Home :: DVD :: Drama :: General  

African American Drama
Classics
Crime & Criminals
Cult Classics
Family Life
Gay & Lesbian
General

Love & Romance
Military & War
Murder & Mayhem
Period Piece
Religion
Sports
Television
Shakespeare in Love: Collector's Series

Shakespeare in Love: Collector's Series

List Price: $19.99
Your Price: $14.99
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 .. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .. 47 >>

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: Ha ha ha, what a stupid movie!
Review: I'm still wondering the whole point of the movie to this very day. I mean, I get the whole "Shakespeare has some sorta 'writers' block' thing, and that this chick dresses up as a man to be in a play of his ...and they end up making steamy passionate love one nite...but damn! This movie was nominated for an Oscar...BR>...

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Beautiful, romantic, witty, utterly charming
Review: Brimming with add-ons, 'Shakespeare' gets the deluxe treatment on this disc. There are interviews with cast and crew, including Oscar-winning costume designer Sandy Powell, who strived to give the clothes a lived-in look; a backgrounder on the Bard himself; deleted scenes, among them a slightly different ending, in which a shipwrecked Gwyneth Paltrow is greeted by Americans (of the English-speaking variety); and best of all, a vivid transfer of the clever, charming film itself.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: A fun look at Shakespearean times
Review: I have watched this movie numerous times and am always pleased at what I am seeing. Shakespeare in Love is a rich comedy that offers a fictional behind-the-scenes look at the making of Romeo and Juliet. At the same time, there is a sense of tragedy in the pairing of the star-crossed lovers of Shakespeare and Viola, who know that their love cannot last.

Events in the movie often involve Shakespearean devices, in particular the idea of women disguising themselves as men, which the Bard used repeatedly. There are also pokes at the quirks of modern life which add to the fun.

This movie won a Best Picture Oscar, which was considered controversial because it beat Saving Private Ryan. Good as that latter movie was, this one merits its victory with its superior writing and acting. This is a great movie that holds up well over time.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: Best picture?
Review: I'm wholly dedicated to Saving Private Ryan- it's seriously THE best film I have EVER seen. I was positively livid that anything could beat SPR. "But," I told myself. "You haven't seen Shakespeare in Love. It might be really good. It looks kind of interesting and it's supposed to be incredibly witty." So I rented it. I could barely sit through it. Am I supposed to care that Viola (or whatever her name is) wants to be an actress? Am I supposed to believe that Shakespeare seriously behaved like such an imbessillic dimwit? A moving love story? You've got to be kidding! Will: "Oh, she's so gorgeous! I'm in love!" Viola: " Oh, isn't Master Shakespeare soo handsome?" They fell head over heels before they even knew each other. They had absolutely noo presence of mind. I seriously could barely sit through it! It goes on my worst movies list along with The Lost World, Jurassic Park 3, On the Line, and Bounce- all of which you would do best to avoid. Aside from the strained accent, Gwyneth Paltrow's performance was good, but Judi Dench? Supporting actress? She had like two scenes! Personally I don't think that justifies an Oscar win. In 15 years Saving Private Ryan will still be hailed as one of the greatest war films, any film, of all time, while Shakespeare in Love will be gathering dust along with Titanic. Don't waste your time. See SPR, or if you already have, see it again before this!

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Droll and enchanting fantasy
Review: Shakespeare in Love is the David that toppled the Goliath, Saving Private Ryan, in the 1999 Oscar race. It won seven Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Actress [Gwenyth Paltrow] and Best Supporting Actress [Judi Dench] vs. Ryan's five awards. Both are great movies, and the Steven Spielburg war epic may be technically the better one. I think Shakespeare in Love won because it is not a film you revere or admire. It is one you love.

What we have here is a lark, a frolic, a bawdy Elizabethan romp played by a cast that's as first rate as they come. It has some fine dramatic moments, but it is, first and foremost, a highly original romantic comedy. The year is 1593. Will Shakespeare is in London struggling with writer's block, as well as poverty. To make matters worse, the city is just getting over another bout with the plague. Public places, such as theaters, have been closed for weeks, and the owner of The Rose, the playhouse where Will's plays are performed, is in desperate need of a hit. Shakespeare claims to have nearly finished a comedy called Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter.

In a mansion across town lives the beautiful Viola, whose wealthy father is planning to marry her off [with an enormous dowry] to the cash-poor Lord Wessex. The insipid Wessex will get Viola and a lot of gold, and Dad will get a title. In those days, women had no say in little things like their entire futures Viola seems resigned to her fate, yet she's a high-spirited spot. One day she goes to one of Queen Elizabeth's palaces to see a performance of some of Shakespeare's work, which she already knows by heart. Soon afterwards, she dresses as a boy and auditions for Will's new play. She has no other option, as men in those days played both the male and the female roles. Actresses didn't exist. She gets the part of Romeo. One thing leads to another, and the fallout started by Viola's, as well as Will's, deception starts coming in fast, furious and madcap waves.

Then there is that cast. It is what elevates the movie far beyond what it should have been. Gwyneth Paltrow is extraordinary as Viola. While other young actresses appear to have built their careers in a random way, Ms. Paltrow seems to have used each successive role as a building block. Ironically, her only real competition for the Oscar was Cate Blanchette, who played Queen Elizabeth in another movie. The Best Supporting Actress here is Judi Dench who plays, yes, Queen Elizabeth. In another odd twist, Dench was nominated the previous year for Best Actress in Mrs. Brown, in which she played that other big Queen, Victoria. Joseph Fiennes, who sparkles as Will Shakespeare, also played Cate Blanchett's lover in Elizabeth. As Lord Essex, Colin Firth plays one of the funniest villains we've seen in some time. Also marvelous are Geoffrey Rush and Tom Wilkinson as Henslow and Fenneyman.

The dialog is so clever that only upon the second viewing did I realized how much I had missed. The scenery and costumes are sumptuous. Stephen Warbeck's musical score is a classic. It also won an Oscar.

Shakespeare in Love is not a parody of the Bard. It is a tribute to him and his time. This is not history. We have no record of Viola. Wessex plans to take her off to his plantation in the Virginia colony. This would have been quite a feat, since the colony was not founded until fourteen years after the movie takes place. None of this matters a bit. We know very little about Shakespeare. In fact, we know next to nothing. It is doubtful that what we know as Romeo and Juliet could have evolved in this fasion. We know that this remarkable tale is pure fiction, but we wish with all our hearts that it had really happened.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: I am in love with SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE
Review: this movie was excellent! from the cast to the dialougues (the best is at the ball where viola disses her fiancee)to the way it follows 12th night and romeo and juliet. END!!!

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Shakespeare's Stage
Review: SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE performed quite an upset, when it beat SAVING PRIVATE RYAN as best picture for 1998, at the OSCARS a few years ago. The debate continues in some circles even today, as to whether or not that win was justified, personally, I think Ryan is a better film. Having said that, Shakespeare is a good film, that I enjoyed very much. When William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) gets a bad case of writer's block, he embarks on a secret relationship with the beautiful Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow), to unclutter his mind. Once the romance begins, the words start flowing, and he begins to write again. The only problem is that she is set to marry someone else (Colin Firth).

Directed with a breezy panache` by John Madden, the movie, captures the sights, sounds, and spirit of the Elizabethan period. There is great on screen chemistry between Paltrow and Fiennes. The other cast members also add to the enjoyability of the flick. Geoffrey Rush is very funny and almost steals the show. Dame Judi Dench is quite impressive in her 8 minutes of screen time as Queen Elizabeth. The script is very witty and very original. The movie sucessfully blends historical fact and fiction seamlessly. The film is accessable to everyone and not just for fans of the romantic comedy (of which I am not).

The DVD is available as a movie only edition and a Collector's Series Widescreen edition. Given a choice, I prefer a fully loaded DVD, over just the movie. The highlights are the two commentaries. The first, features director Madden, the second track is with the cast and crew. There are the usual featurettes, trailers, and T.V. ads too. The film may have caused a stir with its Best Picture win, but it's still good entertainment, worth a look, and is time well spent

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Will's World
Review: I loved this movie. I thought going into it that understanding Shakespeares' style and manner of speech would be difficult for me to understand, but not at all. Much credit has to go to the many talented and likeable actors who brought this story to life. On one level, this story describes (with the vital and enthusiastic endorsement of Queen Elizabeth) the very roots of show business and how troups of actors coalesced into an industry. But this movie at its heart is a good old-fashioned bittersweet love story with lots of laughs to lighten it up. Very loosely based of Shakespeare's early years as a writer/actor this story made clever use of at least a half dozen real persons who were a part of his world. That said, for some serious Shakespeare buffs to chaffe over variances with precise historical accuracy is to miss the point. Elizabethian times were not easy, certainly not very sanitary, and this film conveyed convincingly by way of costume and set design how daily life might have played out in 1593. Joseph Fiennes' Will Shakespeare was likeable, handsome, full of youthful energy and possessed of a boundless intellect. Gwyneth Paltrow positively glowed as the fictional Viola. In this role she had to at times act cross gender and in doing so demonstrated a remarkable range and talent, most deserving of the Academy Award she won. Geoffrey Rush, the superb Australian actor was brilliant as Philip Henslowe the fatalistic and comical theatre owner. (In real life, Henslowe married his way out of indentured service and was mentioned in Shakespeare's will). Noteworthy is Judi Dench's famous 8 minutes of screen time so believable as Queen Elizabeth that she won best supporting actress. This movie worked on so many levels that you are bound to find something to like about it. Easily one of the best romantic comedies, certainly one of the most novel ever filmed.

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Shakespeare in Love "Stop Kissing Already!!!
Review: My favorite kinds of movies are ones that are based on true (or what could be true) events, legends, and myths, which is why I really enjoyed this movie. It is very interesting to see these types of movies and think "Hey, what if this is how it really happened!". I am a big fan of comedies that have stupid humor and political humor, like Monty Python and Mel Brooks. This movie had plenty of that. There's just something about hearing jokes in the kind of accent they used that makes them so funny. It kept me wanting to watch more, even when the mushy stuff was going on.

I've never really been a fan of romantic/love based movies. I don't like seeing other peoples relationships that go so well, when it's never like that in real-life, for most of us anyway. It wasn't too bad though.

Besides that part of it, the acting was really great. You can almost imagine this coming out of a history book. They took the roles, actions, and the look of the people of that time and played them out so well, I couldn't believe it. I also enjoyed the actors using the Old English. Normally it would be hard for me to understand, but after my English teacher had us watch and read "Macbeth", I actually understood what they were saying. It was quite scary.

All in all, this was an excellent movie. In my personal opinion, any of the characters from Monty Python would have made perfect roles for Philip Henslowe and the actors in Will's play. They have experience in impersonating women. So, if you like stupid humor, great Old English acting, and you don't mind a whole lot of kissing (when the woman is occasionally dressed like a man...), you should see this movie.

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: Shakespeare Vulgarized
Review: Someone has to play the grouch. I love Shakespeare but loathed this film. I stayed to watch it only because having paid my $5.50 matinee price I planned on getting every cent's worth.

So where to start? The actors? Dench and Blanchett, I'll grant, were very good. But Fiennes as the Bard was feckless and bland. Nothing in his portrayal conveyed the staggering genius, talent, or enigma that the name Shakespeare ought to suggest. Fiennes seemed more like some grad student in Theater who's fond of going clubbing on the weekends. And Gwyneth Paltrow? What is there to praise in any of her performances? Which do you tire of first, the accent or the exaggerated emoting?

How about the plot, then. Could it be any more vulgar? That the greatest dramatist of all time may have had writer's block is certainly possible, if unprovable; there's nothing wrong with using it as the premise of a movie. But to base the entire plot on some low-brow reductionist notion that Shakespeare could not write about idealized love without gallons of hot sex--uggh. What's next? Shakespeare killed Marlowe, because he needed to act out his jealousy and ambition in order to finish up that Macbeth thing?

And I have no patience for the odious attempts at humor, included, it seems, to tickle not just your ordinary groundlings but those who somehow become English teachers. (The same ones who warn us not to "fetishize" Shakespeare.) _Romeo_and_Ethel_ as a working title? I thought the poor man had writer's block, not brain damage. And scruffy little Webster dreaming of plays with lots o' blood and gore. Oh, how insufferably clever that Stoppard! Couldn't you just die?!

And that's all I have to say.


<< 1 .. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .. 47 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates