When my English teacher told the class that we would be watching "Shakespeare in Love" everyone groaned, me included. We all thought it would be another boring movie, but I along with many others was pleasantly surprised. Even though the movie didn't portray the actual life of William Shakespeare, it is a very interesting interpretation of what his life might have been like. Normally I am not a big fan of Gwenyth Paltrow, but she fulfilled the role of Viola De Lesseps very well. This movie, unlike many others I have been forced to watch in school, has not been a waste of time and has informed us more about the concepts and details that could not be seen just by reading the play. Overall I think I have gained a better understanding of Romeo and Juliet by watching "Shakespeare in Love".
744 Reviews
Shakespeare would be proud
Faery27 December 1998
I went to see this movie not knowing what to expect. On the one hand, I was excited, because you see, I am an English major and here was this movie based on the life of William Shakespeare. In the realm of Shakespeare rip-offs (i.e., "Romeo & Juliet," "Macbeth," etc..)"Shakespeare in Love" clearly stood out. This is the first film I've seen based on the author, rather than his work. And it was a refreshing change from watching the pompous over-fed Hollywood egoes trying to pass themselves off as true actors. At the same time, however, the casting had me a bit nervous. I had not seen Joseph Fiennes work, but I had high hopes since his brother is, in my opinion, a brilliant actor. I liked Gwyneth Paltrow in "Emma" and "Sliding Doors," but I was wary to see how she would pull this one off. And as for Ben Affleck.. well, I was truly afraid he would flop. I saw him in "Armageddon" and immediately racked him up on the list of other such forgettable actors as .. well never mind. The point is, I was afraid he would make a laughing-stock of this movie. As for the other actors,I did not recognize any one else except Judi Dench, and I figured hers was a bit role, nothing that could affect this movie much. I was wrong on almost all counts. Gwyneth Paltrow was so radiant in this movie, she fairly set the screen ablaze. I never knew she had such range. I had not expected such fire in her, I always thought she was a rather calm actress, incapable of such passions. Joseph Fiennes amazed me far more than his brother in that he knows how to balance wit and passion, joy and sorrow gracefully, even more so than Ralph. Together, these two actors did more than carry off the film; they raised it up to levels higher than any other actors I've seen in a very long time. Judi Dench may have had a bit role, but she managed to make a lot out of it. She played Queen Elizabeth with more majesty and grace than any other Queen-playing actress I've seen. (I've yet to see Cate Blansett in the movie "Elizabeth.")But the true darkhorse of this movie is Ben Affleck. My God, he has a sense of humor! I never imagined. "Armageddon" didn't give him much space to roam in, but in this film he was all over the place. Had he not been flanked by such worthy thespians, he just might have stolen the show. The actors could not have done such marvelous work had it not been, of course, for the writing. The play flows smoothly, with nary a glitch in sight. This is note-worthy, for it is well over 100 minutes. It is written in a style that is at once clever and grave, passionate and dry. Love is one of the most abused notions on the screen today. It is rare to see a movie portray Love with as much originality and truth as this film has accomplished. Perhaps the highest compliment I can pay this movie I already did on Christmas night, when I went to go see this film. As the movie ended and the actors' names scrolled up on the screen, tears trickled down my cheeks. I must say it is not often a movie makes me cry. And don't underestimate me just because I am a girl and because I may be more sensitive because you see, my boyfriend left the theater with suspiciously bright eyes as well..
I wouldn't have given it Best Picture.
lee_eisenberg22 February 2006
"Shakespeare in Love" was an interesting movie, but in a year when we had "Beloved" and "The Truman Show" ("Saving Private Ryan" was also good, but there were more things that it could have shown), did this one really deserve Best Picture? Well, I guess that there were worse movies. Still, a portrayal of history's greatest playwright getting some unusual inspiration for his masterpiece didn't really seem to deserve Oscar's highest honor. No matter; I did like the original name that they suggested for "Romeo and Juliet".
It's still weird to think that this came out around the same time as "Elizabeth", and also portrayed Queen Elizabeth - not to mention that both movies starred Joseph Fiennes and Geoffrey Rush.
It's still weird to think that this came out around the same time as "Elizabeth", and also portrayed Queen Elizabeth - not to mention that both movies starred Joseph Fiennes and Geoffrey Rush.
What ever happened to "And they lived happily ever after"?
Smells_Like_Cheese23 November 2003
Shakespeare in Love, the best picture winner of 1998, I know this film receives a lot of bashing due to that win. I believe that also Saving Private Ryan was nominated, which it was also an incredible film. To be honest, I couldn't pick between the two, because both were wonderful films and completely different genres. But anyways, back onto Shakespeare in Love. Everything about this film was perfect and I think that's why it received so many Oscar nods and wins, I mean, the costumes, the acting, the sets, the story was absolutely terrific and wonderful to watch. John Madden knew what he was doing and shot this film so beautifully. The cast also seemed to really enjoy doing this film and worked so well together. Gwyneth Paltrow won best actress for this film and she did a terrific job portraying Viola, she was so elegant and touching. The love story between her and William Shakespeare is truly a memorable one.
Viola is a first class lady who is about to be married to Lord Wessex, a man who she does not love. Her heart belongs to poetry, mainly the poetry of William Shakespeare. William has lost all hope though when his heart is broken by his girlfriend and he is writing a comedy called Romeo and Ethyl, the pirate's daughter. Since the plays are only played by an all male cast, Viola dresses up as a man and auditions for his new play. She receives the part of Romeo; later that night at a big party her father is throwing, she meets Shakespeare and it is love at first sight. When William finds out the truth that she is the boy who loves his poetry, he doesn't care, they have a passionate affair and continue on with the play as if she were a boy. But the plot thickens and Viola knows that she must go back to her life of an unwanted love and marriage.
Shakespeare in Love is without a doubt a fine film and should have a higher rating in my book. I don't understand why so many people hate this film, I thought it was extremely clever and witty. It had a beautiful love story, it was funny, it was sad; there's nothing wrong with this film, but hey, everyone's a critic, right? I highly recommend Shakespeare in Love, just trust me, if you enjoy Shakespeare and his poetry, I'm sure you'll love this film. Just give it a chance, who cares about the Oscars? They make mistakes at times, but Shakespeare in Love is a great movie and I enjoyed watching it.
10/10
Viola is a first class lady who is about to be married to Lord Wessex, a man who she does not love. Her heart belongs to poetry, mainly the poetry of William Shakespeare. William has lost all hope though when his heart is broken by his girlfriend and he is writing a comedy called Romeo and Ethyl, the pirate's daughter. Since the plays are only played by an all male cast, Viola dresses up as a man and auditions for his new play. She receives the part of Romeo; later that night at a big party her father is throwing, she meets Shakespeare and it is love at first sight. When William finds out the truth that she is the boy who loves his poetry, he doesn't care, they have a passionate affair and continue on with the play as if she were a boy. But the plot thickens and Viola knows that she must go back to her life of an unwanted love and marriage.
Shakespeare in Love is without a doubt a fine film and should have a higher rating in my book. I don't understand why so many people hate this film, I thought it was extremely clever and witty. It had a beautiful love story, it was funny, it was sad; there's nothing wrong with this film, but hey, everyone's a critic, right? I highly recommend Shakespeare in Love, just trust me, if you enjoy Shakespeare and his poetry, I'm sure you'll love this film. Just give it a chance, who cares about the Oscars? They make mistakes at times, but Shakespeare in Love is a great movie and I enjoyed watching it.
10/10
1998 Was a Strange Year
gavin694225 February 2015
A young Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes), out of ideas and short of cash, meets his ideal woman (Gwyneth Paltrow, not Anne Hathaway) and is inspired to write one of his most famous plays.
In smaller roles (but still appreciated), are the great actors Ben Affleck and Rupert Everett. Affleck may not have appreciated a very naked Gwenyth Paltrow pressed up against Shakespeare, as they were dating at the time. But, that is how Hollywood works.
1998 must have been a strange year. Although I watched many movies that year, I had not yet caught the "Oscar bug" and was more interested in the fantastic film genres. In many ways, I still am, but my views have broadened significantly. Anyway... this film walked away with seven awards, including "Best Picture". Reflecting years later (2015), was it the best film of that year? Although the category was smaller then (five films rather than today's eight or nine), one jumps out as the better film: "Saving Private Ryan". Certainly, it is better known and far more influential. This film, in contrast, is decent but nothing more than a historical love story (with no real history supporting it).
In smaller roles (but still appreciated), are the great actors Ben Affleck and Rupert Everett. Affleck may not have appreciated a very naked Gwenyth Paltrow pressed up against Shakespeare, as they were dating at the time. But, that is how Hollywood works.
1998 must have been a strange year. Although I watched many movies that year, I had not yet caught the "Oscar bug" and was more interested in the fantastic film genres. In many ways, I still am, but my views have broadened significantly. Anyway... this film walked away with seven awards, including "Best Picture". Reflecting years later (2015), was it the best film of that year? Although the category was smaller then (five films rather than today's eight or nine), one jumps out as the better film: "Saving Private Ryan". Certainly, it is better known and far more influential. This film, in contrast, is decent but nothing more than a historical love story (with no real history supporting it).
The impossible - a successful Shakespeare play in movie form!!
Stevo-186 January 1999
I was in awe for a good five minutes after watching this film. Tackling Shakespeare in a movie is a risky business, but John Madden has really outdone himself this time. The beautifully seamless connection between Will's plays and his life experiences is unparalleled. The best thing was, the entire movie experience felt like attending one of the RSC's best plays. Now THAT's an accomplishment. The cast was magnificent. I was very impressed with the acting chops of Gwynneth, Joe Fiennes, and Ben Affleck. Gwynneth and Joe had more onscreen chemistry than I can remember in a very long time. I felt my own heart breaking as they bid adieu for the last time, and many times in between. And Ben proved he has excellent comic timing. I never would have imagined he could do Shakespeare. And Dame Judi Dench! It's amazing that so small a role can have such a powerful impact on the tenor of the movie. She was a perfect choice for Elizabeth. She needs but to speak, and she commands the rapt attention of her entire audience, both the actors in the movie and the audience beyond the screen.
I haven't felt so giddy with excitement after watching a movie since the Shawshank Redemption. Fabulous!
I haven't felt so giddy with excitement after watching a movie since the Shawshank Redemption. Fabulous!
Charming and cute
SnoopyStyle23 February 2014
Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) is a struggling playwright. He's sold his next play to both Philip Henslow (Geoffrey Rush) and Richard Burbidge. It's called 'Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter'. Only he can't get started. Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow) comes from a wealthy family and wants poetry in her life. Lord Wessex (Colin Firth) is interested but he doesn't have the poetry. She pretends to be a man to audition for Will's play. However Will sees through her disguise and they begin a love affair.
I love all the Shakespearian phrases that are thrown at Will from everybody. It has a cute charm to it. It's probably the best original Shakespearian play not written by him. I also love William Shakespeare as a struggling artist. It's not a high minded academic thing although a good knowledge of some of the famous lines help to appreciate this movie.
I love all the Shakespearian phrases that are thrown at Will from everybody. It has a cute charm to it. It's probably the best original Shakespearian play not written by him. I also love William Shakespeare as a struggling artist. It's not a high minded academic thing although a good knowledge of some of the famous lines help to appreciate this movie.
Brilliant! Absolute perfection!
TheLittleSongbird3 September 2009
Shakespeare in Love was a fantastic film in all departments. You cannot go wrong with the splendid locations and the wondrous costumes. The screenplay was superlative, very witty and moving, and one of the few screenplays out there that completely blew me away. The direction from John Madden was spot on, and I believe it is the same John Madden who directed some of the greatest Inspector Morse episodes, and Inspector Morse in my opinion is the best British detective drama out there. And what a talented cast, with Joseph Fiennes utterly charming and handsome as William Shakespeare, and Gwyneth Paltrow in possibly her best performance was by every means captivating as Lady Viola. Geoffrey Rush, who actually looks like the Barbossa character he created in the Pirates of the Caribbean films, was hilarious, and Colin Firth makes Lord Wessex intentionally insufferable. Simon Callow, Martin Clunes and Ben Affleck are solid in their roles, not to mention the wonderful performance of Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth I. Her end monologue was beautifully written and Dench's interpretation was flawless. I am 17, and I do hope I am not the only person who doesn't think this movie is overrated- I thought it was a brilliant film, that wholly deserved the accolades it received. 10/10 Bethany Cox
I don't understand...
dangerhorse2 September 1999
This movie was a surprise (to me) Oscar contender, many people I know gave it good reviews, and the concept seemed ingenious and entertaining.
I finally saw it recently (July 1999) and I do not understand it's popularity. It is an interesting concept for a movie, but the execution was flat and uninteresting to me. I forced myself to watch through to the end, which was, thankfully, not typical Hollywood, but was still not enough to have made it an interesting viewing experience.
Take the hype with a grain of salt. You may enjoy it, as many people did, but if you don't...don't feel alone.
I finally saw it recently (July 1999) and I do not understand it's popularity. It is an interesting concept for a movie, but the execution was flat and uninteresting to me. I forced myself to watch through to the end, which was, thankfully, not typical Hollywood, but was still not enough to have made it an interesting viewing experience.
Take the hype with a grain of salt. You may enjoy it, as many people did, but if you don't...don't feel alone.
9 years later & can still watch over and over
paddlin_jones27 April 2007
This is one of the few movies that I have given a 10 of 10, maybe the only one. There is tremendous skill at work in every aspect of the film. And the passion... yes, the passion.
The script is simply amazing. The fabulous humour - written and visual - exists throughout. The depth of meaning and presentation of the various references means three things for me. First, that the writing was done for the pleasure of the writers as well as the audience. Second, the writers know what they're writing about (certainly I recognize Tom Stoppard's talent). Thirdly, my impression is that the screenwriters wrote the cleverness not to be seen to be clever but because it was such fun. Every multi-level reference that I could catch or, more to the point, those I didn't, left me feeling not that I was clever or daft myself (correspondingly) but that there was a richness to the material that could be appreciated at a variety of levels.
The devices used in the script, many more than I know but can nonetheless appreciate, such as intermixing a dialogue sequence between real-life and stage is used very effectively to show that there are parallel fictional stories being told. There is no suggestion from the writers that we are watching a true-to-life story. We know at the outset that it is a fiction loosely based at a certain point in the lives of real people. Perhaps in similar way that Shakespeare's works themselves are historical fiction in some cases (though I know little of Shakespeare).
There are particular moments of script brilliance where I found myself suspended in time and unable to breathe as if a river was suddenly dammed and subsequently released with tremendous emotion. For example, the stuttering start of the prologue to the play - absolutely fantastic. Foreshadowing is also used effectively if unsubtly at times as are the Shakespearean notions of mistaken identity and gender-bending.
Even such contrivances as Lord Wessex getting a paper flyer in the face just after his marriage to Viola are pulled off easily and believably.
The acting is brilliant, cohesive and consistent - a magical combination of script, direction, casting and, oh yes, the actors abilities. The characters all gel into a single, 2 hour dance. How does a movie achieve this level of inspired acting and vivid characterization? I don't know, it's a mystery.
The direction of John Madden needs singling out for particular praise. I don't know what to say except that it is the director who must, in the end, not only bring the varied abilities of all those assembled into a single gem but to inspire and allow each facet to shine brilliantly. This he certainly does.
The music sets wonderful moods and captures (inspires) a real sense of situation.
Visual sets and costumes are fabulous.
The editing provides a piece that flows so smoothly.
One of the main reasons I see movies is to feel an emotional response and this movie certainly provides that. It all works beautifully - I think one can tell when a company is firing on all cylinders - and I will return to this movie from time to time as no other I have seen.
The script is simply amazing. The fabulous humour - written and visual - exists throughout. The depth of meaning and presentation of the various references means three things for me. First, that the writing was done for the pleasure of the writers as well as the audience. Second, the writers know what they're writing about (certainly I recognize Tom Stoppard's talent). Thirdly, my impression is that the screenwriters wrote the cleverness not to be seen to be clever but because it was such fun. Every multi-level reference that I could catch or, more to the point, those I didn't, left me feeling not that I was clever or daft myself (correspondingly) but that there was a richness to the material that could be appreciated at a variety of levels.
The devices used in the script, many more than I know but can nonetheless appreciate, such as intermixing a dialogue sequence between real-life and stage is used very effectively to show that there are parallel fictional stories being told. There is no suggestion from the writers that we are watching a true-to-life story. We know at the outset that it is a fiction loosely based at a certain point in the lives of real people. Perhaps in similar way that Shakespeare's works themselves are historical fiction in some cases (though I know little of Shakespeare).
There are particular moments of script brilliance where I found myself suspended in time and unable to breathe as if a river was suddenly dammed and subsequently released with tremendous emotion. For example, the stuttering start of the prologue to the play - absolutely fantastic. Foreshadowing is also used effectively if unsubtly at times as are the Shakespearean notions of mistaken identity and gender-bending.
Even such contrivances as Lord Wessex getting a paper flyer in the face just after his marriage to Viola are pulled off easily and believably.
The acting is brilliant, cohesive and consistent - a magical combination of script, direction, casting and, oh yes, the actors abilities. The characters all gel into a single, 2 hour dance. How does a movie achieve this level of inspired acting and vivid characterization? I don't know, it's a mystery.
The direction of John Madden needs singling out for particular praise. I don't know what to say except that it is the director who must, in the end, not only bring the varied abilities of all those assembled into a single gem but to inspire and allow each facet to shine brilliantly. This he certainly does.
The music sets wonderful moods and captures (inspires) a real sense of situation.
Visual sets and costumes are fabulous.
The editing provides a piece that flows so smoothly.
One of the main reasons I see movies is to feel an emotional response and this movie certainly provides that. It all works beautifully - I think one can tell when a company is firing on all cylinders - and I will return to this movie from time to time as no other I have seen.
Nice film, but come on...
MFC98 March 2022
It's good yes, but Spielberg was robbed. The Academy's complete overreaction to this film will go down in history as a Miramax funded injustice. Which is a shame, because SIL is quite enjoyable, amusing and fun to watch. Paltrow and Fiennes are earnest to the point of hokey at times, while Affleck and Rush spend the entire film amusing themselves. Nice film, but come on... 7/10.
The most overrated film of the year.
e-jane12 May 1999
It's hard not to enjoy Shakespeare in Love. It's witty, clever and beautifully shot. The performances - except for Gwyneth Paltrow, who should definitely stick to the present tense - are solid (though not Oscar-worthy, as one has to applaud Judi Dench for admitting.)
But that's just about all there is to this pleasant piece of fluff. It lacks any real substance, and for all the nods to Shakespeare and the smoldering stares, is basically your average, contrived love story. It has none of the depth that made The Truman Show and Elizabeth so outstanding.
An enjoyable, cute, picture? Certainly. The best of the year? Definitely not.
But that's just about all there is to this pleasant piece of fluff. It lacks any real substance, and for all the nods to Shakespeare and the smoldering stares, is basically your average, contrived love story. It has none of the depth that made The Truman Show and Elizabeth so outstanding.
An enjoyable, cute, picture? Certainly. The best of the year? Definitely not.
Excellent
tjowen14 February 2003
Those who are looking for a historically accurate portrayal of Shakespeare's life had better look elsewhere - but then this was never intended to be a serious look at the life of the man. Those who attack it for its' fanciful relation to history have missed the point entirely. It is a romantic comedy obsessed with nothing more than making references in storyline and plot to the plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries, and those references are made so seamlessly it could almost be assumed that what we see on the screen actually happened to the man.
In fact the overall story we are presented with is not new. Anyone who had read or seen `Romeo and Juliet' will have a pretty shrewd idea of the path the narrative takes - the twist is that in the film, Shakespeare writes the play `Romeo and Juliet' in parallel to, and based on, his `real life' relationship with Lady Viola.
The opening sees Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) desperately trying to write the masterpiece `Romeo and Ethel, the Pirates Daughter', a comedy he hopes will rival anything by Christopher Marlow (Rupert Everett). Words fail him until his muse appears in the shape of Lady Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow), a noblewoman whose love for the work of Shakespeare's leads her to dress as a boy (since at the time women were not allowed on stage) and attend an audition in disguise (mistaken identity and women dressing as men are devices Shakespeare often used in his comedies). She is given the role of Romeo and begins a forbidden relationship with Shakespeare, the only one who knows her real identity, in spite of the fact that she is betrothed to the villainous Lord Wessex (Colin Firth) at Queen Elizabeth's (Judi Dench) command.
Fiennes portrays Shakespeare wonderfully and not as the infallible master of rhetoric. He takes the Bard from the pedestal and brings him down to a human level that we can all sympathise with. His relationship with Paltrow is handled sensitively, although many of the scenes that are exclusively their own did have enough a little too much `Chick-Flick' for my liking. Paltrow's R.P. accent is technically very good, and though I normally like my English to be played by the English, I was as happily surprised by her performance as I was by Ben Affleck's brief, but memorable portrayal of the self-important Ned Alleyn. Much of the credit, though, must go to Michelle Guish for the wonderful supporting cast including: Judi Dench, Simon Callow, Imelda Staunton, Jim Carter, Martin Clunes and Geoffrey Rush, to name but a few.
John Madden directs hypnotically and constantly keeps the camera on the move but most credit for the film must go to Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard for their cunning and often self-parodying script. The only comment I would make is regarding the sheer number of theatre references. Those who have worked in the theatre will be aware of many, if not all, of the in-jokes that the film is littered with. Those who have not may be left with the feeling that they have been excluded from much of the content.
In fact the overall story we are presented with is not new. Anyone who had read or seen `Romeo and Juliet' will have a pretty shrewd idea of the path the narrative takes - the twist is that in the film, Shakespeare writes the play `Romeo and Juliet' in parallel to, and based on, his `real life' relationship with Lady Viola.
The opening sees Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) desperately trying to write the masterpiece `Romeo and Ethel, the Pirates Daughter', a comedy he hopes will rival anything by Christopher Marlow (Rupert Everett). Words fail him until his muse appears in the shape of Lady Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow), a noblewoman whose love for the work of Shakespeare's leads her to dress as a boy (since at the time women were not allowed on stage) and attend an audition in disguise (mistaken identity and women dressing as men are devices Shakespeare often used in his comedies). She is given the role of Romeo and begins a forbidden relationship with Shakespeare, the only one who knows her real identity, in spite of the fact that she is betrothed to the villainous Lord Wessex (Colin Firth) at Queen Elizabeth's (Judi Dench) command.
Fiennes portrays Shakespeare wonderfully and not as the infallible master of rhetoric. He takes the Bard from the pedestal and brings him down to a human level that we can all sympathise with. His relationship with Paltrow is handled sensitively, although many of the scenes that are exclusively their own did have enough a little too much `Chick-Flick' for my liking. Paltrow's R.P. accent is technically very good, and though I normally like my English to be played by the English, I was as happily surprised by her performance as I was by Ben Affleck's brief, but memorable portrayal of the self-important Ned Alleyn. Much of the credit, though, must go to Michelle Guish for the wonderful supporting cast including: Judi Dench, Simon Callow, Imelda Staunton, Jim Carter, Martin Clunes and Geoffrey Rush, to name but a few.
John Madden directs hypnotically and constantly keeps the camera on the move but most credit for the film must go to Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard for their cunning and often self-parodying script. The only comment I would make is regarding the sheer number of theatre references. Those who have worked in the theatre will be aware of many, if not all, of the in-jokes that the film is littered with. Those who have not may be left with the feeling that they have been excluded from much of the content.
Oh happy dagger this is thy sheath
wisneskilife8 January 2024
Shakespeare in Love won 7 Oscars including beating out Life is Beautiful and Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture. It ain't ass, but it ain't gas either. So 7 Oscars feels like 7 Oscars too many. Shakespeare in Love is whimsical and sometimes entertaining, but it mostly reminds me of high school. For a Best Picture, I was expecting to be razzled and dazzled. I don't regret spending 2 hours on an okay film, but there was nothing special here. I do think the costume design and sets were fairly good for 1998. I also have mad respect to everyone memorizing Shakespearean lines. I can't imagine how difficult that can be. But again, I'm not sure how this was Oscar worthy.
A fun parody of the life and work of Shakespeare
violinjoe22 May 2019
People are missing the point of this movie-it is simply a parody of Shakespeare, his life, and work.
Whether it works as such is up to the opinion of the viewer. Go in with this expectation and you won't be disappointed.
Whether it works as such is up to the opinion of the viewer. Go in with this expectation and you won't be disappointed.
One of the best I've seen in quite a while.
dead4754810 May 2008
A whimsical, hilarious, tragic story about a forbidden love between a then-common playwright and a beautiful woman with her wealth forcing her to wed another man. It's one of the most sharply written films I've ever seen, that completely draws you in from the first moment where we see Hugh Fennyman (Tom Wilkinson) order his men to chop off Philip Henslowe's (Geoffrey Rush) nose and ear to the very end as Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow) walk up the beach.
The film centers around the young Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) who is desperately trying to sell his work in order to keep on living. As him and theater owner Henslowe are auditioning for the lead in his new play, he meets a young boy whom he thinks is perfect for the part. The boy runs away after realizing that it's Shakespeare, and Will follows him to his home where he meets Viola (who he later finds out was disguised as the young boy due to her love of theater). And thus begins this beautiful romance between two lovers who are torn apart by status and society.
This story has it's share of hilarious moments mixed with absolutely tragic ones, but never manages to drag or stop being one of the most compelling pictures I've ever seen. I also really love all of the subtle references to rumors regarding Shakespeare and the allusions to his other plays that occur throughout the film. The performances are all glorious and the technical aspects (the costume design, set decoration and score in particular) are easily among the best of the decade. Surely a masterpiece which more than deserved it's Best Picture win.
The film centers around the young Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) who is desperately trying to sell his work in order to keep on living. As him and theater owner Henslowe are auditioning for the lead in his new play, he meets a young boy whom he thinks is perfect for the part. The boy runs away after realizing that it's Shakespeare, and Will follows him to his home where he meets Viola (who he later finds out was disguised as the young boy due to her love of theater). And thus begins this beautiful romance between two lovers who are torn apart by status and society.
This story has it's share of hilarious moments mixed with absolutely tragic ones, but never manages to drag or stop being one of the most compelling pictures I've ever seen. I also really love all of the subtle references to rumors regarding Shakespeare and the allusions to his other plays that occur throughout the film. The performances are all glorious and the technical aspects (the costume design, set decoration and score in particular) are easily among the best of the decade. Surely a masterpiece which more than deserved it's Best Picture win.
The Muse
Prismark108 August 2014
William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) is suffering from writer's block and needs a muse to inspire him.
Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a young woman from a wealthy family who loves the theatre. She disguises herself as a man and gets a part but runs away.
Will meets Viola and gets inspired by her and pursues her but Viola is arranged to marry Lord Wessex (Colin Firth.) A man of nobility who is very jealous.
Will despite being married wins Viola's heart and writes Romeo and Juliet but as the play is performed. It might lead to a tragedy especially as Viola is earlier exposed as a female who at the time were banned from performing.
The film is uplifted by its cast who are uniformly good even Ben Affleck. It's surprising to think that the film was for some years had been stuck in development hell.
Some years earlier it was marked out to be a Kenneth Branagh/Julia Roberts project. The film was obviously reworked successfully and Paltrow's performance elevates it.
The film moves along with elan and enthusiasm. It never feels stodgy for an Elizabethan period piece.
Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a young woman from a wealthy family who loves the theatre. She disguises herself as a man and gets a part but runs away.
Will meets Viola and gets inspired by her and pursues her but Viola is arranged to marry Lord Wessex (Colin Firth.) A man of nobility who is very jealous.
Will despite being married wins Viola's heart and writes Romeo and Juliet but as the play is performed. It might lead to a tragedy especially as Viola is earlier exposed as a female who at the time were banned from performing.
The film is uplifted by its cast who are uniformly good even Ben Affleck. It's surprising to think that the film was for some years had been stuck in development hell.
Some years earlier it was marked out to be a Kenneth Branagh/Julia Roberts project. The film was obviously reworked successfully and Paltrow's performance elevates it.
The film moves along with elan and enthusiasm. It never feels stodgy for an Elizabethan period piece.
Passionate Love Story Within Dreamlike Inspiration
marcin_kukuczka2 August 2009
Have you ever thought of a well known story in terms of some novelties? So to say, can the content of a movie still leave a contemporary viewer breathless? Indeed, in our age of consumption and shallow effects, it seems that true commitment to the essence of what art is supposed to be is faded. We rarely encounter any freshness in such themes like love and romance, the themes well known in cinema but frequently considered as 'prefabricated,' and, consequently, distorted, deprived of their essential vitality. A very justifiable question arises: are there still films that can really move us? If there are some, is "Shakespeare in Love" one of them?
At first, it seems that the content of this movie is rather common and predictable. It shows, in a fictitious manner, the inspiration that Shakespeare might have had during writing one of his timeless love dramas. The suggestion goes on logically as the movie calls our attention to the creative experience of love that touches the mind and heart of the playwright to write one of the most beautiful love stories, "Romeo and Juliet". That is the crucial link between this movie and the great masterpiece since Shakespeare is showed as the one who goes through similar love that Romeo did go through. But is this movie only a romance, a love story that raises a hero and a heroine to the very heights of blissful feelings?
The movie by John Madden is, foremost, a tribute to the artistic inspiration that brings back the very essence of a story on screen. It is filled with profound experience of images, scenery, music and performances. Therefore, firstly, it is a lovely movie with all its merits as a manifestation of art, and, secondly, an innovative representation of love, similarly to Shakespeare's drama that occurs to win the people, both Queen Elizabeth and her faithful subjects, as new and touching.
Romeo and Juliet...their dramatic, short but blissful lives are now Will (Joseph Fiennes) and Viola's (Gwyneth Paltrow) short, blissful experiences. The two give sublime performances. They are (...and it is significant to mention that here) romantically subtle and erotically sensual. Their love appears to combine the two depictions of love, or more specifically, the two aspects of love focused on: the one of Shakespeare's works and the one of modern cinema. Therefore, what we get here is a harmony between sweet youthful feeling and strong erotic desire. One cannot go without the other in order not to limit the whole merely to 'characters in bliss' or 'characters in lust.' That would, of course, condense the whole picture to mere sentimentalism or sheer eroticism. The both aspects must complement each other in order to be genuine and satisfy the ambitious movie buffs. Moreover, reference is the building block of inspiration: Juliet's balcony appears to be Viola's balcony, the proud Capulets appears to be upright Lord Wessex (Colin Firth), death appears to be a conventional separation. Yet all the differences are united by the very feeling of love beautifully depicted by Ms Paltrow and Mr Fiennes.
Except for the main characters, we have a wide range of different people, different personalities: the proud, the rich, the noble, the poor, the curious, the wretched; finally, the gentle and creative. Witty scenes with curious and over-caring Nurse (Imelda Staunton) who sits at the door the whole night outside the room where Will and Viola are making love are hilarious. The character of proud and rich Lord Wessex is memorably portrayed by Colin Firth who stresses one of the key poisons of human pride: selfishness. The character of John Webster (Joe Roberts) is interesting, too: it calls our attention to the young boy, partly lost in the world's glamor, who finds his entire interest and enthusiasm in brutality... Can a person totally deprived of feelings ever understand what love is? The supporting cast are also very good and in no way shadowed. They rather add their own parts into the complex realities and diverse paths of life in which a true feeling is born. Shakespeare had to have audience, contemporary people who are memorably showed here.
Yes, "Shakespeare in Love" may be considered one of the movies that still move us. I don't hesitate to claim that this film is as powerful as "Romeo and Juliet" must have been for its first audience since what may be more inspiring, more touching, more creative than honest feeling that illumines the lives of a young couple? What matters is not its fiction, its play but its powerful enthusiasm inspired by honest Love that will never age, nor fade, nor die.
At first, it seems that the content of this movie is rather common and predictable. It shows, in a fictitious manner, the inspiration that Shakespeare might have had during writing one of his timeless love dramas. The suggestion goes on logically as the movie calls our attention to the creative experience of love that touches the mind and heart of the playwright to write one of the most beautiful love stories, "Romeo and Juliet". That is the crucial link between this movie and the great masterpiece since Shakespeare is showed as the one who goes through similar love that Romeo did go through. But is this movie only a romance, a love story that raises a hero and a heroine to the very heights of blissful feelings?
The movie by John Madden is, foremost, a tribute to the artistic inspiration that brings back the very essence of a story on screen. It is filled with profound experience of images, scenery, music and performances. Therefore, firstly, it is a lovely movie with all its merits as a manifestation of art, and, secondly, an innovative representation of love, similarly to Shakespeare's drama that occurs to win the people, both Queen Elizabeth and her faithful subjects, as new and touching.
Romeo and Juliet...their dramatic, short but blissful lives are now Will (Joseph Fiennes) and Viola's (Gwyneth Paltrow) short, blissful experiences. The two give sublime performances. They are (...and it is significant to mention that here) romantically subtle and erotically sensual. Their love appears to combine the two depictions of love, or more specifically, the two aspects of love focused on: the one of Shakespeare's works and the one of modern cinema. Therefore, what we get here is a harmony between sweet youthful feeling and strong erotic desire. One cannot go without the other in order not to limit the whole merely to 'characters in bliss' or 'characters in lust.' That would, of course, condense the whole picture to mere sentimentalism or sheer eroticism. The both aspects must complement each other in order to be genuine and satisfy the ambitious movie buffs. Moreover, reference is the building block of inspiration: Juliet's balcony appears to be Viola's balcony, the proud Capulets appears to be upright Lord Wessex (Colin Firth), death appears to be a conventional separation. Yet all the differences are united by the very feeling of love beautifully depicted by Ms Paltrow and Mr Fiennes.
Except for the main characters, we have a wide range of different people, different personalities: the proud, the rich, the noble, the poor, the curious, the wretched; finally, the gentle and creative. Witty scenes with curious and over-caring Nurse (Imelda Staunton) who sits at the door the whole night outside the room where Will and Viola are making love are hilarious. The character of proud and rich Lord Wessex is memorably portrayed by Colin Firth who stresses one of the key poisons of human pride: selfishness. The character of John Webster (Joe Roberts) is interesting, too: it calls our attention to the young boy, partly lost in the world's glamor, who finds his entire interest and enthusiasm in brutality... Can a person totally deprived of feelings ever understand what love is? The supporting cast are also very good and in no way shadowed. They rather add their own parts into the complex realities and diverse paths of life in which a true feeling is born. Shakespeare had to have audience, contemporary people who are memorably showed here.
Yes, "Shakespeare in Love" may be considered one of the movies that still move us. I don't hesitate to claim that this film is as powerful as "Romeo and Juliet" must have been for its first audience since what may be more inspiring, more touching, more creative than honest feeling that illumines the lives of a young couple? What matters is not its fiction, its play but its powerful enthusiasm inspired by honest Love that will never age, nor fade, nor die.
I guess the Razzie winners and Oscar winners got mixed up
Dantès16 April 1999
WHAT WAS THIS FILM EVEN DOING AT THE Oscars?!?
If ever there was a film that didn't deserve any accolades, this is it. Possibly the most trite, predictable script to come out of the Hollywood cookie-cutter this year, and Hollywood once again displays its vapidity and lauds it. Ridiculous.
Maybe even worse than the Best Picture travesty, was the Best Actress Oscar for Gwyneth Paltrow. I didn't think that the criteria for Best Actress was smiling demurely and showing off your breasts a lot. Sadly enough, that's what it appears to have become. Cate Blanchett deserved the Oscar so much more, as least to anyone to half a brain. However, you don't see her chest in the movie, so no Oscar. Disgusting.
Tom Stoppard must have had a serious off day when he wrote this. I can't believe this is the same guy who wrote "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead". I only hope that it was a joke, or maybe he lost a bet. Depressing.
Worst movie of the year? Maybe not, but definitely a contender, and by far the most overrated movie of the decade.
If ever there was a film that didn't deserve any accolades, this is it. Possibly the most trite, predictable script to come out of the Hollywood cookie-cutter this year, and Hollywood once again displays its vapidity and lauds it. Ridiculous.
Maybe even worse than the Best Picture travesty, was the Best Actress Oscar for Gwyneth Paltrow. I didn't think that the criteria for Best Actress was smiling demurely and showing off your breasts a lot. Sadly enough, that's what it appears to have become. Cate Blanchett deserved the Oscar so much more, as least to anyone to half a brain. However, you don't see her chest in the movie, so no Oscar. Disgusting.
Tom Stoppard must have had a serious off day when he wrote this. I can't believe this is the same guy who wrote "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead". I only hope that it was a joke, or maybe he lost a bet. Depressing.
Worst movie of the year? Maybe not, but definitely a contender, and by far the most overrated movie of the decade.
An excellent film in all aspects.
vspa8729 December 1998
I had high hopes for this film from the first time I saw the trailer. I am happy to say that the film lives up to the previews. Although it is an art house flick of sorts, it manages to be profound and accessible at the same time. So many art house films manage to be merely pretentious, as if aimed at those that want to believe that they are having an intellectual experience rather than those who are really open to one. This film shows that you can make a film of substance that is at the same time very entertaining.
One thing that stood out was the way they showed enough of the performance of Romeo and Juliet so that you could understand what the play is about, without making it a film of the play per se. There are many parallels between the fictional play and the events of the film, and this goes to underscore the relevance of great literature to the human condition. The actual performance of the play was acted so well that there were times when a character in the play was in a fight and I said to myself "they're really fighting, that guy really got stabbed!" So often a play within a movie is acted in a very staged manner, so this was a welcome surprise. And for anyone who is a fan of Shakespeare, it is easy to find little tidbits to reflect upon - such as the fact that Shakespeare himself was fond of the "play within a play" theme that we see in this film.
The performances are excellent throughout, including minor characters. In the midst of tragedy there is genuine comic relief, just as in Shakespeare. The historical details that surround the conjectural main plot are accurate down to the names of the actual people with whom Shakespeare crossed paths. In the end "Shakespeare in Love" causes us to feel as well as think, to think as well as to be entertained.
One thing that stood out was the way they showed enough of the performance of Romeo and Juliet so that you could understand what the play is about, without making it a film of the play per se. There are many parallels between the fictional play and the events of the film, and this goes to underscore the relevance of great literature to the human condition. The actual performance of the play was acted so well that there were times when a character in the play was in a fight and I said to myself "they're really fighting, that guy really got stabbed!" So often a play within a movie is acted in a very staged manner, so this was a welcome surprise. And for anyone who is a fan of Shakespeare, it is easy to find little tidbits to reflect upon - such as the fact that Shakespeare himself was fond of the "play within a play" theme that we see in this film.
The performances are excellent throughout, including minor characters. In the midst of tragedy there is genuine comic relief, just as in Shakespeare. The historical details that surround the conjectural main plot are accurate down to the names of the actual people with whom Shakespeare crossed paths. In the end "Shakespeare in Love" causes us to feel as well as think, to think as well as to be entertained.
Not a Shakespeare Fan but I Loved This!
moviewizguy23 May 2007
Young playwright William Shakespeare struggles with his latest work "Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter". A great fan of Shakespeare's plays is young, wealthy Viola who is about to be married to the cold-hearted Lord Wessex, but constantly dreams of becoming an actress. Women were not allowed to act on stage at that time (female roles were played by men, too), but dressed up as a boy, Viola successfully auditions for the part of Romeo. Soon she and William are caught in a forbidden romance that provides rich inspiration for his play.
This film is very fictional. Perhaps you might already know that (I just wanted to point that out). You know I hated the play "Romeo and Juliet" but I thought I'd give this movie a chance, since, it's not a play. Instead, I was wrong. This movie is largely based on Romeo and Juliet, which I've already seen two different versions of it already.
Well, I didn't mind seeing a new version of that play. In fact, I actually liked it for the first time because William's events that happened in his life actually inspired his plays! In my opinion, that's just awesome! The costume designs in this film is great, as you can expect from any Shakespeare adaption, and the production design is also great.
If you've read or seen the play Romeo and Juliet, you might have a very fun time in this movie like I did because you know what happens before anyone else does! I liked the acting by Joseph Fiennes and Gwyneth Paltrow, which both have great chemistry (not to mention this is Paltrow's first film in which I saw her breasts, not to be perverish or anything).
I wasn't a Shakespeare fan, but now, I truly like his work after seeing this fictional film. This film is fantastic from beginning to end, earning it an Oscar for Best Picture! Don't care about any historical accuracies and you'll love this as much as me!
This film is very fictional. Perhaps you might already know that (I just wanted to point that out). You know I hated the play "Romeo and Juliet" but I thought I'd give this movie a chance, since, it's not a play. Instead, I was wrong. This movie is largely based on Romeo and Juliet, which I've already seen two different versions of it already.
Well, I didn't mind seeing a new version of that play. In fact, I actually liked it for the first time because William's events that happened in his life actually inspired his plays! In my opinion, that's just awesome! The costume designs in this film is great, as you can expect from any Shakespeare adaption, and the production design is also great.
If you've read or seen the play Romeo and Juliet, you might have a very fun time in this movie like I did because you know what happens before anyone else does! I liked the acting by Joseph Fiennes and Gwyneth Paltrow, which both have great chemistry (not to mention this is Paltrow's first film in which I saw her breasts, not to be perverish or anything).
I wasn't a Shakespeare fan, but now, I truly like his work after seeing this fictional film. This film is fantastic from beginning to end, earning it an Oscar for Best Picture! Don't care about any historical accuracies and you'll love this as much as me!
Close to perfection!
Muskox535 July 2007
Marc Norman is credited as a co-author of this screenplay, but it feels like Tom Stoppard's worki.e. it's rich, astonishingly rich, with at least four different interacting levels all going on at the same time.
#1: Most ostensibly, it's a romanticized biography of the early turning point in Shakespeare's careerthe writing of his first indisputably great play (Romeo and Juliet), the passing of the theatrical torch from Christopher Marlowe to him, and his joining of the Chamberlain's Men, which cost him 50 pounds (an enormous figure in those days). Lots of known facts are changed, much is invented, but the overall sense is pretty reasonableand about as accurate as the typical film biography.
#2: It's a delightful fiction about a romance between Will Shakespeare and the wealthy Viola de Lessups, who is engaged to be married to the haughty but impoverished Lord Wessexa romance that inspires him to write Romeo and Juliet, largely because it plays out as a kind of mirror of that very play. Or a pre-mirror, since it isn't written yet. The ball, the balcony, the duel, the suitor, the nurse, the three appearances of the Prince of Verona (i.e. Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth)...it's all there. One of the joys for the audience who knows the play is recognizing all the anticipations embedded in the filmplus a few from other plays (like Banquo's ghost) for good measure.
#3: The film delivers in the most persuasive possible way a strong critical reading of the play Romeo and Juliet. It has been observed by many critics that this play begins as a traditional comedy, with all the stock figures and stereotypes, but halfway through (exactly halfway!) with the deaths of Mercutio and Tybalt, it turns into a tragedy, and then systematically reinterprets all the comedic scenes and characters of the first half in this newly tragic light. Stoppard's story of the writing of the play begins with Will, ecstatic with love, finally getting started on the comedy he's been promising his producer...but as the love affair with Viola darkens, his ability to sustain the comic mood disappears. At exactly the halfway point of the film, he wakes next to Viola and announces that "I found something in my sleep. It's not a comedy I'm writing any more, it's a tragedy!"
#4: Finally, this is a tribute to the joys of the theatreto acting, to writing, to producing, to simply hanging around getting enchanted by it all. A central character here is Mr. Fennyman (Tom Wilkinson), who begins as a heartless money-man who looks to the theatre as a possibly lucrative investment, and ends up transformed; to his own surprise, perhaps, he now cares more about something other than about profit. Many of the most delightful parts of the film are part of this fun: the verbal anachronisms (playing the Palace, the show must...go on), and especially the sexual role-reversals (at rehearsals, Juliet is played by a boy dressed as a girl, and Romeo by a girl dressed as a boy). Several central scenes involve quick cuts back and forth between rehearsals and Will and Viola making love...using the same lines, even though Will most of the time says Juliet's and Viola Romeo's.
Are there any flaws? Perhaps Paltrow's readings as Romeo are not as compelling as they could have been...and she never really persuades us that she's British, though as Viola she is radiant and passionate. Ben Affleck is also an odd choice for Ned, and he performs "a plague on both your houses" rather badly...though he does project great authority and confidence. Joseph Fiennes, who single-handedly energizes the film and is brilliant in a long demanding role, is the real star...and he, Geoffrey Rush, and Colin Firth are all magnificent. What a disgrace that Fiennes wasn't even nominated for a Best Actor Oscar!
#1: Most ostensibly, it's a romanticized biography of the early turning point in Shakespeare's careerthe writing of his first indisputably great play (Romeo and Juliet), the passing of the theatrical torch from Christopher Marlowe to him, and his joining of the Chamberlain's Men, which cost him 50 pounds (an enormous figure in those days). Lots of known facts are changed, much is invented, but the overall sense is pretty reasonableand about as accurate as the typical film biography.
#2: It's a delightful fiction about a romance between Will Shakespeare and the wealthy Viola de Lessups, who is engaged to be married to the haughty but impoverished Lord Wessexa romance that inspires him to write Romeo and Juliet, largely because it plays out as a kind of mirror of that very play. Or a pre-mirror, since it isn't written yet. The ball, the balcony, the duel, the suitor, the nurse, the three appearances of the Prince of Verona (i.e. Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth)...it's all there. One of the joys for the audience who knows the play is recognizing all the anticipations embedded in the filmplus a few from other plays (like Banquo's ghost) for good measure.
#3: The film delivers in the most persuasive possible way a strong critical reading of the play Romeo and Juliet. It has been observed by many critics that this play begins as a traditional comedy, with all the stock figures and stereotypes, but halfway through (exactly halfway!) with the deaths of Mercutio and Tybalt, it turns into a tragedy, and then systematically reinterprets all the comedic scenes and characters of the first half in this newly tragic light. Stoppard's story of the writing of the play begins with Will, ecstatic with love, finally getting started on the comedy he's been promising his producer...but as the love affair with Viola darkens, his ability to sustain the comic mood disappears. At exactly the halfway point of the film, he wakes next to Viola and announces that "I found something in my sleep. It's not a comedy I'm writing any more, it's a tragedy!"
#4: Finally, this is a tribute to the joys of the theatreto acting, to writing, to producing, to simply hanging around getting enchanted by it all. A central character here is Mr. Fennyman (Tom Wilkinson), who begins as a heartless money-man who looks to the theatre as a possibly lucrative investment, and ends up transformed; to his own surprise, perhaps, he now cares more about something other than about profit. Many of the most delightful parts of the film are part of this fun: the verbal anachronisms (playing the Palace, the show must...go on), and especially the sexual role-reversals (at rehearsals, Juliet is played by a boy dressed as a girl, and Romeo by a girl dressed as a boy). Several central scenes involve quick cuts back and forth between rehearsals and Will and Viola making love...using the same lines, even though Will most of the time says Juliet's and Viola Romeo's.
Are there any flaws? Perhaps Paltrow's readings as Romeo are not as compelling as they could have been...and she never really persuades us that she's British, though as Viola she is radiant and passionate. Ben Affleck is also an odd choice for Ned, and he performs "a plague on both your houses" rather badly...though he does project great authority and confidence. Joseph Fiennes, who single-handedly energizes the film and is brilliant in a long demanding role, is the real star...and he, Geoffrey Rush, and Colin Firth are all magnificent. What a disgrace that Fiennes wasn't even nominated for a Best Actor Oscar!
A triumph of talent and style over silliness.
punch875 March 2019
Scene after scene engages us as cheerful groundlings, tosses us jokes, toys with our expectations, then sweeps away the boundaries between film and stage, comedy and tragedy so we're open to the power of language and the feelings behind it.
A Terrific Film
yuckbug13 December 1998
I saw a preview of this movie and it was terrific. Most period movies are long, boring, usually low-concept and often as emotionally heavy as the costumes in which the actors trudge around (Elizabeth, Wings of the Dove, The Piano, Restoration, etc...)
Well this movie was different. Don't be afraid of the word Shakespeare in the title! This movie is not a junior-high history lesson. It's light, funny, romantic, and a totally irreverent look at Elizabethan England.
The screenplay is brilliant. The best writing in a movie I've seen this year. The idea is that Shakespeare is not some grave, great poet, but a young guy trying to make his way in the theatre. He's written good plays, but nothing truly transcendent. The conceit is that an ill-fated romance--the one great true love of this life--with a beautiful, smart woman is what inspires him to write his first immortal play: Romeo and Juliet.
In this era of world-exploding actioners and cookie-cutter Adam Sandler movies, it's rare to see such a specific, ingenious, and inspired story for a film.
The best part about this movie is its sense of humor. It plays with history, takes a great man abut whom we know alomost nothing, and creates a fantasy about his life that is totally outrageous, funny and real.
Also, the movie is really romantic. The costumes are lush, the leads look great and have real chemistry together. I used to think that Gwyneth was overrated, but here she's radiant. And Joe Fiennes has an intensity and a vulnerabiliy, as well as a sense of humor, that I for one find sorely lacking in his older brother Ralph.
Needless to say, this is the best date movie of the year. Women take note: I am a red-blooded straight American male, and I loved it. Take your boyfriends to see this movie. It will make up for you forcing them to sit through The Piano.
Well this movie was different. Don't be afraid of the word Shakespeare in the title! This movie is not a junior-high history lesson. It's light, funny, romantic, and a totally irreverent look at Elizabethan England.
The screenplay is brilliant. The best writing in a movie I've seen this year. The idea is that Shakespeare is not some grave, great poet, but a young guy trying to make his way in the theatre. He's written good plays, but nothing truly transcendent. The conceit is that an ill-fated romance--the one great true love of this life--with a beautiful, smart woman is what inspires him to write his first immortal play: Romeo and Juliet.
In this era of world-exploding actioners and cookie-cutter Adam Sandler movies, it's rare to see such a specific, ingenious, and inspired story for a film.
The best part about this movie is its sense of humor. It plays with history, takes a great man abut whom we know alomost nothing, and creates a fantasy about his life that is totally outrageous, funny and real.
Also, the movie is really romantic. The costumes are lush, the leads look great and have real chemistry together. I used to think that Gwyneth was overrated, but here she's radiant. And Joe Fiennes has an intensity and a vulnerabiliy, as well as a sense of humor, that I for one find sorely lacking in his older brother Ralph.
Needless to say, this is the best date movie of the year. Women take note: I am a red-blooded straight American male, and I loved it. Take your boyfriends to see this movie. It will make up for you forcing them to sit through The Piano.
Entertaining Pastiche
xiaoli737729 December 2022
"Shakespeare in Love" wasn't really my personal cup of tea, but I enjoyed it for what it was. A great pastiche of Elizabethan England and the works of William Shakespeare (played by Joseph Fiennes in the film). Lots of mirroring of the actual play "Romeo and Juliet" and sneaky little references that will pique the interest of many Shakespeare fans.
Unfortunately this movie is most remembered nowadays as the film that beat "Saving Private Ryan" at the Oscars. I definitely think there are worse snubs in Academy history. For the most part, this movie is inoffensive fun and just a well-made, well-acted love letter to theater and acting and literature. Beyond the layer of pastiche it offers very little but it's a nice little two hours spent if this is the type of movie that you enjoy watching, I suppose.
Unfortunately this movie is most remembered nowadays as the film that beat "Saving Private Ryan" at the Oscars. I definitely think there are worse snubs in Academy history. For the most part, this movie is inoffensive fun and just a well-made, well-acted love letter to theater and acting and literature. Beyond the layer of pastiche it offers very little but it's a nice little two hours spent if this is the type of movie that you enjoy watching, I suppose.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
