Read User Reviews and Submit your own for Shakespeare in Love

10

PabloD.Apr 8, 2006

A gorgeous monument to Shakespeare and his greater master-piece "Romeo & Juliet". This is one of the best pictures of all time.

1 of 1 users found this helpful

6

RegOzApr 6, 2012

I did have a good time watching it, but I don't think I will watch it again. Please, don't misunderstand me; it is a very nice film but there are many other movies that are as enjoyable as this one. I think a 6 is good enough for it. I amI did have a good time watching it, but I don't think I will watch it again. Please, don't misunderstand me; it is a very nice film but there are many other movies that are as enjoyable as this one. I think a 6 is good enough for it. I am glad, however, I watched it on dvd and I didn't go to the movies to do so, otherwise my disappointment would have been great.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

amheretojudgeApr 22, 2018

write me well..

Shakespeare In Love The first act takes its time to settle in with the audience and basically just works as an introduction and then the scrutiny begins when the plot thickens and politics kicks in its second act that lureswrite me well..

Shakespeare In Love

The first act takes its time to settle in with the audience and basically just works as an introduction and then the scrutiny begins when the plot thickens and politics kicks in its second act that lures the audience hoping for something majestic but instead disappoints them utterly in its last act that is loosely scattered onto the script. John Madden is not in its A game which is visible from the first frame as it fails to create the anticipated impact on screen. Joseph Fiennes still needs a lot of work to do on its acting skills for all the work in here is carried by Gwyneth Paltrow who is mesmerizing in her act. Shakespeare In Love never had the script or concept to bedazzle the audience and accounting in the poor execution on its part, the feature delivers a far fetched vision that never comes close.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

FilipeNetoJan 22, 2020

It's a good movie, but it won a lot of Oscars that it didn't deserve.

Taking Shakespeare and transporting it to the cinema is always an audacious gesture, I have said it in other reviews and I repeat it. Here, however, what was transposed toIt's a good movie, but it won a lot of Oscars that it didn't deserve.

Taking Shakespeare and transporting it to the cinema is always an audacious gesture, I have said it in other reviews and I repeat it. Here, however, what was transposed to the canvas was the author himself. At the end of the 17th century, we followed Shakespeare's struggle to survive in the artistic and literary world. Uninspired and in need of money, he tries to write a romantic play without success. Everything changes with Lady Viola, a young aristocrat in love with the theater who does not accept that women cannot step on the stage freely, deciding to enter the new production of Shakespeare disguised as a man.

Of course, the script is entirely fictional and none of this has happened to the real bard. Despite the fact that the film is set at the right time and has some historical rigor in relation to the sets and costumes, the historical rigor ends there. The characters behave like us, in the middle of the 21st century, and reveal our mentality, not that of people four hundred years ago. In fact, the film skillfully mixes the two, so skillful that it can be dangerous and give the audience the idea that all of this was true or based on real facts from William Shakespeare's life. The film combines a good romance, the absurdity of the story told and a kind of silly humor that works well and makes the film light and pleasant. If you think about it too much, everything will fall apart, so it is better not to do it and let yourself go.

Joseph Fiennes is good for the material he was given and what he was asked for. He knows how to be romantic when he has to be and funny when he has to. Gwyneth Paltrow is beautiful and makes a good pair with him, they get good chemistry. Ben Affleck is OK, Geoffrey Rush is funny. On the negative side, Judi Dench only appears because it is necessary and will play the queen.

Now let's face it ... the film was highly awarded at the Oscars, with seven statuettes (Best Film, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Soundtrack, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Secondary Actress, Best Actress). But did the film deserve them? I honestly don't think so. The film is good, but not good enough to earn the highest award in the industry, especially when competing with much more serious and heavy films like "Elizabeth" or "Saving Private Ryan". Likewise, Paltrow doesn't look as good in this film as Cate Blanchet in "Elizabeth". Judy Dench almost won a career Oscar here because she doesn't even appear for ten minutes in the film. Personally, I think the film deserved only the awards for Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Soundtrack and Best Costume Design. But since I wasn't the one who awarded the prizes that day ...… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

0

Scififan12Aug 26, 2020

Gayest movie ever ! I have not even seen the movie and never will cause its so gay

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

10

bcoolJan 29, 2012

wonderful film.terribly underrated just because it's romantic comedy that won an Oscar instead of WWII epic. forget Oscars and enjoy in one of the most original and witty romantic comedies. though I wish it was less romantic and more wacky.wonderful film.terribly underrated just because it's romantic comedy that won an Oscar instead of WWII epic. forget Oscars and enjoy in one of the most original and witty romantic comedies. though I wish it was less romantic and more wacky. but still the idea to use Shakespeare as a character in Shakespearean comedy makes this one the most original romantic comedies ever. Maybe Saving Private Ryan was better (it's the matter of taste, and they cannot be compared cause they are so different) but this is still one of the best Oscar winning films in the last 30 years (especially comparing to the subsequent ones).… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

5

JennetPMar 20, 2011

I'm not usually one to fault a film for historical inaccuracy, but this one went too far--and then failed to compensate with a decent story. I disagree with those who say knowing Shakespeare adds to a viewer's enjoyment, unless what is knownI'm not usually one to fault a film for historical inaccuracy, but this one went too far--and then failed to compensate with a decent story. I disagree with those who say knowing Shakespeare adds to a viewer's enjoyment, unless what is known is a play or two and some half-remembered facts about Elizabethan London. Knowing a lot about Renaissance drama just makes the film galling, as real historical figures are wrenched from their actual lives and made to serve a contrived and fantastical plot. I almost walked out when John Webster, who would soon be writing complex, intellectual plays, was depicted as a child torturing rats and informing on Shakespeare's company, but that was just one of many instances. As for the love story and its theatrical issue, both were the height of silliness. I'm not saying it wasn't possible for a woman to cross-dress in early modern England; it happened. But Gwyneth Paltrow in a tiny fake moustache is about as masculine as a troupe of ballerinas at a quilting bee, so believing that everyone was fooled requires some serious IQ-shaving. I normally like Paltrow, but this film lowered my opinion of her acting chops. Then there's the idea that Shakespeare was blocked and needed experience to write from. Leaving aside the ample evidence that the playwright may have been the least blocked writer who ever lived, he always used other texts as the basis for his plays. I hope we don't get a sequel called "Shakespeare in a Jealous Rage" that shows him killing his wife so he can write Othello. On the plus side, the supporting cast, sets, and costumes are excellent. The film gets most of the little stuff right, oddly enough; would it had lavished the same care on the big stuff.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

1

Humboldt1337Oct 13, 2011

This movie deserves a special place in hell. On its own, it is a truly terrible movie - with boring characters and tons of whiny girly love cr&p.
The real reason why all copies of it should be burned was the fact that it beat "Saving PrivateThis movie deserves a special place in hell. On its own, it is a truly terrible movie - with boring characters and tons of whiny girly love cr&p.
The real reason why all copies of it should be burned was the fact that it beat "Saving Private Ryan" for best picture. This is the 2nd greatest outrage of all TV/Movie history next to Firefly being cancelled. SPR is possibly the best war movie of all time, and this is just some sappy made-up fantasy cr&p which does not follow the realities of the time of Shakespeare at all.
Boring, terrible, overrated - punch one of the members of the Academy if you ever meet them.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

1

gm101May 23, 2011

Wow, this movie was so terrible that the only good thing about it was Geoffrey Rush. So Shakespeare got his inspiration for Romeo and Juliet from experiencing similar events. Lame!

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

0

VidsRuleMay 20, 2012

There is a special place in my brain for movies/videogames/albums where I store things that are supposed to be amazing, but that I find rediculously terrible. This is one of those. This is like watching a high school play. As long as the highThere is a special place in my brain for movies/videogames/albums where I store things that are supposed to be amazing, but that I find rediculously terrible. This is one of those. This is like watching a high school play. As long as the high school actors are extra annoying beyond the abilities of a high school student. I'm not a big fan of romance movies but I believe I'm being objective here. It's not as bad as Notting Hill (that one gets a minus 1,000,000), but it's in the ballpark. I never liked Shakespeare, but I like a movie about him even less.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

1

BinkiJun 12, 2011

I read a lot of good critics about this movie but I can't understand what was so great about it. Story is lame, actors are not that good (I can't stand Gwyneth Paltrow). Nothing original. In one word : boring.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

10

aozetaDec 31, 2011

Beautifully written. Commendable costumes. Excellent cast and their acts. Emotionally convincing. Morally uplifting. One of the best in the 90s. SPLENDID.

movienotesbook.blogspot.com

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

3

BobJ.May 13, 2007

I found that the movie was not very good at all and was quite boring to say the least. The thing that makes me the most mad was the fact that it got Best Picture over SAVING PRIVATE RYAN!!! Saving private Ryan was a definite 9.0-10.0 rated I found that the movie was not very good at all and was quite boring to say the least. The thing that makes me the most mad was the fact that it got Best Picture over SAVING PRIVATE RYAN!!! Saving private Ryan was a definite 9.0-10.0 rated film (out of 10). The other thing is (as T.M. mentioned) was the whole girl dressed as a guy to fool the other actors but still looks like a girl. This makes the film even worse (if that is possible). I would not recommend it at all.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful

0

csw12Apr 2, 2012

Shakespeare in Love flat out sucks, sucks, sucks. Who would want to watch this overperformed, over dramatic and overdone movie. It deserves to have a special place in hell right next to the Devil, also while your at it add the director.

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

10

PatC.Apr 17, 2006

Like Shakespeare, has something for everyone. Understandably easier to follow for one who appreciates Shakespeare, and some of the contrivances may distract some (how did the queen sneak into the theatre unnoticed?) But in focus and impact a Like Shakespeare, has something for everyone. Understandably easier to follow for one who appreciates Shakespeare, and some of the contrivances may distract some (how did the queen sneak into the theatre unnoticed?) But in focus and impact a perfect film that reminds us of the roots and power of drama.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

9

HalfwelshmanFeb 14, 2012

Shakespeare in Love is a feast for the eyes, the heart and the soul. A comic-romantic-fantasy with a historical setting, it is self-aware, extremely well-written, and the huge and varied cast all shine. The brilliant Gwyneth Paltrow and theShakespeare in Love is a feast for the eyes, the heart and the soul. A comic-romantic-fantasy with a historical setting, it is self-aware, extremely well-written, and the huge and varied cast all shine. The brilliant Gwyneth Paltrow and the fleetingly on-screen Judi Dench quite rightly received awards for their roles as Shakespeare's love interest and muse Viola and an elderly, irritable Queen Elizabeth I, and Joseph Fiennes is also great as a the titular bard, playing him as a rock star with a creative block. The rest of the cast are made up of an unusual, but somehow rather effective mix of thespians (Geoffrey Rush, Rupert Everett, Simon Callow), old reliables (Colin Firth, Tom Wilkinson, Imelda Staunton), British comics (Martin Clunes, Mark Williams, Simon Day), and Ben Affleck. Though it's an undeniably clever take on historical romance, a re-telling of what may or may not have inspired the playwright, and a film with enough tongue-in-cheek references to Shakespeare's great works to satisfy even the most ardent fan, where Shakespeare in Love truly shines is in its story, characters and emotion. You're invested in the relationship between Will and Viola from the very start, and passionately want them to live happily ever after, though you likely expect imminent tragedy to befall the lovers (this being a film about the writing of Romeo and Juliet). John Madden's passionate and theatrically dramatic direction keeps the film running smoothly, and a dream-pairing of screenwriter Marc Norman and much-acclaimed playwright Tom Stoppard manages to keep the dialogue grounded, yet poetic, believable yet melodramatic, with heavy doses of both laughter and tears - a difficult balancing act. With the addition of Sandy Powell's top-notch period costumes, Stephen Warbeck's romantic and memorable score, and authentic-looking set design from Jill Quertier, Shakespeare in Love becomes an extremely rewarding, thoroughly memorable film. It's handsome, well-rounded and full of heart.… Expand