|Page 1 of 75:||          |
|Index||748 reviews in total|
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 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.
Those who are looking for a historically accurate portrayal of
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'
relation to history have missed the point entirely. It is a romantic
obsessed with nothing more than making references in storyline and plot
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
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.
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.
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.
A romantic comedy does not get much better than Shakespeare in Love. Here
a movie that captures the feel of England 400 years ago. It is romantic
light. It is funny but is complex enough to provide enjoyment for fans of
The sets of England 400 years ago, the costumes and the character's makeup including their bad dental work were just right. You could almost smell those streets. The hero, Shakespeare, is excellently played by Joseph Fiennes. He is sympathetic but never pathetic. As for Gwyneth Paltrow, she shows her range from boyishness to radiance. This is the first film I have seen her in where I believed she could become a great actress. There is also a great supporting cast, especially Judi Dench, who all have good melodramatic and comic instincts.
The film never plods. The screenplay is rich with romance, emotion and action. The plot weaves several stories and themes. You can enjoy it as a simple love story with some action and basic suspense about producing a play or you can get much deeper into movie's complex tapestry of ideas and in jokes. But most importantly the film's mood is always light and is never overblown (unlike another recent movie about unfulfilled love, Great Expectations).
Deserving of its Oscar, this is simply a great film.
Tom Stoppard, who penned Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, knows a thing or two about the modern deconstruction and reconstruction of Shakespeare's work -- and it shows in the bright and vivid Shakespeare in Love, which Stoppard co-wrote with Marc Norman. Applying many of the same conventions favored by Shakespeare in his own work (including primarily the confusion over mistaken identity and gender) the screenwriters begin with the "what if" premise and run with it, speculating with wicked delight on the Bard's rivalry with Christopher Marlowe, his use of overheard phrases finding their way into his plays, and best of all, the possible sources of his inspiration. Will's muse is Violet, played wonderfully by Gwyneth Paltrow, who shows off in this film her finest acting to date and credibly pulls off the tricky task of being both an object of poetic inspiration and a genuine, down-to-earth human being.
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".
In the movie Shakespeare in Love, a young and promising William
is finding it difficult to write a new play. He feels he has lost his
for stringing together eloquent sentences and yearns for some sort of
inspiration to rid him of his horrible writer's block. William then meets
the lovely and royal Viola, who is craving to be an actress. She becomes
his muse, as well as the lead `actor' in his new play Romeo and Juliet, as
they weave a tangled love affair. This burning passion they feel can only
end with separation when Viola is forced to marry Lord Wessex and move to
America. This film is a wonderful combination of romance, comedy, and
that attempts a new perspective of the classic Romeo and Juliet story. It
employs clever dialogue, beautiful scenes, and wonderful characterization
entertain the viewer.
The film's Renaissance dialogue is true to its time period. With such an
excellent script, William comes across as the master of speech that he
really is. Some parts of the movie are purely funny as almost to parody
seriousness of Romeo and Juliet. Other parts intertwine the actual lines
from the play, such as the multiple bedroom scenes between Will and Viola,
to provide a unique and obvious parallel between it and the movie. When
Will quotes `Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?' to Viola, this
provides not only a sentimental scene but actual words from Shakespeare to
add to the historical content of this film. This film has an interesting
twist on the tragic tale because Will becomes not just a writer pouring
the lines for pay, but a man pouring out his heart in true love. At the
of the movie, Romeo and Juliet is presented as though you were actually
sitting on the dirt floor of the playhouse. You see the play through the
eyes of a person in England during the late 1500's, except by this time
lead is not longer Romeo and Juliet but literarily and symbolically Will
The setting of this film is very well done, and the playhouses, taverns,
and elegant houses convey the feeling of Renaissance England. The
including Queen Elizabeth's glamorous dresses and Viola's body-shaping
corset, are seemingly accurate. (I would have hated wearing those
clothes!) The scenes between Will and Viola are rarely anything but love
scenes, and they, like their counterpart scenes in Romeo and Juliet,
happen at night. This adds to the mystery and forbidden feeling of the
movie. The characterization of this film was splendidly carried out. I
could not help but fall in love with the beautiful emotion that gushed
Will and Viola ( Will is extremely good looking by the way). When the
couple was separated in the end, I felt like a terrible wrong had been
committed. The character of Queen Elizabeth, with her snide comments and
all-knowing attitude, was a comical representation of a serious position
that kept me completely entertained. Christopher Marlowe also provides a
wonderful character that conveys `real person' qualities of competition
between two famous playwrights.
I found this film to be completely engaging from start to finish, but I
would not recommend it to everyone. I believe it could truly be given the
title of `chick flick' by some viewers despite its fight scenes and
devices. The viewer will gain a knowledge of the Renaissance period and
characteristics while also getting the feeling of knowing the great
Shakespeare, however inaccurate the description of Will may be. I feel
now I appreciate the play Romeo and Juliet with a new sense of
that can only come from looking at an old tale in a new light.
We all know the Oscars are simply about Hollywood patting themselves on the
back, and nowhere is this more evident with the 13 nominations received by
Shakespeare in Love.' Very little originality, horrible casting for a lead
part and a well-planned ruse to pass this studio pic as an art film are
simply some of the factors against this movie.
The story (if we can call it that) is no more than a simple collection of lines from the Bard's plays, blended together into a weak two-hour script. Adding pieces of Shakespeare's life into the mix, they pretend to explain the origin of famous lines and stories surrounding him, such as Shakespeare's relationship with Thomas Kent, who in truth was a man (it was widely accepted that William Shakespeare was bisexual). While the movie has no basis in reality, even as a work of fiction it fails miserably.
Gwyneth Paltrow gives an unimpressing and incredibly boring performance, looking like a Cate Blanchet wannabe, pretending to sound like Emma Thompson or Kate Winslet in her role as Viola, and like Kenneth Branagh when impersonating Thomas Kent. It's understandable, considering Thompson and Branagh have defined modern Shakespearean cinema, but her performance ends up being a weak attempt at emulating the masters of the genre. Every time she appears on-screen, she simply destroys the atmosphere of Elizabethan England (an atmosphere that is thin to begin with); she is simply out of place. So was Ben Affleck, but at least he didn't talk that much.
There are a few shinning stars in the pic, though. Joseph Fiennes and Geoffrey Rush give amazing performances given the weak script they had to work with, dashing the movie with a dose of comedy and great acting that carries the story at times, but not for 2 hours.
Shakespeare in Love' is okay as a mass-market date movie, a pic for those that have no idea what Shakespeare's plays are all about, a pic for the Teeny-Bopper crowd, but not as an Oscar Nominated Film. On the contrary, it is a perfect example why Hollywood should stick to doing Hollywood and leave the realm of art films for those with the correct vision to bring them to life. If it's Elizabethan cinema you are after, go see Elizabeth' (you'll get great performances by Joseph Fiennes and Geoffrey Rush, too!). If it's a date movie you're after, see She's All That;' at least it doesn't pretend to be what it is not.
|Page 1 of 75:||          |
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|