No matter, what some modern critics has to say. I still love Shakespeare in Love. A rose by any other name would continue to smell as sweet.

Rating: 8/10 (17 May 2017)

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.