Shakespeare in Love

Buena Vista Television | Release Date: December 11, 1998

7.1	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 191 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

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

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

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

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

LeonardoP.Apr 11, 2008

I don't now why Shakespeare in Love won the Academy Award for Best Picture and Best Actress. It is not so good as the critics said, I think that Saving Private Ryan is very better. It stays boring in a lot of parts and it has a lot of I don't now why Shakespeare in Love won the Academy Award for Best Picture and Best Actress. It is not so good as the critics said, I think that Saving Private Ryan is very better. It stays boring in a lot of parts and it has a lot of errors. Finally, I don't recommend it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful