The Bard would be rolling in his grave over this twee romp.

Rating: Null/10 (13 March 2002)

Seven Oscars(tm)? How could the Academy have got it so wrong?
The first, and most crucial failing of Shakespeare in Love (SinL) is that it attempts to set a love story against Romeo and Juliet, the greatest love story in English literature. What we are presented with is a twee excuse to throw around some clever' Shakespearian allusions from terribly boring characters in a film which ultimately offers no genuine insights for the audience.
The first hour of SinL rolls on happily enough and I was eager to play along with the notion that The Bard's inspiration for Romeo and Juliet came from his own lovelorn life. But then it dawned on me. There is nothing actually being delivered. The gags are forced. The ham-fisted direction clearly telegraphs plot progression so any tension is lost. Which leaves us, poor viewer, with the romantic musings between Joseph Fiennes as Shakespeare and Gwyneth Paltrow as aristocratic Viola De Lesseps.
These two spend an enormous amount of time spouting Shakespeare-lite' dialogue to each other that will make even the most strong of stomach feel queasy. The only real respite comes from two lame swordfights that come so out of the blue as to be just irrelevant swash-buckling.
Fiennes brings only two facial expressions to his role in SinL: Wide-eyed and worried and wide-eyed and besotted. Paltrow offers a little more and exhibits some flashes of passion. Dame Judi Dench, however, is a high-camp parody of Queen Elizabeth. The only real use she and her character provide is delivery of a conclusion to try and desperately wrap up this lame gambol. Lets not even mention Geoffrey Rush.
As for the depiction of Elizabethan England hailed in other reviews, does it occur to anyone that we only see two city' streets? A vision of sprawling, plaque-ridden London this does not make. Indeed, the two theatres in which many scenes are set are clearly the same set, only one with a little more aesthetic trimming. Yawn.
However, even this jaded viewer suddenly found himself engaged by SinL. Finally, Romeo and Juliet gets performed and we get a few tantalising scenes from the play. I must admit my spine tingled. But what does that say when the best parts of a film were written four hundred years ago.
The film does nothing to dispel the cliche notion either of Shakespeare being the domain of men in tights but it will hopefully whet the appetite of the uninitiated.
Otherwise, forget this nonsense and wrap your eyes around the real deal. Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet is an excellent presentation of the play in a contemporary setting and is hugely entertaining. Something Shakespeare in Love falls way short of.