Rating: 
Summary: Pure Entertainment
Review: I have read through a few reviews stating you needed to know something of Shakespeare to understand this movie. This just isn't true. You do not need to analyze this movie to enjoy it. Just watch it and be delighted. It is a wonderful love story.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent film--great extras
Review: Great movie. Great extras. Especially fun for a Shakespeare fan. (Although NOT for stodgy Shakespeare fans with no sense of humor--and there are apparantly a lot of them.)
Rating:
Summary: Inspired idea for a wonderful film
Review: If I read one more negative line about this movie--especially as it relates to the writing or acting--I'm gonna lose it. The writing is so clever, the acting so muted and beautiful (want proof? Watch Tom Wilkinson become a theater groupie before your very eyes--PERFECT). And ... criticizing the historical inaccuracies in the story. . .are you kidding me? This movie is a treasure and we're deducting stars because tabacco wasn't planted in Virginia yet? Get a life. It is exactly what romantic comedy should be--romantic and charming.
Rating: 
Summary: Romantic comedies are rarely this intelligent
Review: When Shakespeare In Love swept the board at the Oscars, it was more than a little surprising, not least because it was an intelligent and learned and decidedly un-American piece of filmmaking. Not celebrated with the bombast of previous Oscar-winners there were more than a few puzzled questions as to why such a movie won so many awards. The simple answer is that it is brilliant, a dazzling example of what the romantic comedy should be and something that will take you quite by surprise. The story concerns Will Shakespeare (Fiennes) as he struggles to write a new play, Romeo and Ethel, The Pirate's Daughter. He only finds his inspiration though when Lady Viola dresses herself as a man to win the lead in the production and steals the playwright's heart.Rather than simply being a cheap gimick where love again proves to conquer all, the story of the two young lovers draws innumerable parallels with the play itself. As Viola is set to marry Lord Wessex (Firth) and Will is already married himself, the romance not only seems but is in fact doomed, and so the play moves from the light comedy and farce to something far more tragic and ultimately more affecting. It's not often that it is the intelligence of the script that bowls you over about a movie, but Shakespeare In Love is one such rare example. Anyone familiar with the play will notice several direct quotations of the play coming from Will and Viola's mouths and the parallels are so cleverly drawn it's a marvel. In this kind of situation it would have been all too easy to go all the way and have the lovers die, but the tragedy of their separation proves to be upsetting enough. Indeed, where have Shakespeare's themes of eternal love and self-sacrifice been any more universally evoked than here. And it is in this universitality that the film achieves its goals, because you can identify with the lovers when they separate in a way that it is impossible to identify with the fairytale of Romeo and Juliet's deaths. But by praising the script it is by no way to undermine the acting here. Fiennes is great, full of brooding intensity and genius as Shakespeare, gradually moulded by the experience portrayed in the movie. Paltrow again proves that she is one of the most luminous actresses of her generation in another literary adaptation to complement her startling turn as Estella in Great Expectations and no doubt her forthcoming portrayal of Sylvia Plath in Ted and Sylvia. Dench is also very impressive in an Oscar-winning turn that lasted all of 8 minutes, yet even more surprising is that up-and-coming Ben Affleck doesn't seem out of place as a vain young actor who plays the part of Mercutio. This is the kind of intelligent movie that you wish there was more of, but as it is this is a quite startling film that is at the same time unassuming and subtle. Never going over the top yet managing to create a firm reaction in its audience this is, quite simply, alongside Luhrman's version, one of the best Shakespeare adaptations of the 90's.
Rating:
Summary: Love, Comedy, Shakespeare
Review: That Shakespeare. It is not enough that Hollywood takes all of his plays and sonnets and turns them into usually sub par movies. Now, they have to take his life, add in a lot of fictional elements, and make an award-winning movie out of it. Hardly sounds fitting, considering the subject is the greatest credit to the English language, but this movie is one that hits the mark. Although, it takes some very liberal leaps in interpretation, Shakespeare in Love is a great love story and a great comedy, thrown into a very fascinating and well-portrayed historical era. Will Shakespeare is a playwright comparable to many of his modern day counterparts. Even though he is extremely talented, he is faced with a dismal financial situation and the dreaded plague of all writers, writers block. Shakespeare's bosses face an even tougher problem, as the competition between the major theater groups heats up. Angry creditors, fed up with waiting for profits, take a more active role in "pushing" the plays along. Shakespeare is stuck on an awkward play involving Romeo and a bunch of pirates. At least it's a comedy, a play most can understand. In the middle of his writing conflict, he falls in love with Gwyneth Paltrow, an upper class theater lover who has been promised in marriage to a brutal and uncouth noble. She reciprocates, as the two become intertwined in their love for each other and the stage. At the same time, Shakespeare is inspired to put together a love story for the ages, namely, his Romeo and Juliet. The story takes a lot of twists and turns, and is rife with hilarious interludes and allusions. Geoffrey Rush delivers a great performance as the beleaguered theater owner, who knows success is his only way out of debt. Joseph Fiennes is a great force in this movie, as the energetic and enraptured young bard, still developing his voice as a writer. The real star of the movie is Paltrow, who is anything but the repressed English lady. I found her role as refreshingly powerful, in a mold role that usually brings about a damsel in distress syndrome. Ben Affleck and Judi Dench are effective in their small roles. The whole cast is very good. The atmosphere of merry old England is very effective as well, with beautiful costume designs and architectural splendor, or the lack of it on the London streets. I had a few problems with the movie though. One, it takes a few historical leaps. Now, obviously, this is not some documentary about Shakespeare's life, as the reality of the whole situation is very controversial. However, a few leaps went a little too far. One real life character portrayed is Christopher Marlowe, who was a great young writer of the day who very much influenced Shakespeare. Some even say he wrote most of Shakespeare's plays. Anyway, his influence in this movie is only hinted at, and is much too hidden to make any sense or impact. I felt that side story should have been given a little more sunlight. The other problem I had was the Queen Elizabeth character. Elizabeth would have never stepped foot in a theater like that, and she would have been a little more aloof than the Queen of the People portrayed in the movie. Overall, I feel the movie is very good, with a few slow spots. I do not feel it was better than Saving Private Ryan, but they are very hard films to compare. That said, Shakespeare in Love is a beautiful representation of true love and the beauty of well-written theater. So pay your pence and watch like a good groundling.
Rating:
Summary: The Creative Force evidenced on film
Review: What is the creative force that enables anyone to write, compose, paint, dance, etc.? It must draw from life experience and the screenwriters for "Shakespeare In Love" have more than ably acclomplished their goal. The plot within the plot here is Shakespeare's play, "Romeo and Juliet," perhaps the best play written on the subject of Romantic love. Around this "inner plot" the authors have created an imaginitive arena for the artist's imagination. The film must be seen more than once in order to truly appreciate its value. When I first rented it, I was disappointed. On second viewing, without having to concern myself with plot, I was able to see the screenwriters' craftmanship. From pen to screen they were able to invent a love story that mirrors "Romeo and Juliet," including a realistic ending, though without the bloodshed. Love does not conquer all in this life and the film painfully makes us aware of it. It is not a comedy -- it has its funny moments, but the essence of the story is dramatic. The performances are good -- some more outstanding than others -- but the plotting is what is most important. The screenwriters deservedly won oscars for their work. Understandably, there are some who will miss the point of the film because they do not know the Shakespeare play well. I am glad the producers were able to finance the film. It is a wow!
Rating:
Summary: I want to see this movie again.
Review: i rented "shakespeare in love" because i heard it was a good film, and because it won best picture. yes, "saving private ryan" is better, but you really can't compare the two movies on the same level. "ryan" is about companionship and the brutality of war, while "shakespeare" is about... well, shakespeare. with that said, onto the review: okay, it was promoted as a romantic comedy, but the comedy elements aren't all there. true, there are some good one-liners (ben affleck's "woman" line kills me. i won't say anymore for those of you who have not seen it.), but some of the lines seem a little forced to the point of hokiness (i.e. "the show must..." / "go on!"). however, it is a romantic comedy, not a comedy, so the romance must come first. after all, wouldn't pretty much every comedy be considered a romantic comedy, as everything has the underlying theme of love, yet the comedy takes precedence? well, anyway there are funny parts. yes, it is a romantic film. for those who have said that the relationship is merely lust, they probably need to watch the movie again. true, there is a lot of sex in the movie, but there are definitely great romantic themes in it. i remember being able to relate to the characters in their desire to see and be with each other, and any movie that can strike a chord like that is at least half-way decent. i watched the movie twice (i believe, it's been awhile.), and i would like to watch it again to make sure the relationship is not just dominated by lust. by the way, romance aside, miss paltrow has a fabulous body, so if you want to see her naked, there's the bait. lastly, for all you cynics that have pointed out the film's chronological errors, do you forget that in fact, william shakespeare may not have written all the plays with he is credited? there is speculation that sir francis bacon may have penned some of his works, and others argue that one man could not have known so many things about so many different places, as represented in shakespeare's work. pointing out small errors made by screenwriters seems to be a favorite pastime among persons with small genitalia, so forget them and think about what i just said about mr. shakespeare. chronological errors, indeed. i'm not a fan of shakespeare, but i'm a fan of this movie. it is worth a try if you like romance, theatre, or naked gwyneth paltrow... so i guess it's fun for the whole family. enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: Kind of disappointed!!!
Review: I thought the movie will be so much better, I had red the great reviews about it and I was very disappointed by this movie "Shakespeare in Love", it was most of the time very boring. The only thing I like was the beautiful costumes, dresses and atmophere of the moive but for the script it was pretty bad.When Gwenette Paltrow play Romeo she can't fool anybody and when she was acting it was pretty bad her voice had no tonation and was bad. She look fabulous in her beautiful dresses that's what was good about her, her acting was not great, just okay. I usually like her she is a good actress but this time her acting was boring.Also seeying all the time Shakespeare and her in bed reciting some part of the play was boring and sometime they both get really much in my nerves.I don't say don't rent the movie, you may like it, it was not that bad but I was pretty disappointed by it, I thought it will be much better!
Rating:
Summary: Let's go to Virginia
Review: Lord Wessex is supposed to marry Viola in order to take his new bride to his tobacco plantation in Virginia. Never mind that Shakespeare was 43 when Jamestown was founded, and the colony did not produce tobacco until well after his death. Never mind that nobody referred to it as Virginia until it became a state after the War of Independence. (It was referred to as the Virginia Colony). And of course we are to believe that QE I (Queen Elisabeth the First) just happened to be in the audience of a slimy common playhouse. Has hollywood lost its marbles? I realize that this is a fantasy, but the screenplay is so ... that it insults your intelligence. Of course there is the redeeming scene where our heros recite Shakespeare while copulating, all the while the nurse (nun) listens on - if you like that sort of thing.
Rating: 
Summary: DREADFULLY HORRIBLE
Review: This movie is boring, stupid, horrible acting, gwynth acting is horrible, and COMPLETLEY missleading. The ONE thing i liked about this movie was the costumes. I had to fast forward through SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many parts in this movie because they were boring, pointless, pathetic or a combonation of all of them.There is absolutely no point to this movie whatsoever. Don't waste your time with this boring movie.
|
