Why I don't like Shakespeare in Love

Rating: Null/10 (2 June 2000)

When I saw this movie, I realized why I didn't like Shakespeare in Love as much as most people do.
First of all, the entire cast here is much more brilliant than anything in Shakespeare in Love. Yes, Fiennes and Rush were in both movies, but in Elizabeth, they come to life (though Fiennes' role is one dimensional). And when comparing Cate Blanchett's stunning transformation from the lusty princess to the Virgin queen to Gwenyth Paltrow's romantic theatre lover, there really is no comparison. Cate Blanchett's role was much more difficult to pull off, and her performance was much more daring. Christopher Eccleston gave what I believe to be a brilliant, yet surprisingly underrated performance.
Many of my friends who don't like costume dramas/historical epics liked this film because it's not structured like a typical costume drama, but as a thriller. One watches as the conspiracy unfolds, in wicked appreciation of Shekar Kapur's direction as the story unfolds (he deserved a nomination over John Madden). Michael Hirst's screenplay does play around with history, but I don't understand why that bothers people. Mind you, I'm not an expert on Elizabeth, so I don't know what exactly Hirst removed/added/changed, but the final product is so juicy and thrilling, that I don't think I would mind much.
After seeing this, Shakespeare in Love seemed predictable, mundane, and well... rather boring.
My number three if 1998 (behind Saving Private Ryan and A Simple Plan)