poetry that should be there. Today, it all seems to have become_show & tell, you-are-there, reality-tv presentation. Interesting that Stoppard was involved in this and 15 Minute Hamlet which was far more in the spirit of the Bard.
Rating: 
Summary: the happiest movie ever
Review: ahh i love this movie. there are movies that are wonderful but depress you, movies that make you happy because they're stupid, and movies that make you happy because they're beautiful and sad and funny at the same time. shakespeare in love is the latter. the costumes are amazing, the acting is slightly melodramatic but in a way it's necessary to be so. beautiful movie.
Rating:
Summary: A bore.
Review: I found this movie to be a bore. It was overacted and it tried too hard to be funny. Paltrow is so awfully boring. If you want to see a real film, check out "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead". Oldman and Roth make an outstanding team. Imagine looking at the "Hamlet" story through the eyes of two of it's mere sidemen. Wonderful!
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely love it!!!!!
Review: Great movie. Very funny with great actors. Check this movie out for a great evening.
Rating:
Summary: Amazing
Review: How do you describe what happens when you watch a film that is so magnificent that at the end you just sit and stare at the blackened screen in awe? It does not happen often. Shakespeare In Love captures the atmosphere of medieval England and at the same time tells a wonderful story. If you have a passion for Shakespeare the poet as I do, I guarantee you will love this film.
Rating:
Summary: One of the Best Movies of the 90's
Review: I've seen this movie about seven or eight times already, and I'm looking forward to watching it again in the future. That's how much I love this movie! It's so intelligent and charming with its wonderful characters and witty dialogue that I honestly don't understand the view of the naysayers who don't like this film. Gwyneth Paltrow is so sweet and likable as Viola, Joseph Fiennes is great as Shakespeare, who seems to speak with a poetic twist on everything he says, and Geoffrey Rush, Ben Affleck, and others are all fantastic in their supporting roles. The inside jokes for those that know their Shakespeare are just icing on the cake. Saving Private Ryan was an excellent film, but ,personally, I was happy to see Shakespeare in Love take Best Picture. It's about time the Academy rewarded cleverness and originality instead of "epics" loaded with special effects and not much more. Shakespeare in Love deserves every ounce of praise it has recieved.
Rating:
Summary: Who doesn't like this movie?
Review: What do you call this type of film? A historical romantic comedy? It doesn't really matter. Shakespeare aside, the strength of the film is its great story and its strong character development. The supporting cast with Geoffry Rush as Henslowe, Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth, Ben Affleck as Ned Alleyn, and Tom Wilkinson as Hugh Fennyman make their characters memorable, even with, in some cases, small roles. As good as the film is by itself, it becomes more interesting if you know your Shakespeare and Renaissance history. There are tons of small references. John Webster is a playwrite working a little after Shakespeare who makes an appearance in the film (hint: rats). Christopher Marlowe, a contemporary of Shakespeare, is a minor character. And there are numerous references to various Shakespeare plays. Finally, in rating the replay value of this film, given its genre, humor, and level of subtlety, I think it is worth watching many times.
Rating: 
Summary: bad movie
Review: i saw this movie and man seriously it was horrible. if you have any semblance of good taste, please steer clear of this awful movie. robbed many other worthy competitors at the Oscars. the only thing worse would be a sequel.
Rating:
Summary: Mucho Kudos
Review: I highly recommend this DVD. It is wonderfully entertaining, while also mildly intellectually stimulating. Be careful of the review by Sean Ares Hirsch, as it is merely an act of self-flattery by someone who is more impressed with their own knowledge of Shakespeare than they are with the art of film-making.
Rating: 
Summary: Overrated
Review: When I think of William Shakespeare, I think of a writer genious, more famous to England than any other. Any film depicting him, then, ought to be an epic. Consider the film 'Amadeus.' This was a three-hour movie about Mozart. It showed his genious, his youth, his development, his troubles. But 'Shakespeare in Love' is mediocre by comparison. It plays like a typical love story. It does not really enter the mind of William. To begin with, the film only deals with 'Romeo and Juliet.' But Shakespeare is more applauded for "Hamlet" and "King Lear." Secondly, the man who plays the role of Shakespeare has no force. He is simply not believable. This film was a good one, but not a great one. It did not deserve Best Picture in its own right. After all, Best Picture only means that you were better, sometimes only narrowly, than the rest of the films for that year. But if all the said films were mediocre, then a mediocre film could be Best Picture. If 'Shakespeare in Love' had not won, it would be like saying 'we don't acknowledge the value of Shakespearean drama.' But this is not true, we have him in our libraries and schools. We have courses on him, festivals, contests, banquests and suchlike. We did't have to make this 'Best Picture.' When you compare this film to Amadeus (Mozart), Immortal Beloved (Beethoven), Patton, or Citizen Kane, it falls too short. And there is no excuse for it falling short. Historically, the importance of William Shakespeare is as mighty as Mozart, Beethoven, Patton, or any rich man named Kane. Therefore, a movie on Shakespeare should live up to the other epics.
|
