Rating: 
Summary: Shakespeare In Love
Review: Shakespeare In Love is flawless. It is witty, funny, romantic, fast moving and very entertaining. The cast, acting, directing, editing, costumes, set direction, etc., could NOT have been any better than they already are in this film. The writers Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard are brilliant; and John Madden's directing made it all come together to create this masterpiece, which won seven Academy Awards including Best Picture. Joseph Fiennes and Gwyneth Paltrow's onscreen chemistry was believable. Miss Paltrow was well-deserving of her Oscar for her role as Lady Viola. This is still her best performance ever. Judy Dench, and Geoffrey Rush made their characters come alive by their talented portrayals; and everyone else in the cast played a character that made the film full of diversity. The story of Romeo and Juliet is told in a new perspective. We see the play from start to finish through the characters' eyes, as they rehearse and perform it; and it is Shakespeare's writing of this play that moves the story along. If you don't think you like Shakespeare, don't let the title of the film keep you from seeing it. You are sure to enjoy this film, and films this fantastic don't come around very often. Enjoy the movie!
Rating:
Summary: Magnificence personified
Review: I've just finished my third viewing of "Shakespeare In Love" and find it gets better each time. I'm of the opinion it definitely deserved the Oscar for Best Picture and should have received one for director John Madden. He pulled performances from his actors that were breathtaking in their rightness and consistency, and he brought a forward motion to the film that only enhanced its roots. I know a little of Shakespeare so caught many of the beautiful script's touchstones (most of which I attribute to Tom Stoppard rather than Marc Norman), but that knowledge was not necessary to enjoy the story. Madden brought to it a sense of urgency and discovery that still amazes me, even without considering it was only his second film.The actors deserve as much praise as you want to give them -- especially Judi Dench, Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth, Gwyneth Paltrow and Joseph Fiennes -- for bringing heart and life to characters that could easily have become charactures. To me there is no question which is the better film, vis-a-vis "Saving Private Ryan". While technically amazing in its first twenty minutes (after the God-awful opening bookend), SPR was little more than another edition of "Indiana Jones" with real carnage. And Speilberg could not resist indulging in his sad bent for over-sentimentality. You can't say that about SIL; it's magnificence personified.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Movie I've seen in some time.
Review: Not many movies can move me so much that I cry. Because crying is an extremely rare thing for me. But that movie was made so passionately, that I could almost feel what the characters were, and cried when they were separated. This is a must see movie.
Rating:
Summary: Paltrow's best, and one of the best screenplays of the 90s
Review: Clever. Witty. Self-referencing while still standing on its own. It's amazing this film ever got made, let alone beat "Private Ryan" for the big trophy. Despite the fairly excellent acting, sure editing, great costumes and effective use of music, this movie is essentially a writer's picture. The screenplay has many clever parallels to the Bard's plays but isn't contingent upon the audience recognizing them. The story has many loose ends, all of which are convincingly tied up by the end. And the director trusts viewers will put things together without having the characters explain too much, with the exception of the scene on the couch of the "confessional" at the beginning, in which a huge amount of exposition is very deftly given in a very short amount of time--again, brilliant writing. Of all the performances, it may seen perverse to say that Paltrow's, good as it is, is the weakest. I say that because her Viola is a one-note lover (come to think of it, most of Paltrow's performances are one-note) without a lot of subtlty. This works fine when she's the boy, but as herself in private it's hard to attribute it to deliberate intent and more to simply shallow acting. And despite all the accolades, the youngest person ever to win an Oscar, etc., I think history will--based on her work so far--judge her as a mediocre actress. Fiennes works well enough as young Will Shakespeare, though he does go over the top a little too much occasionally for my taste. But it is the supporting cast that shines: Geoffrey Rush and Simon Callow and Tom Wilkinson practically steal the show, and Colin Firth does well with yet another thin-lipped, spoil-sport part. (He seems to get them in every movie.) Judy Dench is certainly fine, but she doesn't get a chance to do much besides stand there and be Judy Dench for two scenes. The Oscar was clearly one of sentiment--she deserved it for Mrs. Brown the year before instead. However, the writers were cleverly able to use the qualities and circumstances of her character to resolve the ending in a way that would not have worked with any other character in any other situation, in the process concocting what may be the film's best line: "I know something of a woman in a man's profession. Yes, by God I do know about that."
The DVD is excellent, bursting with bonus features. There are actually far too many trailers (did they really think we needed the TV ads for the movie--and every one of them to boot?!), but fine commentaries, documentaries and interviews. My only minor gripe is the outtakes are not indexed individually. The most fascinating among them is the first version they shot of the ending. While not exactly an "alternate" ending, it may be described as a rough draft, and would not have been nearly as effective as what went into the final cut. They apparently advanced far with this first version, however, because it comes with post-production effects (dissolves and sound effects, for example) and music. The reshoot is much better, and proves the addage "God is in the details." Perhaps a documentary about the real Shakespeare's times might have been illuminating, but overall very little to quibble about. I really feel this is one of those rare examples of a commercial Hollywood film deserving everything it got, and those who say it was nothing more than a formula "love story" lack the intellect and the familiar with the subject matter to look below the surface. Which returns me to my comment at the top, I'm amazed this film ever got made.
Rating: 
Summary: Hilarious, intelligent, irreverent
Review: I honestly did not know what to expect when I first sat down to watch "Shakespeare In Love." Perhaps that was for the best, since this film teems with unexpected moments and twists, turning literary history upside down and giving it a clever and bawdy twist. Gywenth Paltrow plays a young noblewoman who is expected to be demurely betrothed, but who wants none of the life ahead of her. She yearns for the theater, and, in her headstrong, ambitious drive, dresses like a boy to obtain a part in Will Shakespeare's newest drama. Of course, the two fall in love (hence the title!) and their duplicity leads to plot complications that get more and more outrageous. Literary jokes abound, but you don't need to know a whit about Shakespeare to enjoy this romp. This is a romantic comedy cloaked in Elizabethian times, an anachronism that is thoroughly satisfying. Paltrow's Viola is gutsy, intelligent, and torn, a portrayal that deservedly earned her an Oscar. Joseph Fiennes makes a lovable, bumbling Will Shakespeare. The two display a chemistry that brings the witty script to life and elevates this film to a level above most romantic comedies. This film should appeal to a wide range of viewers - even those who hated studying Shakespeare in school.
Rating:
Summary: Now I understand the oscar.
Review: At Oscar time I couldn't understand why Private Ryan didn't win - now I do. I watched this movie four times in a row, went out and bought it as soon as it became available. The costumes are divine and the music is wonderful but the stars and the script truly make this come alive. Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman are gods. The story unveils itself with perfect timing and wonderful lyricism. Lines and scenes from numerous Shakespeare plays are beautifully interspersed to bring the movie to it's wonderful, sad conclusion. Gwyneth Paltrow is dazzling and luminescent and wonderfully complemented by Joseph Fiennes - I wish I new he existed before this. Imelda Staunton as Violas personal maid is divine, Geoffrey Rush is a treasure. Even Ben Affleck shows a new, meladramatic side (it really suits him). Everybody is wonderful. I really loved this film. As to that special something which makes it all work so well - "It's a mystery".
Rating: 
Summary: Please...........................!
Review: This is truly amazing {NOT}, I mean I did not realize that Shakespeare was that skinny, does anybody else notice that? Paltrow disguising herself as a man to act in one of his plays, well of course in his time women were not allowed to act on stage but then you have the same useless shallow, superficial plot where the man only loves the woman because of her "beauty", these kinds of films are dull, pointless crap and those oscar people don't give awards to good films only to crappy ones, why oh why is that to be?
Rating:
Summary: I am in love...with Joseph Fiennes
Review: Joseph Fiennes as Shakespeare has got to be one of the best casting choices of last century. Not only is he incredibly talented, but he comes from one good-looking family! Seriously, though, I don't know why he wasn't nominated for an Oscar. His performance as Shakespeare, the writer who suffers in both love and writer's block, is one of the most romantic and lovely performances I have seen in a while. His chemistry with co-star Gwyneth Paltrow is red hot. You can just feel the way they yearn for each other, but can never be truly together because she is promised to another. Mix this situation in with Paltrow's desire to grace the stage (which was illegal back then), and the hilarity that ensues as the company of men try to rehearse for "Romeo and Juliet," and you get one of the most original films in years! The only reason why I'm giving it four stars is because it really wasn't completely about love. I mean, "Shakespeare in Lust" or "Shakespeare in Bed" may have been better titles. I swear those two were like rabbits! Still though, I love this movie.
Rating:
Summary: A Fun But Flawed Flick
Review: Shakespeare in Love is a lot of fun to watch. However, it is also flawed. There are major inaccuracies in it. For instance, if a troop of players did a play for Queen Elizabeth I of England, it was a special performance at the palace only for the queen and her entourage. This movie would have you believe that the queen would actually sit with the common folk at the Globe Theater. I give it 4 stars out of 5 possible. There really was no reason why the filmmakers could not have both made a historically accurate film that was also a lot of fun.
Rating:
Summary: Hollywood Takes On Shakespeare
Review: This won the Oscar for Best Picture in 1998. Stars Joseph Fiennes and Gwyneth Paltrow as the romantic partners William Shakespeare and his Muse, with Dame Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth I. This is a lush film to look at in many respects. The authentic period costumes is a nice touch. The film is mostly set in the theatre of Shakespeare's day. At this time, there were no female actresses. Only men were involved in theatre. Men played the role of women. Nowadays, it's twisted to think the first Romeo and Juliet were two men. The movie has no accuracy or truth to actual historic account. William Shakespeare was never romantically linked to the character Gwyneth Paltrow plays. The whole thing is a fictionalized, dramatic melodrama that never took place. William Shakespeare was married to Anne Hathaway but there is evidence he was unfaithful and loved the Jewish keyboard player "Dark Lady" of whom he writes about in his sonnets. The movie is merely Hollywood taking on Shakespeare and it has since been used in English courses throughout the US. Shakespeare is enacted by Joseph Fiennes who is doing a terrific job. However, I don't much care for Gwyneth Paltrow's performance, no matter how much Oscar appeal she was said to circulate. She comes off as pretty wooden and the typical romantic heroine straight out of a bodice ripper, romantic novel. All she does is fall in love for Shakespeare and even goes to the lengths of dressing as a man to be near him during production of Romeo and Juliet. Judi Dench, a sublime actress though she is, does not LOOK anything like the real Queen Elizabeth. They could have cast an actress who looked the part more truthfully. Judi Dench did a better job as England's Queen Victoria in the movie "Mrs. Brown". She looked exactly like her and her fastidious, overly refined manners were distinctly Victorian. And one last thing, Ben Affleck had no place in this film. Did he think he would win an Oscar too or some form of recognition ? Ben Affleck is not right for this movie, no matter how small the role. It just seemed out of place and I would have preferred to see a true Shakespearean legend in this movie like Sir Ian McKellen. But it's a movie that has a unique charm. The music is also very beautiful. Be sure and get the soundtrack if you really liked the music for this movie.
|
