Amazon.com

One of the most endearing and intelligent romantic comedies of the '90s, the Oscar-winning Shakespeare in Love is filled with such good will, sunny romance, snappy one-liners, and devilish cleverness that it's absolutely irresistible. With tongue placed firmly in cheek, at its outset the film tracks young Will Shakespeare's overwrought battle with writer's block and the efforts of theater owner Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush, in rare form) to stage Will's latest comedy, Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter. Jokey comedy, though, soon takes a backseat to ravishing romance when the beautiful Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow) disguises herself as a young man to wangle herself an audition in the all-male cast, and wins both the part of Romeo and, after much misunderstanding, the playwright's heart. Soon enough, Will's pirate comedy becomes the beautiful, tragic Romeo and Juliet, reflecting the agony and ecstasy of Will and Viola's romance--he's married and she's set to marry the slimy Lord Wessex (Colin Firth) in the near future.

The way that Oscar-winning screenwriters Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard enfold their story within the parameters of Romeo and Juliet (and even Twelfth Night) is nothing short of brilliant--it would take a Shakespearean scholar to dissect the innumerable parallels, oft-quoted lines, plot developments, and thematic borrowings. And most amazingly, Norman and Stoppard haven't forgotten to entertain their audience in addition to riding a Shakespearean roller coaster, with director John Madden (Mrs. Brown) reigning in his huge ensemble with rollicking energy. Along the way there are small gems to be found, including Judi Dench's eight-minute, Oscar-winning turn as a truly regal Queen Elizabeth, but the key element of Shakespeare in Love's success rests on the milky-white shoulders of its two stars. Fiennes, inexplicably overlooked at Oscar time, is a dashing, heartfelt Will, and as for Best Actress winner Paltrow, well, nothing she'd done before could have prepared viewers for how amazing she is here. Breathtakingly beautiful, fiercely intelligent, strong-willed, and lovestruck--it's a performance worthy of Shakespeare in more ways than one. By the film's end, you'll be thoroughly won over--and brushing up your Shakespeare with newfound ardor. --Mark Englehart ... Read more

Reviews (456)

Not of an age, but for all time. And better on DVD
Purists who turn up their noses at Shakespeare in Love don't know what they're talking about - or rather, don't know what they're missing. This was, after all, written by Tom Stoppard, author of some of the very best plays of modern times (Arcadia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead - the latter filmed with Gary Oldman and Tim Roth). He's done a splendid job of balancing accessibility with genuine wit. The screenplay is littered with allusions to the bard's works, and gives some great - albeit hypothetical - insights into how and why he wrote.

Beyond that, in true Shakespearean style, we are offered the "play within the play" - in this case Romeo and Juliet. Excellent editing gives us just enough to convey the mood of an Elizabethan performance, leaving us wanting more. This film does a great job of broadening the appeal of the most popular writer.

And don't miss the topical in-jokes - the "cabby" rowing the boat, and especially Glenda Jackson saying she knows what it's like to do a man's job (she plays "M" in the Bond movies). Bill S. would have approved. High praise indeed.

Top-Ten Romance, and One of the Most Clever Screenplays!
"Shakespeare in Love" is a triumph, pure and simple. With screenwriters Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman at the top of their game and feeding immortal lines to a top-notch cast, "Shakespeare in Love" could not fail to succeed.

The film opens with young Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) struggling with writer's block . . . he is clearly not yet the magnificent WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (insert trumpets here), the world's most famous writer. Indeed, the top playwright of the age is Kit Marlowe (Rupert Everett), as Shakespeare is reminded several times. And young Will is also hopelessly infatuated with Rosaline, a woman completely unworthy of his affections.

After some psychotherapy that anticipates Freud, Will is no better. Still, heavily in debt, Will attempts to stage his next opus, "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter." Working with Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush, who would have stolen a lesser film with his perfect performance), who's also heavily in debt, Will seems headed for disaster.

That is, until he sees his muse, young Viola de Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow, never better). Smitten, young Will begins to write the romantic poetry that becomes "Romeo and Juliet." Viola, who recognizes Will's genius, meets Will through some classic Shakespearean disguises and mistaken identities. Of course, Viola is betrothed to a true slug, Lord Wessex (a plump Colin Firth), who plans to take her to Virginia in seek his fortune across the sea -- essentially sending her into exile.

Despite the roadblocks, Will and Viola are soon hopelessly in love. Viola, daring to breach the silly rule that only men can play parts on stage, has taken the role of Romeo by day. By night, Will and Viola write Will's most romantic play together.

"SIL" keeps the wheels turning mighty fast, and one of the joys of watching this movie over and over is catching a quick joke that you didn't get the first time around.

It's also a pleasure to watch this stellar cast go through its paces. While Judi Dench won her Oscar for her surprisingly brief performance as Queen Elizabeth, other actors turn in equally entertaining performances. Tom Wilkinson, Simon Callow, Martin Clunes, and Imelda Staunton each bring amazing proficiency to the supporting cast, and even the much-maligned appearance of Ben Affleck elevates the movie -- he is perfectly cast as a self-absorbed theater star (first line -- "What is the play, and what is my part?"). Affleck's comeuppance, when he realizes that he, as Mercutio, doesn't have the title role, is handled wonderfully well.

This is simply a movie that doesn't miss a trick. The film is shot beautifully, the extravagent costuming gets at the ridiculous conformity that we associate with jolly old England (and makes the torrid romance of Will and Viola that much more intimate), and the music is uplifting.

The film's final shot, as Viola walks along the beach and we realize that we've just seen the birth of arguably Shakespeare's greatest heroine, Viola of "Twelfth Night," is a masterpiece of powerful understatement.

This movie is simply a must for the film library!

A GOOFY YET DELICIOUSLY SEDUCTIVE ROMANTIC COMEDY!
The DVD casing claimed in big bold letters "Best Screenplay" Academy Award winner. I can surely see why! Must have been some deviously creative team that crafted this crisp comic period-piece.

The film is really two love stories: one a bawdy romance between two smitten humans, and the other an ode to the art of theatre. The writers'/director's love for showmanship is loud and evident throughout the brilliant screenplay, and if you're a fan of wordplay in any way, well then this is a surefire delight.

Both Paltrow and Fienners turn in lusciously romantic performances in their respective roles -- she pulls off the formidable order of gender-switching without a hitch, and he has just the right pitches and patterns for a young, struggling Shakespeare. Geoffrey Rush is magnetic as usual.

Don't be fooled by the Elizabethan accoutrements, this film and its arsenal of laconic quips could easily shoot several contemporary romances to dust. Buy this one in fact, don't just rent, it quite comfortably stands the test of more than one viewing..

Rush in an unforgettable role
Although Geoffrey Rush is not the star of the film, he delivers a memorable performance, as usual. Fiennes does, also. The costuming is very beautiful, and the humour is delightful. Highly reccommended.

Emotionally Fraudulent and Morally Offensive NON-Love Story
Before I start out, I should say that I am NOT one of those people who think they have to deride "Shakespeare in Love" because it's a "chick flick" and therefore unworthy(?!) of Oscars. Nor do I feel the need to condemn it for winning Best Picture over "Saving Private Ryan," as so many have done. I certainly do have a beef in that regard -- and it's that my own favorite film of 1998, "The Truman Show," wasn't even nominated for Best Picture! But none of these things have anything to do with my loathing for "Shakespeare in Love." My beef is solely with the offensive nature of the film itself. It's advertised as a love story, but is emotionally and morally empty when it comes to any notion of love.

You could see the writers straining to convince us that those two awesomely idiotic characters, Will and Viola, were really deserving to be the inspiration for "Romeo and Juliet." The film wanted to show that "the truth and nature of love" so magnificently expressed in Shakespeare's play resulted from this casual (and to my mind very unromantic) affair between a lying weasel of a married man, and an apparently dimwitted girl who can't be bothered to decide whether she wants to marry him or not, though she's being forced into marriage with a man she hates.

Starting out by having a man needing to fall in love for a mercenary reason -- so he can finish his play -- and then conveniently having him decide that the first pretty girl who comes along is the love of his life, doesn't strike me as a convincing way to start a love story. Did writers Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard really stop to think this out? From the beginning we know he's using this girl, and they never find a convincing way to show us that this ever changes.

The worst line in the film, to my mind, comes right after their first soft-core sex scene. Viola murmurs: "I never would have believed that there could be something better than a play -- even your play!" Will: "Huh?" Well, there goes any possible higher emotional or spiritual aspect to their relationship.

This is the deepest flaw in the movie (which was otherwise well acted, gorgeously shot and beautifully costumed). I could not enjoy it or buy into it in the slightest because the fundamental conception of the filmmakers was based on modern notions of love that don't go beyond the purely physical. Descriptions of love in Western literature have at least on occasion gone much deeper than that. The Will in "Shakespeare in Love" not only couldn't have written "Romeo and Juliet"'s dramatic sonnet "If I profane with my unworthiest hand this holy shrine. . ." he wouldn't even have been able to understand it.

Not to mention the glamorization of a man's adultery, and the strenuous attempts to avoid all the real-life emotional ramifications of such an action, in favor of a feel-good justification of it, in spite of the obvious harm to the young virginal woman who was used by a cad. But it's excused and made to seem no real harm, by having her anger abated by thinking Will is dead, then readily going back to him when she discovers he's alive (a cheap dramatic trick if I ever saw one). Above all, no matter what a real Elizabethan girl's attitude miught have been, Viola is made to adopt the "modern" attitude (love is just a "stolen season").

I think there actually could have been a believable story in the idea of Shakespeare falling in love while writing "Romeo and Juliet." Why not start with the historical fact that Shakespeare didn't even make up the plot of the play at all, much less make it up out of his own love life? In fact, "Romeo and Juliet" was an Italian novella that had gone the rounds of Europe, had been turned into a French play, an English poem and at least one preceding English play. What if Shakespeare finds himself adapting this love story, not believing in love, then actually falls in love in a way that resembles the plot of "Romeo and Juliet"? I think it would have been nice if he had fallen in love with a virgin like Viola, realized in all conscience he couldn't take advantage of her, and wrote his play out of his frustrated love, which he turns into art. I think it would have been more convincing. But of course then it wouldn't have been a Miramax film . . . ... Read more

Amazon.com

Filmed in the widescreen splendor of "Panavision Super 70" and blessed with the finest production values that Hollywood clout can buy, this tale of spunky Irish immigrants forgot one crucial ingredient: a decent screenplay. The film is entertaining enough, and director Ron Howard brings his technical proficiency to the simple plot, culminating in a dynamic, breathtaking depiction of the Oklahoma land rush of 1893. But the movie is really just a vacuous vehicle for married stars Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman as (respectively) the poor tenant farmer and rich landlord's daughter who flee Ireland to be American pioneers. The scenery and the stars are never less than stunning, but Howard falls short of the mark in his attempt to match the epic sweep of films by David Lean. On the other hand, this movie is certainly never boring even if it rarely makes sense, and Lean's own Irish epic, Ryan's Daughter, is a snoozer by comparison. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Book of Days
Far and Away is such an incredible looking movie that your heart might end up hating your eyes for distracting yourself from the true beauty of the film.

This film is the story of Joesph and his hopes and dreams. His father is killed and he seeks to kill the man that took his land. Joseph meets up with Shannon, the wealthy daughter of the man responsible for taking Joseph's land, and she pays him to take her to America. Unfortunately they're robbed and we see the cold, harsh realities of foreigners trying to survive in America. Through prize fighting, Joseph begins to make a nice life for himself, while the spoiled Shannon ends up plucking chickens to make end's meat. Their trials and tribulations bring them together in one of the best love stories told, and the ending...well, lets just say that it's one of the most wonderful endings you'll find in a film.

Ron Howard has done an incredible job of bringing this film to life, and the performance of Tom Cruise is one of his best ever. Far and Away is a film that you have to see. You'll feel better about life after you have.

A real feel-good love story for the dreamer in us all.
What can I say about this film to begin my review? Three words. I LOVE it. I may be a little biased, but I love things set in Ireland, Scotland, and that area. I was hooked immediately on the beautiful scenery of Ireland's west coast, and my heart was immediately stirred by the rich and dramatic, yet at times very soft and tender music. Even more so when I read "Music By John Williams" in the opening credits. But I digress.

Music and scenery aside this movie still has much going for it, and it really shines. It's a love story yes, but it's beautiful. Others have mentioned the great chemistry between Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman here, and they are right. I am not a big fan of Tom Cruise (Rain Man was excellent though) or Nicole Kidman, but they played very well off each other. This film follows, again as many have mentioned, the two lead characters as they make a harrowing journey from Ireland to Boston to Oklahoma in pursuit of their dreams. His is "I'll work my own land someday" hers is "I'm modern, and I'm going to a modern place" She wants to get away from her parents old-fashioned and "stuffy" way of living.

I hate to diss other films so I'll try not to do that here. I WILL say that I loved the love story in Far And Away because it works. And it works because it is given time to develop. Joseph and Shannon hate each others guts at first and make no secret of it, but they are drawn slowly together by the perils of their journey. It is touching to see their hatred for each other change from hatred to grudging respect, to affection, and finally grow all the way to genuine love. This works MUCH better than spending a day on a ship, and saying to yourself "Oh look, there's a pretty girl up on the next deck. Let's take her dancing, partying, teach her how to spit, how to stand on the back of a ship with her eyes shut and her arms outstretched. Then I'll draw a nude portrait of her, and then we'll go and have sex in the back of a car. All witihin a period of about three or four days." (Just for the record I loved Titanic too, but the "quickie" love story took away from the power of the film JUST a TAD because the love between Rose and Jack was not allowed to GROW and DEVELOP into itself as it is here in FAR AND AWAY. In TITANIC the love between Jack and Rose was just THERE. It was just: Boy meets girl. Girl meets boy. Boy loves girl. Girl loves boy. Badda-BING, Bada-BANG, Badda-BOOM)

I'm sorry, I'm digressing again, so I'll try to keep to the point and keep the rest of this short. In summary , to me this film is a great one, well done in every part of the package. LOVELY scenery is wedded to absolutely beautiful music as two great actors are supported by an assortment of loveable aqquaintances and a couple of dastardly villians (I'm counting Mike Kelly here too, see the film to know who he is and why I call him a villian). All this comes together in a beautiful love story that has the power to touch the heart, and the tear ducts, and make you realize the importance of holding onto and going after your dreams. I loved it, and so can you, if you have the courage to let this film touch your heart. If you do allow that, it will carress it. Peace, and God bless you. Always.

Do you have a craving for strawberry tart?
Watch this movie to find out where that line comes from.

In 1892-93, Tom Cruise is poor Joseph in Ireland and Nicole Kidman is rich Shannon from the same country. Their fake accents are collectively awful. Cruise sounds like a wannabe leprechaun.

Together they run off to America where they tell the landlord they are brother and sister so they can share the rent. Joseph becomes a boxer and wins big in the ring. Shannon decides to be a dancehall girl.

Although they profess to hate each other, you know where that storyline is going to end. It is, after all, Cruise and Kidman in their heyday.

I did like the homesteading scene at the end -- where people raced across the plains and made their claims to land. I hadn't known about that piece of history before. Nicely done, Ron Howard!

Too much edited from TV version
I was very disappointed to find so much missing from this movie on DVD. I have the TV version recorded and I know they left out quite a bit. This seems strange since DVDs are suppose to hold so much more information. I also saw the movie at the theater a couple of times,there are parts missing on the DVD that were in the theater version also. Don't buy the DVD if you enjoyed the TV version"with never before seen footage". I had expected the DVD to cover it all,but at least everything I saw at the theater.

Only because I can't give it zero
This well may have been the worst movie I've ever seen. I only watched it to the end to see if it could continue to deteriorate. Shockingly, it did. The storyline was terrible, the dialogue was worse. The best part (or worst, depending on how you look at these things) was the very end. Just when you think the film couldn't get more insipid, a horse rolls over Tom Cruise and, much to Nicole Kidman's chagrin, he dies. She starts crying and screaming over his dead body and, shades of Beauty and the Beast, his eyes suddenly pop open. Yes, he's been brought back to life by the strength of her love. What were these people thinking? If you are trying to find a movie to fill out your list of the ten most worthless films of all time, check this one out. If not, don't bother. ... Read more

Reviews (373)

We Will, We Will, Rock You!
The vision of a remarkably authentic looking 14th c. tournament audience chanting and clapping to Queen lets you know right off this is *not* a serious historical film but a fantasy set in a land-of-fable fourteenth century complete with punk dressing lady-fairs, disco dancing at banquets and jousting fans who paint their faces with the armorial devices of their favorite champions and do the wave. Geoffrey Chaucer must be spinning in his fancy, Westminster Abbey sarcophagus - or maybe not, his Canterbury tales aren't exactly noted for historical accuracy or logical consistancy either. This movie is eye candy for the ladies: the hero is blond and gorgeous; the villain dark, sinister and gorgeous; the humorous sidekicks are cute and cuddly and the gallant Black Prince noble and beautiful. 'Lady Jocelyn' isn't bad either, and her costumes get progressively more outrageous as the movie goes on. But the best joke is who the *real* Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein was, (yes there was a real one!)

A fun, quirky film
I thouroughly enjoyed A Knight's Tale. It had all of the components one needs for an enjoyable film: action, romance, drama(and not to mention extremely good looking guys) I loved the seventies music mixed with a medievel setting(some people say that that's what ruined the movie for them, but I though it worked) Basically the movie is about a young man(Heath Ledger, gorgeous!) who is a peasant, but dreams about changin his stars. His opportunity comes about when his master dies at a jousting tournament and he has to fill in for him. He meets a writer along the way, none other than Geoffrey Chaucer(played by a hilarious Paul Bettany) who agrees to forge his...papers(I can't remember what they're called), anyway, he enters in a jousting tournament, and what do you know, turns out to be a natural. However, he must compete with Count Adhemar(Rufus Sewell, who is just as gorgeous as Heath and boy, can he play a spectacular villain) for the title and for the princess(played by a stiff as a board Shannon Sossomon) Yeah, yeah, good guy defeats bad guy and gets girl. So it's a little cliche, but it's pure fun. I though the suporrting cast was excellent also. I was rather hoping that Heath would fall for the female blacksmith rather than the haughty princess, but I suppose the masses wouldn't like that as much. Also, James Purefoy who plays the Black Prince is extremely good looking also. There's pleny of eye candy for the girls, and plenty of action for the guys.

Fun, if you still know how to have fun.
A Knight's Tale is what you get when you cross underdog sports drama, comedy, medieval knights, and a healthy dose of Gen X attitude. William Thatcher is a nobody, son of a peasant, fascinated with knights. When the knight he's serving dies before the final round of a joust, William takes a chance and assumes his identity.

The show wastes no time whatsoever getting straight to the fun stuff. The above paragraph is the very first thing you'll see in the movie, and the very next is the movie's first joust set to Queen's We Will Rock You. The twist here isn't just a cheap soundtrack, but the fact that it's interwoven into the movie itself. The jousting audience is more of a football crowd, clapping along to the legendary beat and having fun. The herald trumpet players are even shown to belt a few notes, while the guards step along.

The best example I can think of this previously is Robin Hood: Men in Tights. A Knight's Tale takes it one step farther however by taking it all very seriously. By the end of the show you could almost believe it. Heralds that sound more like boxing announcers, armor with famous looking logos, ultra modern hair and outfits, and even an amazing dance sequence that blends classical with modern set to David Bowie. It's a highlight of the movie and worth watching just for that scene alone.

The best thing I can say about A Knight's Tale is how real it all is, despite it's theme. The modern aspects are blended into the events with real tact, the comedy is honestly funny, and the drama is in no way cheapened by the lightheartedness. It's not exactly Oscar material, but the show has a few honestly dramatic and heart touching moments that are go over extremely well to anyone but scoffing critics.

If you've ever had even a slight fascination with Knights and the joust, give this a watch. It's a great movie filled with all the fun and wit one could ask for. The Gen X attitude may seem like a gimmick, but if you're as tired as I am of lame actors speaking in extremely poor old English, this movie is for you.

Will rock you
This movie was great fun and entertaining. Great film? Nah. Great way to spend an afternoon with some popcorn and Junior Mints? Oh yeah! I enjoyed everything about this movie. I thought it was well cast, well played and well paced.

Fun fluff but poor history
A lot of people seem to like this movie. I can't help but go against the grain here. As an action movie, it seems entertaining enough. As an historical action film, it left me feeling cheated.

The primary reviewer here said: "Upon witnessing a crowd of peasants at a jousting match, singing and clapping to the beat of Queen's "We Will Rock You," you're either going to love this movie or dismiss it altogether." I was one who dismissed it at that point. The "jarring anachronisms" were not only out of place, but they were unneeded and did nothing to benefit the film. The rock music is fine in itself, but did they really have to simulate the crowd dancing to it? Perhaps if they had just had a more "tongue in cheek" approach to this... witness Moulin Rouge and how they played up their use of modern song and dance in the late 1800's. But here the production seems to imply either one of 2 things: you the viewer are either so savvy about historical details that the anachronisms add a light-hearted comic touch, or the producers do not care a whit about how historical details may be judged by the viewer. Had this been a very funny movie I think I could have dealt with it better. ... Read more

Amazon.com

One of the most winning and intelligent romantic comedies of the '90s, Shakespeare in Love is filled with such good will, sunny romance, snappy one-liners, and devilish cleverness that it's absolutely irresistible. At the 1999 Academy Awards, this dark-horse costume comedy sneaked off with sevenOscars, besting the highly favored Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture. With tongue placed firmly in cheek, at its outset the film tracks young Will Shakespeare's overwrought battle with writer's block and the efforts of theater owner Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush, in rare form) to stage Will's latest comedy, Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter. Most of the jokes in the first one-third of the film are along these lines: Will's anachronistic therapist session, a mug inscribed "A Souvenir from Stratford-Upon-Avon," Henslowe's battles to pay off his debts, and the backstage high jinks of pre-production. However, once Will sets his eyes on the beautiful Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow), joking takes a backseat to ravishing romance. Well, almost--turns out Viola wants to break into the world of male-only theater, and disguises herself as a young man to wangle herself an audition. She wins the part of Romeo and, after much misunderstanding, the playwright's heart. Soon enough, Will's pirate comedy becomes a beautiful, tragic romance, and Ethel is shoved aside for a woman named Juliet. Will and Viola's romance, however, is equal parts comedy and tragedy--he's married, and she's betrothed to the slimy Lord Wessex (Colin Firth), and it doesn't take an English major to figure out that it's not all's well that ends well.

Like Shakespeare's work itself, the film is instantly accessible to everyone, from the raucous groundlings looking for low comedy to the aesthetes hankering for some intellectual bite behind their entertainment. The way that Oscar-winning screenwriters Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard enfold their story within the parameters of Romeo and Juliet (and even Twelfth Night) is nothing short of brilliant--it would take a Shakespearean scholar to dissect the innumerable parallels, oft-quoted lines, plot developments, and thematic borrowings. And most amazingly, Norman and Stoppard haven't forgotten to entertain their audience in addition to riding a Shakespearean roller coaster. Director John Madden(Mrs. Brown) reigns in his huge ensemble with a rollicking energythat keeps the film's momentum going at top speed for its entire two hours. Along the way there are small gems to be found: Ben Affleck's riotous egotistical actor, Imelda Staunton's nimble nurse, and of course Judi Dench's eight-minute,Oscar-winning turn as a truly regal Queen Elizabeth. However, the key element of Shakespeare in Love's success rests on the milky-white shoulders of its two stars. Fiennes, inexplicably overlooked at Oscar time, is a dashing Will as we might expect him at the early stage of his career, bundled full of comedy and tragedy but unsure of how to harness his talent. And as for Best Actress winner Paltrow... well, nothing she'd done before could have prepared viewers for how amazing she is here. Breathtakingly beautiful, fiercely intelligent, strong-willed, and lovestruck--it's a performance worthy of Shakespeare in more ways than one. Bythe film's end, you'll be thoroughly won over--and brushing up your Shakespeare with newfound ardor. --Mark Englehart ... Read more

Reviews (456)

Not of an age, but for all time. And better on DVD
Purists who turn up their noses at Shakespeare in Love don't know what they're talking about - or rather, don't know what they're missing. This was, after all, written by Tom Stoppard, author of some of the very best plays of modern times (Arcadia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead - the latter filmed with Gary Oldman and Tim Roth). He's done a splendid job of balancing accessibility with genuine wit. The screenplay is littered with allusions to the bard's works, and gives some great - albeit hypothetical - insights into how and why he wrote.

Beyond that, in true Shakespearean style, we are offered the "play within the play" - in this case Romeo and Juliet. Excellent editing gives us just enough to convey the mood of an Elizabethan performance, leaving us wanting more. This film does a great job of broadening the appeal of the most popular writer.

And don't miss the topical in-jokes - the "cabby" rowing the boat, and especially Glenda Jackson saying she knows what it's like to do a man's job (she plays "M" in the Bond movies). Bill S. would have approved. High praise indeed.

Top-Ten Romance, and One of the Most Clever Screenplays!
"Shakespeare in Love" is a triumph, pure and simple. With screenwriters Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman at the top of their game and feeding immortal lines to a top-notch cast, "Shakespeare in Love" could not fail to succeed.

The film opens with young Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) struggling with writer's block . . . he is clearly not yet the magnificent WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE (insert trumpets here), the world's most famous writer. Indeed, the top playwright of the age is Kit Marlowe (Rupert Everett), as Shakespeare is reminded several times. And young Will is also hopelessly infatuated with Rosaline, a woman completely unworthy of his affections.

After some psychotherapy that anticipates Freud, Will is no better. Still, heavily in debt, Will attempts to stage his next opus, "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter." Working with Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush, who would have stolen a lesser film with his perfect performance), who's also heavily in debt, Will seems headed for disaster.

That is, until he sees his muse, young Viola de Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow, never better). Smitten, young Will begins to write the romantic poetry that becomes "Romeo and Juliet." Viola, who recognizes Will's genius, meets Will through some classic Shakespearean disguises and mistaken identities. Of course, Viola is betrothed to a true slug, Lord Wessex (a plump Colin Firth), who plans to take her to Virginia in seek his fortune across the sea -- essentially sending her into exile.

Despite the roadblocks, Will and Viola are soon hopelessly in love. Viola, daring to breach the silly rule that only men can play parts on stage, has taken the role of Romeo by day. By night, Will and Viola write Will's most romantic play together.

"SIL" keeps the wheels turning mighty fast, and one of the joys of watching this movie over and over is catching a quick joke that you didn't get the first time around.

It's also a pleasure to watch this stellar cast go through its paces. While Judi Dench won her Oscar for her surprisingly brief performance as Queen Elizabeth, other actors turn in equally entertaining performances. Tom Wilkinson, Simon Callow, Martin Clunes, and Imelda Staunton each bring amazing proficiency to the supporting cast, and even the much-maligned appearance of Ben Affleck elevates the movie -- he is perfectly cast as a self-absorbed theater star (first line -- "What is the play, and what is my part?"). Affleck's comeuppance, when he realizes that he, as Mercutio, doesn't have the title role, is handled wonderfully well.

This is simply a movie that doesn't miss a trick. The film is shot beautifully, the extravagent costuming gets at the ridiculous conformity that we associate with jolly old England (and makes the torrid romance of Will and Viola that much more intimate), and the music is uplifting.

The film's final shot, as Viola walks along the beach and we realize that we've just seen the birth of arguably Shakespeare's greatest heroine, Viola of "Twelfth Night," is a masterpiece of powerful understatement.

This movie is simply a must for the film library!

A GOOFY YET DELICIOUSLY SEDUCTIVE ROMANTIC COMEDY!
The DVD casing claimed in big bold letters "Best Screenplay" Academy Award winner. I can surely see why! Must have been some deviously creative team that crafted this crisp comic period-piece.

The film is really two love stories: one a bawdy romance between two smitten humans, and the other an ode to the art of theatre. The writers'/director's love for showmanship is loud and evident throughout the brilliant screenplay, and if you're a fan of wordplay in any way, well then this is a surefire delight.

Both Paltrow and Fienners turn in lusciously romantic performances in their respective roles -- she pulls off the formidable order of gender-switching without a hitch, and he has just the right pitches and patterns for a young, struggling Shakespeare. Geoffrey Rush is magnetic as usual.

Don't be fooled by the Elizabethan accoutrements, this film and its arsenal of laconic quips could easily shoot several contemporary romances to dust. Buy this one in fact, don't just rent, it quite comfortably stands the test of more than one viewing..

Rush in an unforgettable role
Although Geoffrey Rush is not the star of the film, he delivers a memorable performance, as usual. Fiennes does, also. The costuming is very beautiful, and the humour is delightful. Highly reccommended.

Emotionally Fraudulent and Morally Offensive NON-Love Story
Before I start out, I should say that I am NOT one of those people who think they have to deride "Shakespeare in Love" because it's a "chick flick" and therefore unworthy(?!) of Oscars. Nor do I feel the need to condemn it for winning Best Picture over "Saving Private Ryan," as so many have done. I certainly do have a beef in that regard -- and it's that my own favorite film of 1998, "The Truman Show," wasn't even nominated for Best Picture! But none of these things have anything to do with my loathing for "Shakespeare in Love." My beef is solely with the offensive nature of the film itself. It's advertised as a love story, but is emotionally and morally empty when it comes to any notion of love.

You could see the writers straining to convince us that those two awesomely idiotic characters, Will and Viola, were really deserving to be the inspiration for "Romeo and Juliet." The film wanted to show that "the truth and nature of love" so magnificently expressed in Shakespeare's play resulted from this casual (and to my mind very unromantic) affair between a lying weasel of a married man, and an apparently dimwitted girl who can't be bothered to decide whether she wants to marry him or not, though she's being forced into marriage with a man she hates.

Starting out by having a man needing to fall in love for a mercenary reason -- so he can finish his play -- and then conveniently having him decide that the first pretty girl who comes along is the love of his life, doesn't strike me as a convincing way to start a love story. Did writers Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard really stop to think this out? From the beginning we know he's using this girl, and they never find a convincing way to show us that this ever changes.

The worst line in the film, to my mind, comes right after their first soft-core sex scene. Viola murmurs: "I never would have believed that there could be something better than a play -- even your play!" Will: "Huh?" Well, there goes any possible higher emotional or spiritual aspect to their relationship.

This is the deepest flaw in the movie (which was otherwise well acted, gorgeously shot and beautifully costumed). I could not enjoy it or buy into it in the slightest because the fundamental conception of the filmmakers was based on modern notions of love that don't go beyond the purely physical. Descriptions of love in Western literature have at least on occasion gone much deeper than that. The Will in "Shakespeare in Love" not only couldn't have written "Romeo and Juliet"'s dramatic sonnet "If I profane with my unworthiest hand this holy shrine. . ." he wouldn't even have been able to understand it.

Not to mention the glamorization of a man's adultery, and the strenuous attempts to avoid all the real-life emotional ramifications of such an action, in favor of a feel-good justification of it, in spite of the obvious harm to the young virginal woman who was used by a cad. But it's excused and made to seem no real harm, by having her anger abated by thinking Will is dead, then readily going back to him when she discovers he's alive (a cheap dramatic trick if I ever saw one). Above all, no matter what a real Elizabethan girl's attitude miught have been, Viola is made to adopt the "modern" attitude (love is just a "stolen season").

I think there actually could have been a believable story in the idea of Shakespeare falling in love while writing "Romeo and Juliet." Why not start with the historical fact that Shakespeare didn't even make up the plot of the play at all, much less make it up out of his own love life? In fact, "Romeo and Juliet" was an Italian novella that had gone the rounds of Europe, had been turned into a French play, an English poem and at least one preceding English play. What if Shakespeare finds himself adapting this love story, not believing in love, then actually falls in love in a way that resembles the plot of "Romeo and Juliet"? I think it would have been nice if he had fallen in love with a virgin like Viola, realized in all conscience he couldn't take advantage of her, and wrote his play out of his frustrated love, which he turns into art. I think it would have been more convincing. But of course then it wouldn't have been a Miramax film . . . ... Read more

Reviews (42)

Very Thought of You charms the very heart
I finally rented "The Very Thought of You" on a whim with some friends, after tiring of always seeing it on the "New Release" shelf and not knowing what it was about. What we eneded up watching was an endearing romantic comedy with great repartee and interesting plot development. The story of Martha (Monica Potter) and her unplanned trip to London causes her to meet lifelong buddies Daniel (Tom Hollander), Lawrence (Joseph Fiennes) and Frank (Rufus Sewell) who, independently and at different times, met and fell in love with her. The narrative moves backwards and forwards, gradually filling in gaps until we see the story of the three men unfold. Cute, amusing and very watchable movie, this is a great feel good movie to watch any time of the year.

Really cute, but not a classic
This may horrify Joeseph Fiennes fans, who seem to be this movie's main audience, but he is not the best thing about it. No, neither is Monica Potter, although she has an easy charm and a truly gorgeous smile. The best thing about the film are the three hilarious supporting performances. Tom Hollander is great as an unlikely rock star and ego-maniac, Ray Winstone charming as the "psychiatrist" and Rufus Sewell constantly giggle-inducing as the unemployed and unemployable actor (the best scene has got to be him on the bus shouting "I love my mother" and hyper-ventilating about an upcoming audition). Anyhow, despite great work from these three, the movie suffers from being so outrageously implausible. Oh well, it's a romantic comedy, and it is a lot of fun. Just remember: T.H, R.W, and R.S. are the real stars here!

Sorry Hollywood!
This movie, which by the way is actually called "Martha meet Frank, Daniel and Lawrence" (too complicated for the American market???), Britains Daily Mail lables "The best romantic commedy EVER - and it's British!". Being no friend of Romantic commedies in general, I find myself not having anything to add to this. This is as un-Hollywood as can be, although it sports the usual Happy End with a kiss. But man, this is the first time I actually wanted this to happen... ;-)
You might aswell buy it, because you end up renting it again anyways...
PS: The original title hints at the plot and the way it is narrated....changing it was a big mistake!

PPS: Just breezed through the reviews and noticed that some people found the plot implausible.(!) WELL, OF COURSE IT IS! But that's totally beside the point! How plausible is "Much Ado about Nothing"?? Doesn't make it any worse a play, now does it?

I liked it
I thought this movie was very cute. It didn't play out like your typical love story, and I thought it was amusing to see 3 friends fall in love with the same woman, and not one of them knew it! I especially liked the idea of just getting on a plane, regardless of where it was going, and starting over...it's something that makes this movie really cute, even if a bit predictable. Overall, I can't see why it didn't make into theatres....if XXX, Gigli, and many others made it, then the reasons that something decent like this didn't eludes me. Go rent it, and have fun!

Martha meet Frank, Daniel and Lawrence
This was how i came to know this video so maybe thats just the british version. To me that title just denotes the meandering quality of the film. I like the way fate worked in this movie and although it was hopelessly unrealistic I enjoyed it alot. It was very funny and Joseph Fiennes gives an excellent performance in his role as caught-in-the-middle lawrence, and despite the fantatical nature of the storyline the friendship the three men have is so true to life you can believe in it. They are all very good actors. If you, like me, find yourself drawn to romantic movies with happy endings do yourself a favour and watch this. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A Knight's Tale
There's no rule against rock anthems from the 1970s in the soundtrack for a movie about a medieval jousting champion, but if you're going to attempt such jarring anachronisms, you'd better establish acceptable ground rules. Writer-director Brian Helgeland does precisely that in A Knight's Tale and pulls off this trick with such giddy aplomb that you can't help but play along. (Upon witnessing a crowd of peasants at a jousting match, singing and clapping to the beat of Queen's "We Will Rock You," you're either going to love this movie or dismiss it altogether.) Other vintage rock hits will follow, but Helgeland--the Oscar®-winning cowriter of L.A. Confidential--handles this ploy with judicious goodwill, in what is an otherwise honest period piece about a peasant named William (Heath Ledger) who rises by grit and determination to the hallowed status of knighthood.As if the soundtrack weren't audacious enough, Helgeland (recovering from the sour experience of his directorial debut, Payback) casts none other than Geoffrey Chaucer (wonderfully played by Paul Bettany) as William's cohort and match announcer, along with William's pals Roland (Mark Addy) and Wat (Alan Tudyk), and feisty blacksmith Kate (Laura Fraser). Of course there must be a fair maiden, and she is Jocelyn (newcomer Shannyn Sossamon), with whom William falls in love while battling the nefarious Count Adhemar (Rufus Sewell) on the European jousting circuit. Add to this an inspiring father-son reunion, Ledger's undeniable charisma, a perfect supporting cast, and enough joyful energy to rejuvenate the film's formulaic plot, and A Knight's Tale becomes that most pleasant of movie surprises--an unlikely winner that rises up, like its hero, to exceed all expectations. --Jeff Shannon

First Knight
1995 had already seen the box-office success of sword-wielding heroes in Rob Roy and Braveheart when along came this glossy revision of the Arthurian legend, in which Lady Guinevere (Julia Ormond) is torn between her love for the noble King Arthur (Sean Connery) and the passionate knight Sir Lancelot (Richard Gere). As the story opens, Guinevere's lands are under attack by the evil knight Malagant (Ben Cross), and she must choose between marriage to Arthur and the security of Camelot, or encouraging the affections of Lancelot, who has heroically rescued her from a potentially lethal attack. Anyone looking for meticulous medieval authenticity won't find it here, but director Jerry Zucker (Ghost) keeps the action moving with exuberant spirit and glorious production values. Even if you don't completely believe Richard Gere as a somewhat too-contemporary Lancelot, the performances of Ormond and especially Connery are effortlessly appealing. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Description

The Superbit titles utilize a special high bit rate digital encoding process which optimizes video quality while offering a choice of both DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. These titles have been produced by a team of Sony Pictures Digital Studios video, sound and mastering engineers and comes housed in a special package complete with a 4 page booklet that contains technical information on the Superbit process. By reallocating space on the disc normally used for value-added content, Superbit DVDs can be encoded at double their normal bit rate while maintaining full compatibility with the DVD video format. ... Read more

Reviews (373)

We Will, We Will, Rock You!
The vision of a remarkably authentic looking 14th c. tournament audience chanting and clapping to Queen lets you know right off this is *not* a serious historical film but a fantasy set in a land-of-fable fourteenth century complete with punk dressing lady-fairs, disco dancing at banquets and jousting fans who paint their faces with the armorial devices of their favorite champions and do the wave. Geoffrey Chaucer must be spinning in his fancy, Westminster Abbey sarcophagus - or maybe not, his Canterbury tales aren't exactly noted for historical accuracy or logical consistancy either. This movie is eye candy for the ladies: the hero is blond and gorgeous; the villain dark, sinister and gorgeous; the humorous sidekicks are cute and cuddly and the gallant Black Prince noble and beautiful. 'Lady Jocelyn' isn't bad either, and her costumes get progressively more outrageous as the movie goes on. But the best joke is who the *real* Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein was, (yes there was a real one!)

A fun, quirky film
I thouroughly enjoyed A Knight's Tale. It had all of the components one needs for an enjoyable film: action, romance, drama(and not to mention extremely good looking guys) I loved the seventies music mixed with a medievel setting(some people say that that's what ruined the movie for them, but I though it worked) Basically the movie is about a young man(Heath Ledger, gorgeous!) who is a peasant, but dreams about changin his stars. His opportunity comes about when his master dies at a jousting tournament and he has to fill in for him. He meets a writer along the way, none other than Geoffrey Chaucer(played by a hilarious Paul Bettany) who agrees to forge his...papers(I can't remember what they're called), anyway, he enters in a jousting tournament, and what do you know, turns out to be a natural. However, he must compete with Count Adhemar(Rufus Sewell, who is just as gorgeous as Heath and boy, can he play a spectacular villain) for the title and for the princess(played by a stiff as a board Shannon Sossomon) Yeah, yeah, good guy defeats bad guy and gets girl. So it's a little cliche, but it's pure fun. I though the suporrting cast was excellent also. I was rather hoping that Heath would fall for the female blacksmith rather than the haughty princess, but I suppose the masses wouldn't like that as much. Also, James Purefoy who plays the Black Prince is extremely good looking also. There's pleny of eye candy for the girls, and plenty of action for the guys.

Fun, if you still know how to have fun.
A Knight's Tale is what you get when you cross underdog sports drama, comedy, medieval knights, and a healthy dose of Gen X attitude. William Thatcher is a nobody, son of a peasant, fascinated with knights. When the knight he's serving dies before the final round of a joust, William takes a chance and assumes his identity.

The show wastes no time whatsoever getting straight to the fun stuff. The above paragraph is the very first thing you'll see in the movie, and the very next is the movie's first joust set to Queen's We Will Rock You. The twist here isn't just a cheap soundtrack, but the fact that it's interwoven into the movie itself. The jousting audience is more of a football crowd, clapping along to the legendary beat and having fun. The herald trumpet players are even shown to belt a few notes, while the guards step along.

The best example I can think of this previously is Robin Hood: Men in Tights. A Knight's Tale takes it one step farther however by taking it all very seriously. By the end of the show you could almost believe it. Heralds that sound more like boxing announcers, armor with famous looking logos, ultra modern hair and outfits, and even an amazing dance sequence that blends classical with modern set to David Bowie. It's a highlight of the movie and worth watching just for that scene alone.

The best thing I can say about A Knight's Tale is how real it all is, despite it's theme. The modern aspects are blended into the events with real tact, the comedy is honestly funny, and the drama is in no way cheapened by the lightheartedness. It's not exactly Oscar material, but the show has a few honestly dramatic and heart touching moments that are go over extremely well to anyone but scoffing critics.

If you've ever had even a slight fascination with Knights and the joust, give this a watch. It's a great movie filled with all the fun and wit one could ask for. The Gen X attitude may seem like a gimmick, but if you're as tired as I am of lame actors speaking in extremely poor old English, this movie is for you.

Will rock you
This movie was great fun and entertaining. Great film? Nah. Great way to spend an afternoon with some popcorn and Junior Mints? Oh yeah! I enjoyed everything about this movie. I thought it was well cast, well played and well paced.

Fun fluff but poor history
A lot of people seem to like this movie. I can't help but go against the grain here. As an action movie, it seems entertaining enough. As an historical action film, it left me feeling cheated.

The primary reviewer here said: "Upon witnessing a crowd of peasants at a jousting match, singing and clapping to the beat of Queen's "We Will Rock You," you're either going to love this movie or dismiss it altogether." I was one who dismissed it at that point. The "jarring anachronisms" were not only out of place, but they were unneeded and did nothing to benefit the film. The rock music is fine in itself, but did they really have to simulate the crowd dancing to it? Perhaps if they had just had a more "tongue in cheek" approach to this... witness Moulin Rouge and how they played up their use of modern song and dance in the late 1800's. But here the production seems to imply either one of 2 things: you the viewer are either so savvy about historical details that the anachronisms add a light-hearted comic touch, or the producers do not care a whit about how historical details may be judged by the viewer. Had this been a very funny movie I think I could have dealt with it better. ... Read more

Reviews (373)

We Will, We Will, Rock You!
The vision of a remarkably authentic looking 14th c. tournament audience chanting and clapping to Queen lets you know right off this is *not* a serious historical film but a fantasy set in a land-of-fable fourteenth century complete with punk dressing lady-fairs, disco dancing at banquets and jousting fans who paint their faces with the armorial devices of their favorite champions and do the wave. Geoffrey Chaucer must be spinning in his fancy, Westminster Abbey sarcophagus - or maybe not, his Canterbury tales aren't exactly noted for historical accuracy or logical consistancy either. This movie is eye candy for the ladies: the hero is blond and gorgeous; the villain dark, sinister and gorgeous; the humorous sidekicks are cute and cuddly and the gallant Black Prince noble and beautiful. 'Lady Jocelyn' isn't bad either, and her costumes get progressively more outrageous as the movie goes on. But the best joke is who the *real* Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein was, (yes there was a real one!)

A fun, quirky film
I thouroughly enjoyed A Knight's Tale. It had all of the components one needs for an enjoyable film: action, romance, drama(and not to mention extremely good looking guys) I loved the seventies music mixed with a medievel setting(some people say that that's what ruined the movie for them, but I though it worked) Basically the movie is about a young man(Heath Ledger, gorgeous!) who is a peasant, but dreams about changin his stars. His opportunity comes about when his master dies at a jousting tournament and he has to fill in for him. He meets a writer along the way, none other than Geoffrey Chaucer(played by a hilarious Paul Bettany) who agrees to forge his...papers(I can't remember what they're called), anyway, he enters in a jousting tournament, and what do you know, turns out to be a natural. However, he must compete with Count Adhemar(Rufus Sewell, who is just as gorgeous as Heath and boy, can he play a spectacular villain) for the title and for the princess(played by a stiff as a board Shannon Sossomon) Yeah, yeah, good guy defeats bad guy and gets girl. So it's a little cliche, but it's pure fun. I though the suporrting cast was excellent also. I was rather hoping that Heath would fall for the female blacksmith rather than the haughty princess, but I suppose the masses wouldn't like that as much. Also, James Purefoy who plays the Black Prince is extremely good looking also. There's pleny of eye candy for the girls, and plenty of action for the guys.

Fun, if you still know how to have fun.
A Knight's Tale is what you get when you cross underdog sports drama, comedy, medieval knights, and a healthy dose of Gen X attitude. William Thatcher is a nobody, son of a peasant, fascinated with knights. When the knight he's serving dies before the final round of a joust, William takes a chance and assumes his identity.

The show wastes no time whatsoever getting straight to the fun stuff. The above paragraph is the very first thing you'll see in the movie, and the very next is the movie's first joust set to Queen's We Will Rock You. The twist here isn't just a cheap soundtrack, but the fact that it's interwoven into the movie itself. The jousting audience is more of a football crowd, clapping along to the legendary beat and having fun. The herald trumpet players are even shown to belt a few notes, while the guards step along.

The best example I can think of this previously is Robin Hood: Men in Tights. A Knight's Tale takes it one step farther however by taking it all very seriously. By the end of the show you could almost believe it. Heralds that sound more like boxing announcers, armor with famous looking logos, ultra modern hair and outfits, and even an amazing dance sequence that blends classical with modern set to David Bowie. It's a highlight of the movie and worth watching just for that scene alone.

The best thing I can say about A Knight's Tale is how real it all is, despite it's theme. The modern aspects are blended into the events with real tact, the comedy is honestly funny, and the drama is in no way cheapened by the lightheartedness. It's not exactly Oscar material, but the show has a few honestly dramatic and heart touching moments that are go over extremely well to anyone but scoffing critics.

If you've ever had even a slight fascination with Knights and the joust, give this a watch. It's a great movie filled with all the fun and wit one could ask for. The Gen X attitude may seem like a gimmick, but if you're as tired as I am of lame actors speaking in extremely poor old English, this movie is for you.

Will rock you
This movie was great fun and entertaining. Great film? Nah. Great way to spend an afternoon with some popcorn and Junior Mints? Oh yeah! I enjoyed everything about this movie. I thought it was well cast, well played and well paced.

Fun fluff but poor history
A lot of people seem to like this movie. I can't help but go against the grain here. As an action movie, it seems entertaining enough. As an historical action film, it left me feeling cheated.

The primary reviewer here said: "Upon witnessing a crowd of peasants at a jousting match, singing and clapping to the beat of Queen's "We Will Rock You," you're either going to love this movie or dismiss it altogether." I was one who dismissed it at that point. The "jarring anachronisms" were not only out of place, but they were unneeded and did nothing to benefit the film. The rock music is fine in itself, but did they really have to simulate the crowd dancing to it? Perhaps if they had just had a more "tongue in cheek" approach to this... witness Moulin Rouge and how they played up their use of modern song and dance in the late 1800's. But here the production seems to imply either one of 2 things: you the viewer are either so savvy about historical details that the anachronisms add a light-hearted comic touch, or the producers do not care a whit about how historical details may be judged by the viewer. Had this been a very funny movie I think I could have dealt with it better. ... Read more