Light-hearted fun, but...

Rating: 8/10 (14 March 1999)

Shakespeare in Love was a good movie, and I enjoyed it, but I walked away wondering what all the fuss was about. It's a clever script, the acting is good, the set is superb...but in the end I found it rather "fluffy". And it's up for how many Oscar nominations--11?
Script? Well maybe. It's clever and fun and I think Shakespeare himself would have approved.
Best picture? Best director? I reckon Private Ryan was harder to produce, and so was Elizabeth, and both of those films would get my vote in these categories before this one.
Best actress? Paltrow was good, yes, but her role wasn't that challenging, and her performance can't equal the complexity of Cate Blanchett's in Elizabeth. In fact, I found her rather unattractive as a "lad" and wondered what Will could possibly see in him/her. (I reckon this was a bit of a sop to that handful of Shakespearean scholars who maintain that Will was probably gay...) Judi Dench was only on for a few minutes and didn't do anything other than handle her role and the fine script well...what any quality actor would do.
This film was "low-brow" Shakespearean theatre at its best, and like the original Shakespeare comedies, it seems to be drawing all sorts of people into theatres for a taste of the Bard--and that's great. The whole film--indeed the script--relies heavily on theatrical convention (Stoppard is, after all, best known for his stage plays) and it screens like a lively stage performance. It's fun entertainment with some delightful performances, clever comic touches, and a fine script...but it surely isn't the best the year has to offer.