For never was there a story of more woe than this of Shakespeare and Gwyneth Paltrow..

Rating: 2/10 (12 June 2009)

Shakespeare in Love purports to be a comedy about Shakespeare suddenly inspired by a love interest (with Paltrow), and the words begin to flow like never before. Watching it, I found it far from funny. Everything that occurs in it is predictable and cliché, and not particularly endearing. It pokes fun at the clergy by having a clergyman protest against the theatre and its morality. Then, the screenwriters decide it will be great fun if the same clergyman reacts enthusiastically at a performance. It does not emerge as such. I'm quite surprised that Tom Stoppard, a fantastic playwright, has his name attached to this.
Shakespeare in Love starts promisingly: a hilarious presentation by a debtor to those he owes money to of an early storyline of Romeo and Juliet. Soon after, however, the constant references to Shakespeare's oeuvre become stiff and un-amusing. For instance, a clergyman yells "a plague o' both their houses!" referring to two rival theatres, which becomes a line in Romeo and Juliet. Not too bad? Well consider the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet being inspired by a similar encounter between Will and Gwyneth (alas, foiled by the Nurse, whose persistent calling for Juliet also makes it into the scene). Comic relief is soon provided in limited, spaced-out bursts (between the numerous sex scenes of course).
Perhaps my negative view of Shakespeare in Love is influenced by a vendetta I have against it. The film did not deserve 1999's Best Picture award, which should have gone to either Saving Private Ryan, Life is Beautiful, or The Thin Red Line. It practically swept the Oscars with 7 wins, which often it did not deserve. Gwyneth Paltrow won the Best Actress award. Apparently, perpetually flashing fleeting smiles and flaunting one's breasts (literally— her breasts are probably shown about 13 times) are Best Actress qualifications. Judi Dench won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress— for about 10 minutes of screen time, where she does what the Queen does best (i.e. save the day), but without making the performance particularly memorable or endearing.
And now for the redeeming qualities: Shakespeare in Love undoubtedly had some fine music. The music was purely opulent and made many of the scenes "watch-able". The film's strongest scene would have to be when someone (whose name I completely forget, but at the same time, couldn't care less) goes into the theatre where a rehearsal is taking place and a duel ensues with Shakespeare. Comically, musically, dramatically, and directorially, it is the film's most solid scene, and I briefly had hopes (which were mercilessly dashed) that the film might become good.
And now for some acting criticism: Joseph Fiennes is one of the most amateur actors I have ever had to endure watching— one of the poorest choices available for Shakespeare. Paltrow was bad enough where fleeting smiles were concerned— Fiennes makes her look like a genius. Ben Affleck plays well, an Elizabethan Ben Affleck.
The Verdict: A mediocre film at best, Shakespeare in Love was over-hyped, and definitely did not deserve all those Oscars it grabbed. Its Best Picture win is a direct slap in the face to two of the greatest masterpieces ever made (and The Thin Red Line, which should'vie won SOMETHING that year— it's a very good movie!). Cliché, stale, and uninteresting, I swear I thought my brains melted about 40 minutes into the movie. An agonizing experience for the most part. Geoffrey Rush is the best part of the movie.
Overall Rating: 2/10