In 1593, a young William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) is having trouble writing a new play, "Romeo and Ethel the pirate's daughter." He's got a severe case of writer's block at a time when he needs a play most desperatly.
It isn't long until the idea's slowly start comming to him (with oustide help of course). Auditioning actors for the main roles, Shakespeare discovers a young actor named Thomas Kent (Gwyneth Paltrow) who is really a young woman in disguise. The young woman wants to act on stage at a time when women were forbidden to do so.
Shakespeare discovers the young woman's secret quickly, and a romance ensues. Shakespeare must complete his new play on time, keep his "best" actor's secret and pay off all his debts time... or face being sent back home... to his wife.
Shakespeare in Love is a well crafted, fictional account of the writing of one of history's most famous plays. (That is, of course, Romeo and Juliet.)
The film is, for the most part, acurate and faithful to the time period. (There are a couple of notable anachronisms, but I won't get into them.) Joseph Finnes, who plays Shakespeare, does a very good job of portrying the Bard, and he even manages to look like him, too. (Finnes wasn't nominated, though, and he definatly should have been.)
The part I like about the film - and dislike at the same time - was that many, amny laines of Shakespeare's own writing are used as dialogue in the script. I like that part. However, Shakespeare was not credited as a writier of the screenplay, which he most certainly was.
Gwyneth Paltrow, for a big portion of the film, plays a male actor, and became the second of three people to win the Oscar for playing a member of the opposit sex, joining Linda Hunt (in 1983's The Year of Living Dangerously) and Hilary Swank (in 1999's Boys Don't Cry). Paltrow's turn as the male Thomas Kent was as good as Swank's Brandon Teena was and is very convincing, though the mustache and beared are fairly cheesy.
Gwyneth does a heckuva job, though, and was rewarded accordingly. It seems the Academy likes giving the Oscar to actors who can play the opposit sex well on screen. (Dissappointingly enough, though, they did not give the Oscar to Julie Andrews for her memorable turn in Victor/Victoria.)
Full of wit and sweetness with an exceptional recreation of 1590's London, Shakespeare in Love is reminder that we were all young once, struggling to obtain something, however insignificant, even if we didn't become the most famous writer in history.
Plot: 
The story is a fictionalized version of what the Bard's life might have been like. The story was well written was sample of Will's own work mixed in.
Visual Effects:
Although there really weren't any special effects shots, practiaclly every set used in the film was wonderfully decorated, with authentic details from the time period.
Sound:
Character Development:
Atmosphere:
Shakespeare in Love is a film that runs a fine line between "Shakespeare" and "romantic comedy." Those who like Shakespeare will love this film with all of it's shakespeareisms sprinkled throughout.
Those of you that don't care for Shakespeare may like this film as a romantic comedy, which is just what it is.
Those of you who don't like Shakespeare any which way - or find him just too damn confusing - can use Shakespeare in love as a gateway into the plays of the Bard. The movie uses his quotes in only the right places, and they are utilized well. Then again, you may just hate this film alltogether.
Realism:
Set in 1593 London, England, the film servves as a an acurate example of what life was really like in those day. Everything - from costumes to simple props to actuall locations - were amazingly well detailed and designed. As mentioned above, there are a couple of notable anachronisms in the film, but they hardly detract.
Warren�s Rating:
Movies it beat out for Best Picture:
Elizabeth; La Vita � Bella (Life is Beautiful, 1997); Saving Private Ryan; The Thin Red Line
8.00/10 Is the movie worth your time to watch?
09-05-05
Age at win: 27
Nominated for: Best Actress in a Leading Role, Viola De Lesseps / Thomas Kent, Shakespeare in Love
Nomination: 1/1 (acting), 1/1 (total); Win: Only
Gwyneth Paltrow, in the movie that made her a true star, joined Linda Hunt (who won for 1983's The Year of Living Dangerously) and was joined the very next year by Hilary Swank (who won for 1999's Boys Don't Cry) as the only actors to win an Oscar for playing a member of the opposit sex.
Having nailed the Elizabethan accent, and even mastering Shakespeare's dialogue, Paltrow is totally convincing as Thomas Kent, the boy who is secretly a woman, who longs to be an actress on stage. Even when she is a woman on screen, as Viola, the woman smitten with Joseph Finnes' Shakespeare, she gives a wonderful performance.
Gwyneth is very bubbly and slightly over-the-top in her persormance yet she manages to make both man and woman characters work well together. Her performance is seemless, and well deserving of the Oscar.
09-05-05
Age at win: 64
Nominated for: Best Actress in a Supporting Role, Queen Elizabeth I, Shakespeare in Love
Nomination: 2/5 (acting), 2/5 (total); Win: Only
At only 6 minutes and change, and even shorter than the 16 minutes Anthony Hopkins received for his Oscar winning turn as Dr. Hannibal Lecter (from The Scilence of the Lambs), Dame Judi Dench's performance as Queen Elizabeth I has got to be the shortest Oscar winning turn in cinema history.
With all of her bright, vibrant costumes, and very bold performance, Judi Dench paints a memorable portrait of the virgin queen. It wouldn't be surprising if it was discovered to be a dead-on acurate portrayal of the famous monarch.
09-05-05
Gwyneth Paltrow
DOB: September 28, 1972
Gwyneth Paltrow's performance
Dame Judi Dench
DOB: December 9, 1934
Dame Judi Dench's performance
