Shakespeare In Love Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
...A Comedy About the Greatest Love Story Almost Never Told...
Love is the only inspiration
Romantic comedy set in London in the late 16th century: 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.
| Simon Callow | Tilney |
| Geoffrey Rush | Philip Henslowe |
| Tom Wilkinson | Hugh Fennyman |
| Steve O'Donnell | Lambert |
| Tim McMullen | Frees |
| Joseph Fiennes | Will Shakespeare |
| Steven Beard | Makepeace |
| Antony Sher | Dr. Moth |
| Patrick Barlow | Will Kempe |
| Martin Clunes | Richard Burbage |
| Sandra Reinton | Rosaline |
| Judi Dench | Queen Elizabeth |
| Georgie Glen | Lady in Waiting |
| Nicholas Boulton | Henry Condell |
| John Madden |
7.40 out of 10 (54953 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Something is changing
posted on 15 Aug 2009I felt really happy and satisfied when Shakespeare in Love won this year's Oscar for best picture. Not just for the obvious reason that I liked the movie but also because this fact proves that "Academy's mind" is changing. Now, it seems that they are discovering good and creative scripts, which some times, are more important than everything else a movie may have. The movie was for sure the best choice among the other nominees for its peculiarity. But the truth has to be told... Watching Shakespeare in Love I didn't feel like laughing, but I also didn't feel like crying... It's strange to admit that a good movie (because it is a good movie) is not an emotional one...
Did I miss something?
posted on 31 Jul 2009Thirteen Oscar nominations for an ordinary, slight, nondescript romance? Did we learn no lessons from Titanic?Geoffrey Rush deserves his nomination, but not for his Jim Dale impression in this film! In Elizabeth he played a character of depth, not a caricature.Is Judi Dench's nomination an apology for her missing out on Best Actress last year, because there is nothing in this film worthy of such an accolade?This is an adequately entertaining film which was well scripted and quite cunning, but in no way exceptional. Enjoyable, but hardly worthy of the plaudits. Mind you, it was better than the first 3 hours (or so) of Titanic...
Flawless
posted on 28 Jul 2009An excellent film, without flaw, though they did omit Shakespear's deal with Morpheus, that he be given the power to write stories that would be remembered long past his time on earth, in exchange for writing two plays devoted to dreams, namely: "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and "The Tempest".
But, one could hardly expect them to include that detail, as it would have clashed with the rest of the story. Still, all in all, a first class movie.
Not a Shakespeare Fan but I Loved This!
posted on 28 Jul 2009Young 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!
Boring, predictable, trite (spoiler)
posted on 25 Jul 2009It is extremely seldom that I feel like I've wasted my time after watching a movie, yet this movie left me feeling that way. The movie is not only slow and boring, but predictable throughout. The characters all lack character, they are one-dimensional and stereotyped, and as such I found them (and the acting) quite unconvincing. When Wessex refers to Viola as "property" (and makes various similar derogatory comments during the movie) this comes off as merely a cheap attempt to evoke a particular reaction and feeling from the audience - we are "supposed" to dislike this character. The same applies to all the major characters in the movie - we are told exactly how we are supposed to feel about them throughout the movie. These techniques are Hollywood textbook, and I guess I expected a little more from a movie that managed the number of awards it did (which I found out only after having watched the movie). The storyline is fairly predictable; we are often told in advance exactly what to expect will happen later in the movie (e.g. when the Queen makes the wager, we know already how this will pan out).The romantic parts are excessive and trite, but may appeal to Mills & Boons fans and thirteen year old girls. The comedy was lacking - there were maybe six or seven funny parts throughout the movie, and most of these were either already shown in the preview, or were predictable and hackneyed. I found the recreation of the setting of Shakespearean London unconvincing - although a lot of effort and research were obviously put into this (costumes, props, extras), the implementation came off to me as being overdone.The movie is obviously well researched and well produced, but lacks character and substance. It comes off as a typical formula "feel good" movie, tugging all the right heartstrings at all the right places in a predictable textbook fashion.
The script is the star
posted on 25 Jul 2009This is a fine film that I greatly enjoyed. I don't think that it deserved to win the Best Picture Oscar, but the Best Screenplay was no contest. Very satisfying in almost every respect, the film's true star is the brilliant screenplay that interweaves Shakespeare's texts with the new story being told.I admit that I am a bit of a purist when it comes to Shakespeare - when I see one of his plays, I want to see it as he wrote it. I am not generally in favor of cutting or moving scenes, or otherwise adapting the Shakespeare text. That is not relevant here, however, because this is NOT a Shakespeare play. It is a modern day fictional tale using Shakespeare as a protagonist. The genius is in the way that Shakespeare's own poetry is worked so perfectly into the script. The film is good in any case, but if you have an appreciation for Shakespeare it really shines.
A powerful movie
posted on 25 Jul 2009The movie is very entertaining. It might not be a big budget film but director John Madden has successfully provoked the imagination of the movie enthusiasts. I am hoping that producers, writers and directors will never get tired of creating more movies of this kind.
Without a doubt, the best film of 1998!
posted on 22 Jul 2009"Shakespeare in Love" is truly genius! The symbolism of the language and events, the beauty of the costumes, sets, and scenery (not to mention Gwyneth Paltrow) is absolutely amazing. "Shakespeare in Love," for lack of better words, is a fulfilling -- even profound -- experience. The language is advanced, but it flows wonderfully. If you were to shut your eyes and only listen to the words of the actors, you could "see" just as vividly as if you were to have your eyes glued to the screen (and trust me -- your eyes ARE glued to the screen).The love scenes are very tasteful, and even though there is partial nudity, the scenes retain their artistic value. I feel very strongly that this film will win the Oscar for Best Picture. "Saving Private Ryan" WAS a good film, based on real events (which are easily duplicated), and its emotions came from WITHIN the viewer, whether thinking of personal memories or memories of someone they know. It took imagination and talent to make the fictional events in "Shakespeare in Love" (though BASED on truth) into something so moving and so real.I respect a movie a lot more when it MAKES me belive, rather than ALLOWING me to believe. I hope that makes sense, but I really can't think of another way to say it. "Saving Private Ryan" was, in a way, an informative documentary about the horrors of war. "Shakespeare in Love," on the other hand, drew me in and MADE me belive in it. My heart aches for a love like that. We should all be so lucky.
A masterful suggestion about what might have been.
posted on 19 Jul 2009This charming interpretation about a little known part of Shakespeare's life mixes elements of Twelfth Night with musings of Romeo and Juliet. All roles are played to perfection, especially the supporting cast of Judi Dench, Geoffrey Rush, and even Ben Affleck who all give their best in every scene, at times upstaging their counterparts. The film might be considered an intellectuals farce, considering the number of commentaries about the acting and writing biz. It's finest features, however, lie in the simple telling of Shakespeare's stories. Joseph Finnes explanation to the players of Romeo and Juliet resolution is stunning. Gweneth Paltrow gives an exquisite performance as Young Will's adulterous love, yet scholars may argue that the vision in much of Shakespeare's writing would not reflect her, but someone much different. I say let them argue about it. The film is well done and great fun, but my hope is that you take it as you like it.
The story of "Romeo and Ethyl, the Pirate's Daughter." Well, almost ...,
posted on 10 Jul 2009"Shakespeare in Love" is a good movie for those of us who don't particularly like Shakespeare. Not the man, but his works. I find the stilted old English he uses, and the delivery of lines, difficult to stay with, but I love this movie. Some feel it did not deserve "Best Picture", but I don't really care about that argument, I just like the movie.In a similar vein as "Titanic" and "Pearl Harbor", where a fictional love story is woven through historical events, so is "Shakespeare in Love". The period, late 1500s, is correct, as are all the main characters, the ways of doing business, locations, and theaters. What is fictional is the love story that develops between Will Shakespeare(Joseph Fiennes) and lady Viola (Gwenneth Paltrow). While I seldom see Ms Paltrow as a sex symbol in her various films, in this one her bedroom scenes with Fiennes are quite lovely.In this film, Will is "stuck", he is looking for a muse, and is intending on writing a new play "Romeo and Ethyl, the Pirate's Daughter." Through many brief interactions with his contemporaries and Viola, the story gradually develops, bit by bit, scene by scene, into the now famous romantic tragedy. To recruit a popular actor (Ben Affleck), who will play Mercutio, Will tells him, "It will be called Mercutio." Nearer the end, Affleck tells him, "I think it should be called 'Romeo and Juliet'. That's just a suggestion, consider it." What makes this such an entertaining film for me is the inspired writing and directing, which combines a factual period piece with smart and funny dialog. We see characters speaking in a modern language, and while the story line is plausible, the entire film is brimming with humor. Not the kind of "over-the-top" schtick that so many recent movies employ with limited success, but the best kind of subtle humor that is the calling card of a fine scriptwriter. It is the kind of film you can appreciate more upon each viewing, and see things you never saw before.The DVD is also superb, although there is not much surround in the Dolby 5.1 soundtrack. A very interesting "extra" are facts about the real people who were represented as characters in this film. One of my favorites of all. (From John Madden, who recently directed 'Capt Corelli's Mandolin.')
Doubts at first, but....
posted on 07 Jul 2009When I heard that Shakespeare in Love recieved the Oscar for Best Picture, I couldn't believe it. How can something be better than Saving Private Ryan? But seeing that I never saw Shakespeare until just recently, I took it upon myself to find out if Skakespeare was truly better than Ryan. By the end of the film, I was well assured that the Oscar went to the better film. I loved Shakespeare. I laughed, I cried, and I found myself giving a little applause at the end. Who ever did the casting did a superb job. Not only could these people act in a film, but they could also do Shakespeare (which mind you is not very easy). Not only was the film excellent but the performances of Romeo and Juliet that appeared throughout the film were the best that I have seen and probably will see. Sadly, I could only give this film a 10 because the voting scale won't go high enough. In my opinion the film deserves an 11.
A lovely lightfooted story
posted on 01 Jul 2009A lovely humorous interpretation of how "Romeo and Juliette" could have been created, the torment of an inspired poet and how to survive as such in that particular era. I liked the pun on well known phrases. Just imagine that Juliette would have been called Ethel! My husband kept wondering how they got the beautiful, long, blond hairdo of Viola under the short, brown wig of Thomas Kent.
Even Elizabeth I and A.L. Rouse would love this one!
posted on 28 Jun 2009Shakespeare, the terror of High School students, turns into Shakespeare the man. Instead of the "balding bard," we meet the dashing actor with wife and mistresses. Instead of equivocating about the nebulous Dark Lady of the Sonnets, we get to meet her "in the flesh" (well, almost in the flesh.) .We hear the stage, get to visit with Queen E., have a bar-visit with Christopher Marloe, and, lots of fun with Willy Shakespeare and the boys. Not to mention hearing beautiful recitations of our beloved poetry, excellent acting, and the music! Ah the music that comes free with this beautiful play. (We even get to know Elizabezan mice! Never expected it!)This is a fantasy in good taste and done with unusual imagination: poetic scholarship at is best.
Shakespeare's stab right-on!
posted on 25 Jun 2009Very smart script and the propulsive style of director Madden and a STAR ***** CAST combine for a rare delight. I liked the story follows the parallel developments of the love affair between Shakespeare and Viola, plus the writing of "Romeo and Juliet". Fiennes and Paltrow are excellent and the film manages to capture the artist's heat of creation.
what a carry on?
posted on 22 Jun 2009First time I saw this I really didn't like it and was surprised it won so many awards. Seeing it again I enjoyed it a lot more but still have some reservations. I've never seen a film that was so pleased with itself. It tries so hard to please everybody and that makes it really hard to like. The second half is more satisfying than the first which is more like "Carry On Shakespeare". Some of the performances are very enjoyable notably Judy Dench, Tom Wilkinson and Geoffrey Rush. The pace of the film seems too hurried but at least you've no time to be bored which is obviously what they were afraid of. I still don't think it's a great film but there are plenty of highlights that make it worth watching. (7/10)
Why we love this film
posted on 16 Jun 2009This is the best film on Shakespeare I have seen, who knew that Will could look so Fienne. I loved the cockney aqua taxi drivers. Gwyneth Paltrow has yet again mastered the English accent (the only American actor I know who can). I loved how we saw Shakespeare gaining inspiration (nicking ideas) from everyone around him including the curate. My favourite bit in the film is when the oarsman said :"I 'ad that Marlowe in my boat once" I just like to say we love you Joseph.
What a concept!
posted on 10 Jun 2009Exceptional acting, fabulous costumes and make-up, yes. But it is the brilliant screenplay that makes this a wonderful movie. Obviously conceived by someone who knows Shakespeare well enough to incorporate his style, his appreciation of language, his place in history. Humorous, well-paced, a film that makes you love the art of film making.
Not even really a Shakespeare adaptation, but that's what's so good about it!
posted on 10 Jun 2009There was quite a bit of understandable controversy over the Best Picture Oscar for 1998, because Shakespeare in Love and Saving Private Ryan were both tremendously good films, and the audience was very divided between the two. There is a definite popular influence on the workings of the Academy Awards (no matter how good a film is, it will never win a Best Picture Oscar unless it is hugely popular like Private Ryan and Shakespeare in Love. This is exactly why Memento never won a Best Picture Oscar), but in this case, I think that the quality of the historical element was one of the things that caused the Academy to sway more toward Shakespeare in Love than Saving Private Ryan. Obviously, both had enormous historical value, but I think that there are some notable differences between the two.First of all, Saving Private Ryan is, for the most part, a presentation of true events that occurred during World War II. It is a spectacular portrayal of true events in American history, and should definitely be recognized for that. The fact that Saving Private Ryan did not win the Oscar does not mean that it is not widely, and correctly, considered to be one of the greatest war films ever made. In my opinion, the Oscar was given to Shakespeare in Love because of the enormous effort that was put into the film's story. Private Ryan had a great fictional story as well, but it is much more complicated to come up with such an elaborate story of something that may have happened in Shakespeare's life, and to tie that story in with what little we know about that life, than it is to create a fictional and touching story that takes place during war times. Shakespeare in Love takes the unfortunately small amount of information that we have about Shakespeare's life and brings it to the screen in an amazingly realistic way. We know that this is all fiction, but the fact that it fits so well with the content of his plays and the society that he lived in makes it magical, because Shakespeare is literally brought to life for everyone to see. We get something brought to the screen that people have wondered about for centuries, so of COURSE it should win the Best Picture Oscar!Granted, from the few portraits that survive, William Shakespeare was probably not nearly as attractive as Joseph Fiennes, but hey, Hollywood had to have its influence somewhere, right? Fiennes delivers a brilliant performance in this staggeringly well-made drama, which provides one of the best period settings ever created on film. When you watch Shakespeare in Love, you're THERE. And we not only get what would be on its own a fabulously developed and interesting story, but also some potential facts that interact with what we know about Shakespeare, such as possible inspirations for some of the characters in his plays, the most important of which is obviously Viola (although Shakespeare's infatuation with her does not exactly match her character in Twelfth Night), as well as some of the content of his plays, like Romeo and Juliet. There is also a brilliant subplot that makes Shakespeare himself the main cause of the rather mysterious death of Christopher Marlowe. One of the main problems with movies these days is that people think that just because you get two great names together (like Spielberg and Hanks), then you have what should automatically be the Best Picture winner for that year. This is a hilariously erroneous way of examining the movies, especially when many of the people who think that way have not seen most of the other contenders for the Best Picture Oscar. Shakespeare in Love may not escape from that prejudice entirely, although I doubt there were many small films that matched it in quality. This is a spectacular drama, it has a remarkable score, brilliant direction, wonderful performances from everyone involved (Judi Dench's earth-quaking performance as Queen Elizabeth should be especially noted), and an ingeniously written script, which explored every element of Shakespeare himself, even going so far as to give him a rather short temper (`God's TEETH am I to suffer this constant stream of interruption?!'). True, we can't assume that such a great man as Shakespeare didn't have a temper (there are already enough rumors about him, such as the one that when he was writing his plays, he `never blotted a word.'), but quick to anger is not the kind of thing that is generally associated with him.It is rather unfortunate that Shakespeare in Love and Saving Private Ryan came up against each other in the Academy Awards for 1998, because they are both worth a Best Picture Oscar, but since only one can be given out, I think that Shakespeare in Love has the edge on Private Ryan. Just barely, but it does. Shakespeare in Love is a nearly flawless film, and just such minor things like casting a late 1990s teen heartthrob like Matt Damon as Private Ryan (just in case you thought the movie took place anytime other than the summer of 1998) by itself knocked it at least a notch or two below Shakespeare in Love. The direction was spectacular, and Spielberg was rightfully given the Best Director Oscar, but when every element of the two movies are taken into account and compared, Private Ryan just has to stand aside in the Best Picture category. I stand by the Academy's decision, and I hope that, from what I have said about Shakespeare in Love, those rather misled people who think that Best Director and Best Picture automatically go together will begin to understand why that is not at all true.
Made for the 21st century sensibilities...
posted on 29 May 2009Like so much Shakespeare I've seen on stage or screen for the last 40+ years, this is not William so much as earnest Shakespeare, with little magic in the handling of the language & lots of nyah-ha-ha acting. A pity because every generation seems to become more distanced from the real poetry that should be there. Alas, today, it all seems to have become...show & tell. Odd that Stoppard was involved in this and 15 Minute Hamlet which was truly in the spirit of the Bard.
...relentlessly satisfying.
posted on 27 Aug 2009Don't read any detailed reviews before you see this film; just go, and let the movie surprise and delight you. The movie stars Joseph Fiennes in the title role, and Gwyneth Paltrow as Lady Viola de Lesseps. If you're a scholar of Shakespeare and his times, there are plenty of in-jokes; just be willing to accept some literary license (but you're in good hands: one of the screenwriters is noted playwright Tom Stoppard).Joseph Fiennes makes a believable Shakespeare, and the cast is rounded out by some notables (whom you can read about on the IMDb).But the real star of this film is Gwyneth Paltrow. She is stunning, beautiful, charming, funny, strong, and affecting as the love of Shakespeare's life, and her performance in the "play within a play" aspect of this film is brilliant and moving. In addition to the romance, there's plenty of comedy, tragedy, and swashbuckling adventure to go around to make this movie relentlessly satisfying.