One of those Best Picture winners that just doesn't hold up.

Rating: 3/10 (26 February 2018)

Well, it's been almost 20 years since this film won Best Picture, and I happened to catch it on TV. I was about 11 when this film came out, so I'd never seen it.
Now, having seen it, I have to say it's cute but that's about it. I don't see the huge appeal of it, aside from the costumes and Judi Dench being in the film for about 10 minutes. It's not a film that I'll remember, and certainly (IMO) not worthy of a Best Picture Oscar, especially over films made at the same time like "Saving Private Ryan," which is a film that I will always remember seeing because it made such an impression. This, sadly, did not make much of an impression and I can see why people say it didn't deserve the big prize.
I also don't get the Best Actress Oscar for Gwyneth Paltrow. Personally, I've always found her too pretentious to be appealing on screen, but I'll admit she is talented. As for Best Actress... nah. There are about 100 other actresses who could have played the role just as well, so I can't watch this and say, "Oh wow, this is such a great part for her. What a performance!" Neither her nor the film are memorable, and I'd imagine she was given the award more so for being popular at the time, and not based on the strength of her actual performance.
I've seen "Elizabeth" which was released the same year, and I think the very talented Cate Blanchett deserved the Oscar so much more than Paltrow. Then again, Blanchett has won two Oscars since this film and Paltrow's career declined not long after her win, so obviously we don't need to really debate who the better actor is.
I'd say watch this film, and then decide for yourself what should have won the Oscar. Then watch "Saving Private Ryan" and see which you remember.