Instant Favorite.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

It's sad, that this movie's reputation has suffered somewhat since its initial reception, largely because the Oscars foolishly choose this fantasy period rom-com over the realistic, grittiest, war torn themes of 'Saving Private Ryan' for the 1998 Best Picture Category. While, personally, I thought director Steve Spielberg's film 'Saving Private Ryan' was indeed the better film, I do have to say, the tale of a young William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) battling writer's block, until he meets his muse, an aristocrat's daughter enamored with theater and romance, Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow), inspiring him to write one of his most famous plays, isn't that bad as some modern critics make it out to be. Without spoiling the movie directed by John Madden, too much, I have to say, 'Shakespeare in Love', is indeed delightful, romantic, and funny, especially for those whom field is in entertainment. I can see why, this movie would appeal to many audiences members. After all, William Shakespeare's is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. Everybody knows his work, however, nobody really knows, about his personal life. While, it's safe to say, that this movie version of his life is highly fictional, due to the case that Shakespeare's greatest work 'Romeo & Juliet' was actually inspired by a pre-existing stories, written by others writers, like Arthur Brooke in 1562 as the Italian verse called 'The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet' and retold in prose in 'Palace of Pleasure 'by William Painter in 1567, in which, Shakespeare only adapted to play. Still, I do like that, the movie, somewhat entertain us, by humorous cleverly inserting, words, events and imagery, on how Shakespeare might have gotta some of his ideas for his poets and plays. Who knows, maybe, some of the things, that playwright, Tom Stoppard & screenwriter, Marc Norman could had happen! After all, many of the background details in the film, minus the whole new world subplot & jokes of the modern studio system thing are pretty accurate. Plus, Shakespeare indeed expanded the original plot by developing a number of supporting characters, particularly Mercutio and Paris. However, the idea of that Shakespeare was in love with a woman, when writing it, might be question. Many of people believe that the play was honestly, written for a man, due to its many 'Homoeroticism' tones between Mercutio and its title character. Regardless, there is also the controversy about if William Shakespeare was indeed the writer of this play and others, as many believe that he wasn't. While, it's true, that Shakespeare never wrote a play for theater manager, Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush) as no payments to the writer are listed in Henslowe's surviving account books, I really doubt, anybody else, wrote this play, especially, fellow playwright, Christopher Marlowe (Rupert Everett), as Marlowe's characters development tend to be very dry and two dimensional. William Shakespeare's writing really did stood out, compare to the others playwrights at the time, for example, his themes about fate & dreams were rarely used at the time. Even the topic of romance had not been viewed as a worthy topic for tragedy, until 'Romeo & Juliet' came out. Although the play is not considered as great as some of Shakespeare's later work, at the time, it is an exceptional work for the young playwright destined for much bigger things. Regardless of the lack of historic accurate in the film, the film does show that William Shakespeare is destined for greatest. However, the film's plot did bug me on how alleged similarity, it is, to mid-20th-century novel, 'No Bed for Bacon' by Caryl Brahms and S J Simon. While, I wouldn't say, this film is a total rip-off of that novel, as the bulk of the book focuses instead on a handful of several other historical characters of the period like Sir Walter Raleigh's doomed search for fashionable cloak, while worry about the nobles, tasting their first potato. I do see, some similarities in this film, when it comes to characters, like Viola falling for a stressed-out Shakespeare, while dressing up as a boy in his stage play. This book has more to claims, then, author Faye Kellerman had on the film stealing from her 1989 novel 'The Quality of Mercy', which hardly seem alike. Regardless of similarities, I do have to say, the film does stand out on its own. Most of all of the cast (led by Gwyneth Paltrow, Joseph Fiennes, Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth, Ben Affleck, and Judi Dench) were at the top of their game. However, I couldn't call, Gwyneth Paltrow's acting as Oscar worthy. She was just alright with her near-flawless English accent. Nevertheless, I did think that Dame Judi Dench deserve her Oscar win, as Queen Elizabeth 1, even if her screen time was less than 10 minutes, out of 123 minutes film. On the other hand, I did believe that Geoffrey Rush got snub, out of his best supporting actor award. He was wonderful as Phillip Henslowe. I also believe the costumes and sets really stood out as Elizabethan Era design. It was wonderful to look at. I also believe the film score by composer, Stephen Warbeck was easy in the ears. It was charm to listen to. Overall: While, some people might hate the film for its tales of a Hollywood romantic fantasy torture artist finding love, without any meaningful sense of merit. Other will find it, as a blessed relief from gritty real-life true art is angst type of films. I just hope 'Shakespeare in Love' would get more the other half. It needs more love and appreciative. In the end, it kinda deserves that. It was indeed a good movie.

Does anyone remember this? I do, but only because its what turned me off of the Oscars. Haven't watched them since. It was the rude awakening that they were fixed, the quality of the film didn't matter as much as the bribes.It beat Saving Private Ryan for best picture.And then it beat Bulworth for best screen play.That was sort of enough to turn my head. Both of them? Bulworth was far from best picture worthy, but best original screenplay seemed as much as a shoe in as Ryan for Best Picture.And then it went on to win Best score over Mulan, A Bug's Life, and Prince of Egypt which is curious because it didn't really fit the criteria for Musical or Comedy Score as much as it's competition.And then now, looking back, who remembers it? If it's remembered at all, it's remembered for beating Saving Private Ryan, which has become a classic.Shakespeare in Love is just remembered for it's sweep of the awards, both at the Oscars and beyond, but not for its quality.

William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes), pre-fame, is a struggling writer searching for inspiration. He finds it in the beautiful Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow). They quickly fall in love, but there are complications...Funny, clever comedy. Some great lines and skits plus the writers cleverly weave the actual history of Shakespeare and his works into the plot. Makes for a highly engaging, intellectually stimulating and entertaining movie. Also has a lightness and freshness to it that carries the movie along wonderfully.Won the 1999 Best Picture Oscar, beating out four brilliant movies - Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Elizabeth and Life is Beautiful.

"Shakespeare in Love" should have been cinema's ultimate homage to William Shakespeare, not through an umpteenth adaptation, or adaptation's adaptation, to one of his iconic plays, but by putting the iconic playwright within the framework of an original movie plot; original in the sense that it turns him into the subject of a real-life yet loosely fictionalized biopic, a romantic comedy and something of an educational film. We learn a lot throughout John Madden's film, about stage, art, business, royalty and naturally, the genius of Shakespeare, the man who was put in the top 10 of the most influential people of the last millennium, the most highly ranking artist, above Mozart and the Beatles.I hate to use the word 'multi-layered' because it makes a movie sound like architectural work instead of than something being guided by genuine inspiration, but hey, if anything Madden's film proves is that even the greatest masterpieces were not made by a snap of a finger and were build upon many other factors than inspiration. Like "Romeo and Juliet", "Shakespeare in Love" is a multi-layered accomplishment, a work of art that can be enjoyed on many levels, confidently overlapping, but always with romance at the core. If the film's story isn't likely to leap over the centuries like "Romeo and Juliet", it doesn't matter; Will and Viola aren't supposed to steal Romeo and Juliet's thunder but to incarnate the seminal inspiration to the iconic couple. That's their power.Sadly, for all the reasons that can make "Shakespeare in Love", a great journey into love, passion and an immersion in the world and business of theater at the dawn of Queen Elizabeth's reign, the film is remembered as one of the worst Best Picture winners, the one that dared to steal "Saving Private Ryan"s golden statuette at the 1999 Oscars. Spielberg's war movie was an instant classic, a film that immediately topped all the 'Great Films' list, and to many users and even official websites, it is now an objective truth that "Shakespeare in Love" didn't deserve the Oscar. And instead of being a love story about a love story, the film had become a trigger to an enduring hate story with the Internet users. Hated and even loved for the wrong reasons, some would love it just because they hated "Saving Private Ryan" with passion, which doesn't say much about both films anyway. Now, where do I stand? For me, "Shakespeare in Love" isn't just one of these conventional costume dramas with sword fights, antechambers' plotting and feather-writing, and this comes from someone who loved the Best Picture co-nominee "Elizabeth". The film carries a sort of self-referential wit, as if it was conscious on its own craziness, it starts with the working title of the classic pay "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter", it's funny but it feels real. I mean, did you know that Walt Disney intended to call Mickey, Mortimer Mouse? The process of the creation of the play and how it is shaped by the real life events in the film is the kind of delights I love to see in a film, true or not. The part where Ben Affleck's character suggests Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) to keep the title "Romeo and Juliet" had the same resonance than that moment in "The Social Network" when Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) tells Zuckerberg (Jess Eisenberg) to remove the "The" from "The Facebook" or when Zuckerberg says no one can't wear a sign indicating if he's single or engaged, hence coming with one of his most ingenuous ideas.That's the ransom of success and worldwide popularity, you can find countless inspirations for Romeo and Juliet's key scenes and I love how the two stories drive each other until the ultimate culmination. I also love how it still manages to encapsulate the conventions of its time like the forced marriage with Lord Wessex (Colin Firth), some thrilling duels, a few balcony meetings, nurses, antechambers plotting, and even the cross-dressing that prevailed in the theater at the time, and that earned Gwyneth Paltrow her Oscar. Indeed, women couldn't play in a stage, which makes you realize why comedy was the strongest suit to embody the notion of love. And the film even manages to showcase some daring anachronisms, one of my favorite being the "psychiatrist" played by Anthony Sher. In this fascinating mess, you can't tell fiction from reality and you don't really care, for the film is fun from one bit of another, and is populated by a great gallery of British actors.Now, the real issue, is "Did it deserve the Best Picture?" well, even if I didn't give it the Oscar, "Saving Private Ryan" wouldn't be my second vote, the irony of 1998 is that it featured two costume dramas and two war movies, "Life is Beautiful" has at least the merit to tackle a very thought-provoking idea and make an enchanting fable out of tragedy. Spielberg's film works on one level, which is the terrific realism of the war battles, but that's all, if you get deeper in the plot, you can easily spot some moments where it sinks into manipulative schmaltz, where you realize that this war is between good and evil guys, while it's true that there was an evil ideology ruling the side, you can't make a war movie and imply that every soldier deserved to die, this is too dangerously simplistic. So to all those who believe "Saving Private Ryan" was the better one, I want to say why? The answers will all focus on the battles, story-wise or acting-wise, the other movies didn't deserve less."Shakespeare in Love" had the merit to venture in many ideas, many genres, and be enjoyable on many levels. It didn't expect to compete against Spielberg's film, it might have benefited from Weinstein's lobbying, but to hate it on this sole basis isn't the stuff being passion for movies is made on, or constructive criticism.