Rating: 
Summary: Uninspired Shakespeare.
Review: The lighting and videography was great, but Shakespeare was portrayed as one who couldn't be inspired unless he got laid. I loved Kenneth Branagh's Twelth Night much more.
Rating: 
Summary: A Bard's True Inspiration (4.5 stars)
Review: 1998 was the rebirth of the renaissance, and that year's nominated films proved that one didn't have to lug a Brittanica from a dusty bookshelf to enjoy a piece of history. "Elizabeth" and "Shakespeare In Love" were in high competition with many nominations in the same category, including Best Actress and Best Picture. Cate Blanchett was enrapturing as England's prudent and perservering monarch, but audiences were swept away by the fictitious yet contemporary fable of how "Romeo and Juliet" was birthed from one of the greatest literary minds in the world. This beautiful piece of filmmaking is director John Madden's delightful theory of how William Shakespeare, the celebrated but mystifying playwright, conjured one of the greatest romantic tragedies ever told in the history of theater. It is well cast as well as superbly directed, the actors clad in elaborate and colorful ball gowns and pantaloons correlating impeccably with the renaissance period. The sets are scrupulously designed and the cinematography is stunning, capturing each integral moment with precision and style. Born at a time when Hollywood was swallowed by the over-hyped action genre, "Shakespeare In Love" was a refreshing and welcome change. Gwyneth Paltrow is radiant as the fair and virtuous Viola de Lesseps, a ray of sunshine and a wild spirit underneath her frill and fuss. In her determination to be a recognized thespian, she dons a bland and inconspicuous wig, giving herself the alias of Thomas Kent and heads to an audition for Shakespeare's pirate comedy "Romeo and Ethel". Not only is she sought after for her mesmerizing presence on stage, she becomes the object of Will's affections, revealing her true identity and becoming his lover and muse. Joseph Fiennes was an excellent choice for the pining dramatist, a beguiling and head-turning gentleman with gumption to boot. He is exactly the opposite of what we know from the enigmatic author, a more preferred and desirable flesh-and-blood incarnation for the director's fictional premise and dazzling vision. He plays the part of the melodramatic and self-deprecating artist convincingly, feeding off his emotions for inspiration. His imagination is aroused intensely when he lays eyes upon Viola for the first time, and immediately afterward begins penning the poetic splendor that has eluded him for months. Out of his intense love affair and the heartwrenching despair of their uncontrollable fates comes his tragedy, one that will win the queen's heart and secure him a place in her royal court of artists and poets for life. The supporting cast is incredibly gifted, especially the droll quirkiness of Geoffrey Rush's depiction of Philip Henslowe, a businessman with an inescapable debt and the lifesaving ability to negotiate. Also to be commended for brilliant theatrics is Colin Firth as the pompous and domineering Lord Wessex, Viola's betrothed and a conniving gold digger to boot. The ire and jealousy between Firth and Fiennes is electrifying and suspenseful, their opposing methodology making for the perfect chemistry. I also enjoyed seeing Rupert Everett as Christopher Marlowe, the man who makes no effort for ideas - they flow to him as if by a river. Judi Dench was perfectly snide and razor-sharp as Queen Elizabeth, but I don't think she was deserving of an Oscar. She had less screen time than the nurse (Imelda Staunton, who by the way, was the best nurse I've ever seen). Perhaps the Academy was so enamored with her in the past that there was no holding their breaths this time around. Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard are to be commended for their nimble intermingling of famous Shakespearian lines and the overall admirable wit of their jovial and lighthearted screenplay. Thumbs up also go to editing and directing, both of which were consistently well balanced and effective. If you're looking for an uplifting flick without the overbearing fluff of most romantic comedies, then take a step in this direction. You'll be walking a path of unexpected enlightenment.
Rating: 
Summary: Shakespeare In Love
Review: This movie looks very attractive before seeing it, but it is actually boring to tears. It is more 'Shakespeare' than 'Shakespeare IN LOVE'. I would recommend anybody to skip it, as it would be a serious waste of money buying it. The ending was very weak. I am rating this video 1 star, as there is no option for zero.
Rating: 
Summary: 10 stars
Review: This film is satisfying on every imaginable level, intelligentand wildly romantic, with a musical score that leaves your heart in tatters. This is destined to become the finest romance, the most passionate celebration of Shakespeare's genius, the strongest affirmation of life and love you may ever see in this lifetime. Joseph Fiennes is a rare and excellent actor, showing an immense capacity for wit, physical comedy, and depth of character. Ms. Paltrow provides her finest work yet (in a role many actors would kill for), while the chemistry these leads exhibit is truly electric, a rare commodity in Hollywood. Colin Firth establishes himself as most charismatic on film (his work as Mr. Darcy in 'Pride and Prejudice' is not to be missed either). I could praise this film till I'm blue in the face. This is fantastic ensemble work, in a twilight of its own, and quite simply a reason to live.
Rating:
Summary: Much Ado about a great movie.
Review: This movie smoked "Pvt. Ryan" for the best movie oscar. It had to compete with another period piece "Elizabeth". But,those movies had to compete with a cast multi-layered in talent. Not to mention compete with "Willie Shakes" himself. I like the way the movie brought in Cristopher Marlowe, who was once (And I hope they have given up on the idea that Shakespeare was anybody but the "William Shakespeare, Bard of Avon")thought to have written many of the plays attributed to the bard himself. The setting is great and young Mr. Fiennes fit right in even after I had seen his brilliant role in "Elizabeth". Judi Dench was a cinch to win the oscar. She is marvelous as always. Great movie, one I will hopefully see many times over.
Rating:
Summary: A brilliant achievement
Review: Hollywood dearly loves this movie, because this is a movie *about* Hollywood, albeit an 18th century Hollywood. Like "Titanic", "Shakespeare in Love" drops 21st century characters and culture into a historical setting. Unlike "Titanic", "Shakespeare" does so self-consciously and to great comedic effect (having the Bard himself seek treatment from a shrink for writers' block was a delicious bit of satire). The fact that Hollywood loves this movie should not discourage the rest of us in flyover country. The script is brilliantly funny, and every member of the cast plays his or her part to a "T". The script even manages to convey a strong sense of forgiveness, honor, and duty -- attributes sorely lacking in most of Hollywood's output.
Rating:
Summary: If Only....
Review: Wouldn't be terrific of you could go back in time to Elzabethan England and explore London then? Better yet, why not tag along with Will Shakspeare as he struggles to overcome writer's block, get a new play performed, and win the hand (having captured the heart) of the woman he loves? Well, in a sense you can. Viewing this film will at least give you a feel for (and countless compelling images of) what it was probably like in young Shakespeare's London. Thus far, I have seen this film more than a dozen times and enjoy it more each time I see it again. Paltrow, Fiennes, and Rush carry most of the film but be alert to brief but memorable appearances by Dench, Everett, Firth, and Holm. If you like this film as much as I do, check out The Lion in Winter, Becket, A Man for All Seasons, the first few minutes of Olivier's film of Henry V, and Elizabeth.
Rating:
Summary: Was Shakespeare ever in Love?
Review: "Shakespeare in Love" is dazzling entertainment, but its historical accuracy is questionable. The filmmakers make a number of assumptions common or implicit in historical and literary research-- that public hygienic and sanitary conditions for Elizabethans were generally atrocious; that Elizabethans were violence-prone people; that women were forbidden from the Elizabethan stage; that marriages among the aristocracy and the middle classes were generally arranged affairs; that Elizabethan royalty could be entertained with clowns and dogs; that Elizabeth herself expected noblemen to spread their cloaks for her. Beyond these assumptions, the filmmakers fail to answer an essential question: what were the Elizabethans really like? The film quite pointedly views them through the prism of Twentieth-Century sensibilities and thus misses greater opportunities for historical accuracy. In fact, the film may be more a satire on what we moderns think was happening in the age of Shakespeare than what was actually happening. One other acknowledgable strength of the film: the events and people provide a wonderful, Jeopardy-like quiz of the plots, situations, and characters of Shakespeare's plays.
Rating:
Summary: A complete film experience.
Review: Shakespeare in Love is suprisingly powerful film. I expected the color, the humor and the drama. I was amazed to find myself so moved by the story. This is certainly one of my all time favorites.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Oscar worthy by any means.
Review: Shakespeare in Love beat out both Saving Private Ryan, the best and most devastating war film ever made, and Life is Beautiful, a magnificent and endearing motion picture about love and family, for the Best Picture award in 1998. Right now, I'm still wondering exactly what was on the Academy Voters' minds when they chose this film. Shakespeare in Love isn't terrible by any means and there are some amusing moments, but as a romantic comedy, it's not particularly romantic or funny. As a matter of fact, Life is Beautiful (the film that Miramax should have spent their money campaigning) is much better at both those elements than this film. When it comes to acting, Gwyneth Paltrow is okay but certainly not worthy of winning an award. What is there to like about the film? A couple of funny parts, Joseph Fiennes delivers a good performance, and the musical score DID deserve that Oscar. Well, time will certainly show that Saving Private Ryan and Life is Beautiful will be the true classics.
|
