Shakespeare in Love

Rating:
Summary: My favorite movie.
Review: I felt like watching Romeo and Juriet when I saw this movie. Because Shakespeare, who is the protagonist of this movie, falls in love like Romeo. The woman who Shakespeare is in love with is a lady from the upper class. And she has a fiance who has been chosen by her parents. I imagine Romeo and Juriet might be written some of Shakespearefs real experience. @ I thought Shakespeare was a more wonderful person. But I felt close to him because in the movie he sometimes falls in slumps and falls in love like common people. I was amazed to know that he was around as an actor. I think that@Viola whom Shakespeare falls in love has courage and that she is a lovely woman. Even if I had a strong desire to be an actor, I would not disguise myself as a man to go on the stage in the time when women were forbidden to appear on the stage. I donft have such courage. But I want to live as I have a strong desire to want to grant my dream absolutely and I feel if it were hard life, I could live happily. I cheered Shakespeare and Violafs love while I watched this movie. And I hoped a happy ending. But Shakespeare was not mated with Viola in marriage though she break off her engagement. However I was satisfied with this ending. @ How hard and sad they may felt when they ported in spite of their love? But I moved by them who can say gGood-byeh with smile even such time. @ Lastly, I think Ifm glad of watching this movie. This movie will remain in my heart forever. @

Rating:
Summary: A Review on Shakespeare in Love
Review: I really enjoyed the video, for it describes Shakespeare as a human being, who sometimes falls in slumps and falls in love, not as a great artist. It shows us clearly how his works were influenced by political circumstances in which theatres put in the age. But I don't like that the Queen works as a "deus ex machina" in the end. I think it makes the story cheap.

Rating:
Summary: Playwright regains muse. Film becomes MAGICAL.
Review: Funny thing about "Shakespeare in Love:" I saw it in the theater when it first came out, and during the first segment of the film when Will was suffering a debilitating case of writer's block, the movie was interesting enough, the set design and costumes were enjoyable, etc., but it didn't seem to be particularly inspired. Later, however, Will meets Viola, he gets his creative muse back, and the film suddenly becomes MAGICAL. And it's exactly this kind of resonance between the plot and the film's direction that gives "Shakepeare in Love" that ineffable quality that distinguishes an Academy Award winner. This film went head-to-head with odds-on favorite "Saving Private Ryan" and WON; and although "Saving Private Ryan" was a powerful and devastating project, "Shakespeare in Love" has the sort of sheer LYRICISM that one is so hard-pressed to find in mainstream movies today.

Allow me to gush about this film just a bit more. Certain sequences stand out. The editing of the film, back and forth, between rehearsals for "Romeo and Juliet" and Will & Viola's steamy bedroom scenes (Shakespearean prose included), is an example of the lyricism I mention. The actual performance of the play, especially the final scene, before an enraptured audience brought tears to my eyes. And exactly how Dame Judi Dench (As Elizabeth I) could cram so much power into so little screen time is a marvel unto itself.

If anything, "Shakespeare in Love" is a bit of a fantasy. It requires a considerable suspension of disbelief in assuming that Viola might pass so easily as a young man, Sir Thomas Kent, or that Viola existed at all. Still, this film is just a WONDERFUL story that along the way touches on the issues of sex roles and gender identity. Will Shakespeare's own ambiguous sexuality is even hinted at, however briefly. If you enjoy Shakespeare, you will love "Shakespeare in Love."

Rating:
Summary: One To Keep Twirling About
Review: Get thee to your nearest plastic and purchase Shakespeare in Love, a delightful comedy that sparkles with wit, literary smarts, passionate romance and expert acting by a glossy, enthusiastic cast. Although this fancifully imagined episode from the life of William Shakespeare may not be every moviegoer's goblet of glee, viewers with even a smidge of knowledge of the playwright's life and works will have a merry old time.

The movie opens in 1593 in bustling London where Shakespeare (Fiennes), having left his wife and kids back in Stratford-upon-Avon, is in the dumps over his slumping love life and his latest comedy, Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter.

Then he falls for lovely Lady Viola (Paltrow), a wealthy lass who auditions for Romeo and Ethel disguised as a boy (women were barred from the stage in Elizabethan times), and soon Shakespeare is happily hopping between bed and writing desk. The course of true love never does run smooth, though, for Paltrow has a fiancé (Firth, stuffily amusing) who is hot to get his hands on her fortune by putting a ring on her finger.

Friskily directed by John Madden (Mrs. Brown) and cowritten by Marc Norman (Waterworld) and the preternaturally clever Tom Stoppard (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead), Love would have us believe that this fictitious Viola is the Dark Lady of Shakespeare's sonnets and the inspiration for several of his best plays, including, of course, Romeo and Juliet.

Given Paltrow's radiant performance, the believing is easy. She imbues the character with intelligence, grace and a touching vulnerability. Fiennes (Ralph's bro), rather a dud as Lord Dudley in Elizabeth, shows more spark here, making Shakespeare a whirlwind of impetuous emotion and talent who learns the hard way that if all doesn't end well in real life, you can always make it do so in the next play.

A film to keep twirling about. (one of my favorite scenes)

Rating:
Summary: A Must Have For Romance and Elizabethan Fans!
Review: Actually, I give this movie 4 1/2 stars. I'm, not a big romance fan, but along with "My Best Friend's Wedding," "Sleeping With the Enemy," "The Titanic," and "Everafter," this is a romance that I really have respect and admiration for. Ofcourse, it doesn't hurt that the story is about one of the greatest writers the world has ever known, and gives appearances to 2 of the other greatest writers the world has known. (Marlowe and Webster.) The movie does ofcourse have some historical inaccuracies, but the speculation and adjustments are done in a way so they at least look and appear possible. The scenery is well done, and the acting is most impressive. We are also offered a nice deviation from the typical 'happily ever after' ending. Well, to the footage at hand. The legendary Shakespeare is drawn very well with some human flaws. It is interesting how this early in his career, some events from his later plays found their way into the movie. (Skull from 'Hamlet,' 5.1) (His sorrowful presence at the altar on his knees bears a similarity to Claudius' remorse in 'Hamlet' 3.3) Well that said, the story flows nicely. King Henry VIII's daughter Elizabeth is drawn quite well. (Especially the way her life enables her to feel an understanding for the object of Shakespeare's adoration.) Christopher Marlowe is well drawn as the already established writer who offers some assistance to Shakespeare's play still in the writing stage. (SIDE NOTE: Marlowe's "Faustus," "Edward II," and "Massacre At Paris" are some wonderful plays to read.) John Webster was probably not the monster he is portrayed as, but at least his nature kind of hints at the nature of the plays he would write. (His "Duchess of Malfi" and "The White Devil" are bloody, but good.) Ben Affleck is fine as the Laurence Olvier of their era. All in all, there is a nice representation of Elizabethan times, some interesting speculation of historical figures, and some well drawn fictional people. If you like this movie, be sure to see "Elizabeth," "Everafter," and Rupert Everett's (Cliff Marlowe)"My Best Friend's Wedding" and "Midsummer Night's Dream."

Rating:
Summary: Love--Untwirl Me
Review: Get thee to the nearest vcr and vieweth Shakespeare in Love, a delightful comedy that sparkles with wit, literary smarts, passionate romance and expert acting by a glossy, enthusiastic cast. Although this fancifully imagined episode from the life of William Shakespeare may not be every moviegoer's goblet of glee, viewers should have a merry old time.

The movie opens in 1593 in bustling London where Shakespeare (Fiennes), having left his wife and kids back in Stratford-upon-Avon, is in the dumps over his slumping love life and his latest comedy, Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter. Then he falls for lovely Lady Viola (Paltrow), a wealthy lass who auditions for Romeo and Ethel disguised as a boy (women were barred from the stage in Elizabethan times), and soon Shakespeare is happily hopping between bed and writing desk. And Lady Viola is twirling -- or rather untwirling,(a memorable scene) along with him. The course of true love never does run smooth, though, for Paltrow has a fiancé (Firth, stuffily amusing) who is hot to get his hands on her fortune by putting a ring on her finger.

Friskily directed by John Madden (Mrs. Brown) and cowritten by Marc Norman (Waterworld) and the preternaturally clever Tom Stoppard (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead), Love would have us believe that this fictitious Viola is the Dark Lady of Shakespeare's sonnets and the inspiration for several of his best plays, including, of course, Romeo and Juliet.

Given Paltrow's radiant performance, the believing is easy. She imbues the character with intelligence, grace and a touching vulnerability. Fiennes (Ralph's bro), rather a dud as Lord Dudley in Elizabeth, shows more spark here, making Shakespeare a whirlwind of impetuous emotion and talent who learns the hard way that if all doesn't end well in real life, you can always make it do so in the next play.

Rating:
Summary: Funny?
Review: The idea that this move won the Oscar for Best Movie in a year that brought us Affliction, The Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan, The Truman Show, and Central Station is just one of the travesties that occured that Oscar night 1999(the other being Roberto Benigni winning anything let alone being nominated). This movie was not funny. Let me say that again because I feel that is important: It was not funny. Sure, it was clever. It wasn't bad. But it shouldn't of won an Oscar. What do I think should of won? See any of the movies I listed in the first sentence, not to mention Gods and Monsters and (yes, I'm serious) A Bug's Life.

Rating:
Summary: Magical Movie
Review: This movie is wonderful! I found that Paltrow's character very whiney ,not to mention her voice. Joseph Fiennes was very good and a real actor's actor. Paltrow in my opinion did not deserve the oscar, it belonged to Cate Blanchett. Fiennes should have been nominated. Worth buying!!

Rating:
Summary: Trivial pursuits
Review: It's an indication of just how low our expectations from film have become that a mildly pleasant diversion like SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE should be acclaimed as a major achievement. Presumably because it has actors who speak grammatical English as if they really are familiar with words longer than four letters, was directed by someone who knows where to put a camera, and has a script written by someone with a memory before, say, 1975, people feel obliged to hail it as a masterpiece. It isn't one, but at least you can watch it without feeling you have to get drunk afterwards.

SHAKESPEARE isn't a bad film. Aside from the sickly, syrupy music that suffocates like plastic wrap, it isn't cheap or shoddy. It's just that like most superficial works of art, it doesn't lend itself to repeated viewings. Watching a second time round, you might catch one or two inside references to Shakespeare's plays that you missed the first time. Once you've got all those, though, the conceit dries up pretty fast. If you've read or seen any of Stoppard's other work, you know that the script here isn't much more than a re-shuffle of a well-worn deck of cards. On the other hand, the script is the only thing that gives the film any distinction at all.

Let's not forget that this "Hollywood" film is in fact a BRITISH production, which is probably the most pathetic comment of all. Having beaten the seriousness out of native talent, the studios have to import it whenever they try to achieve a level of craftsmanship that they once would have taken as a given. In the thirties or forties, the studios could have made this in the blink of an eye. It would have cost fifty cents, would have featured bit players from the studio's stable of character actors, would have made the bottom half of a double-bill and would have been received exactly for what it was, a cinematic bon-bon. As long as you treat it in the same spirit, you won't be disappointed. If you recognize how exceptional such basic filmmaking competence has become, the film is deeply depressing.

Rating:
Summary: Delightfully witty farce
Review: Anyone familiar with the genuine life and works of Shakespeare will find the scenes and dialogue in this film hilarious. (I nearly fell out of my chair at "Ethel the Pirate's daughter" and Will on the psychiatrist's couch.) It also is an enjoyable period piece, with eye-catching costumes and some wonderful music.