Shakespeare In Love
Reviewed by Nathan Johnston
Rating: 5 Beans
ear ye Hear ye... thou art about to read about the 1998 Academy Award winner for Best Picture. It 'tis the merry olde tale called "Shakespeare in Love". And 'tis a load of complete piffle.
Anyway, after that weak Olde English introduction, I'll get up to speed with the 90's version. Here goes: this year's so called 'best picture' is one of the biggest servings of pretentious garbage that I have seen in years. The scriptwriters who penned this movie were not thinking of entertaining the general public (which should be their goal - or am I just that naive?), but were rather thinking how many statutes they could con the academy into handing them.
It was too bad there were no public executions in the movie. For surely it would have been the proudction crew of this heap of lukewarm leftovers of a movie that would have been the people being beheaded.
The movie had pretty much no entertainment value at all. Ultimately, I thought the interweaving Shakespeare's life with the writing of his arguably greatest and most tragic love story made for a story that was as strong as Bill Clinton's defense against Ms Lewinsky. The movie was not original in the slightest and was overrated in the extreme. The movie was full of posturing by a whole lot of people who think they are beautiful. The exception being Geoffery Rush who knows he is about as appealing as John Howard or Madeline Albright in a bikini. This is still more appealing than Joseph Fiennes though, who looks as though you could give him a heart attack if you even casually thought about it. Finally, Gwyneth Paltrow, in my opinion looks better dressed in drag that she does as a woman.
This is such an unfulfilling empty shell of a movie. It serves no purpose except to show how easily people can be fooled into thinking that a very ordinary film can be thought of as a stylish and ground-breaking achievement. The conclusion of the flick being a good example. Apart from the ending being completely unsatisfying and inane (much like oh... the first two hours of the movie), the writing and imagery here serve no purpose whatsoever other than to try and look good, and to con extra Academy voters into wasting their votes on it. I imagine the screenwriters next script will be titled "101 Ways to Con the Oscar Academy". Hell, they may right a book, sell the movie rights and make a complete fortune.
Continuing to rant... How the movie garnished such acclaim is beyond me. The script that tries so hard to be clever and amusing by interweaving some of the Bard's most famous lines into his life, come's off completely contrived and half-baked. The actors, with the expection of Rush and Ben Affleck plod through the movie looking thoroughly uninterested. Paltrow would have to be the worst actress to win an Best Actress award since... well... Helen Hunt the year before (okay, bad example). How Cate Blanchett was overlooked for her role in "Elizabeth" for Paltrow is something that with confound me to my grave. But I digress (as usual)... not that I have much more to say.
Little style and even less substance... no wonder it did so well.
Other reviews for this movie:
"Bad Movie Night" is a presentation of
Hit-n-Run Productions, © 1997-2006,
a subsidiary of Syphon Interactive, LLC.
Site created and managed by Ken and Scoot