John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
Possibly the most notorious product of the Harvey Weinstein-era of the Academy Awards was Shakespeare in Love's win over the much more liked Saving Private Ryan (1998) and The Thin Red Line (1998). Although I am not a fan of either of those two films I can see why they are objectively better than this icky Gwyneth Paltrow vehicle. With a screenplay loaded with in-jokes about Shakespeare, courtesy of Tom Stoppard, and several opportunities for the sort of humor that only a RADA graduate could love this was certainly a film tailored to actors who had been "treading the boards." Both this and the whisper campaign against Saving Private Ryan caused Academy voters to award this undeserving film the top prize and it is a damn shame considering the classics that came out of 1998.
William Shakespeare, Joseph Fiennes, is facing writer's block with very little time to complete his next play when he meets the beautiful Viola de Lesseps, Gwyneth Paltrow, who is hiding several secrets. In order to become an actress she must dress up as a man and when she begins an affair with Shakespeare their off-screen affair effects their on-stage work. Supporting players include Ben Affleck as the originator of Mercutio, Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth I for a whole eight minutes and Colin Firth as de Lesseps' unappealing fiancï¿ 1/2 1/2 (C). In the end the two lovers are separated but not before she inspires several of Shakespeare's greatest plays.
This film is categorized as a "romantic comedy" but I would dispute that as it is not particularly romantic. In theory we get the classic tale of a fuck boy being tamed by a sweet but ultimately unobtainable woman who teaches him a few things about love and commitment. On screen none of the charm that could come with that story is present as Paltrow and Fiennes lack any real chemistry and their dialogue feels so self-conscious that it is hard to believe in any real ï¿ 1/2 1/2~connection' between them. The infamous love scene in which the binding under Paltrow's dress takes an unbelievably long time to remove is not sexy or funny but dull. Comedic sex scenes can work in otherwise romantic films, see The Big Sick (2016), but here it just felt painful as we see Paltrow strain for demure sexuality and Fiennes be his unexciting self.
I was more often annoyed by the movie's references to Shakespeare's real personal history, his multiple signatures and significantly older wife, than charmed by or amused by it. In particular Dench's glorified cameo as the Queen irked me as she does little more than a bad Spitting Image style impression, I expected more from the woman who made Notes on a Scandal (2006) so deliciously uncomfortable. Affleck is not an able comedic performer, as shown by his performance in the romantic comedy Jersey Girl (2004), and here all of his shortcomings are on display as he seems lost amongst the pretension and pageantry on display throughout the film, that is not to say that Affleck is not himself pretentious. A romantic comedy should also be funny and this film is certainly not, it's painful to listen to Paltrow deliver lines that Stoppard has written with a smack of self-satisfaction.
The film is neither romantic nor funny and is far too satisfied with it's own ï¿ 1/2 1/2~intelligent' jokes to really be enjoyed by anybody. Down with Love (2003) contains inside jokes that playfully mock the romantic comedies of the 1950s like Pillow Talk (1959) whilst also having a lovely romance and some laugh out loud moments. Shakespeare in Love doesn't even feel like it has any real love for it's subject and it's jokes aren't enjoyably light and playfully they just land without a trace of the laughter they are meant to create.
I obviously don't think that this is the best film of 1998, a really interesting year for cinema, because it's not very funny, the performances aren't very good and it's suffocating in it's pretension. One of the many better films to come out of 1998 was Life Is Beautiful which is charming and deceptively meaningful without feeling pretentious or annoying. If you take anything away from this lengthy review please, please don't watch Shakespeare in Love and instead watch Life Is Beautiful (1998) or any of the other countless great films to come out of 1998.
Mentioning the film Shakespeare In Love to most anyone will elicit the same reaction as mentioning the 2004 film Crash. 'Oh, that shouldn't have won Best Picture, (insert appropriate cinematic superior here) should have. Having seeing it, I can say with confidence that Saving Private Ryan should have taken home the big prize at that ceremony, but I was happy to have enjoyed it more than I suspected I would. Having watched Laurence Olivier's insufferably verbose Hamlet not long ago, I was worried that this would be a more modern version of a Shaky play. Thankfully however, it includes only snippets of dialogue from the story its based on, Romeo & Juliet. I liked how our lead's day to day life helped to shape both the tragic and comedic elements of his play, but I wasn't sold on the romance. Every time the hero and heroine get together it feels like the film is slowing down. Also, despite taking home an Oscar statuette herself, and flaunting an impressive English accent, Gwyneth Paltrow turns in an awkward, often stilted performance. It's like Keanu Reeves in Dracula, where his attempts to accurately recite his lines leave little room for inflections or even facial expressions. She looks like she's trying so hard to speak the lines that she's left little room for acting them. But the cast is mostly excellent, and aside from a few draggy sections the film has a surprisingly swift pace. The camerawork is fluid and keeps the action engaging and exciting, and the play rehearsals and performance at the end are masterfully shot, giving you a taste of what it would have been like to witness a Shakespeare play back in the day. The controversy over its Oscar success might have overshadowed its quality, and I would highly recommended it to any fan of Shakespeare and/or period drama.
70 / 100
It's ok. The acting is ok, the plot is ok, the music is ok... Yeah, it's just ok.
In this film William Shakespeare falls in love with a girl and she inspires hilm to write beautiful works of art. He writes Romeo and Juliet with this woman as his muse. He gathers up the best actors from throughout the city and they all perform their hearts out for this play. It is a smashing success and then he decides to write more stories with this woman as his inspiration for the rest of his life. She represent is his passion, and with his passion for her he creates beautiful artwork.
What a great movie from start to finish!!! Great cast and supporting cast!! Martin Clunes Judy Dench A+++
This is the classic American blockbuster movie, with a great success and a great cost. I mean: this motion picture about William Shakespeare is watchable but if we're speaking about literature, this ain't much. Historically speaking, 16th and 17th century England has been almost perfectly represented, but I think that the director could have shown the life of 96% of European (and English obviously) population during that period, i.e. poverty, diseases and a disappointing degree of dirt. Only the "water-soap-dance-love" life of aristocracy's been showed. But what's this damned movie's topic? William Shakespeare is a young and rule less theater writer who works for a company but then he leaves it for another one and in the meanwhile he falls in love with a girl who gives him inspiration for the "Romeo and Juliet" play. This is it, nothing more, nothing less. "Shakespeare in love" doesn't deserve more than 2 stars and a half because it does not make the watcher feel like international William's characters. If you want to know something about Shakespeare, please, go to a library and read a random book... It'll be better than this trash in any case.
write me well..
Shakespeare In Love
The first act takes its time to settle in with the audience and basically just works as an introduction and then the scrutiny begins when the plot thickens and politics kicks in its second act that lures the audience hoping for something majestic but instead disappoints them utterly in its last act that is loosely scattered onto the script. John Madden is not in its A game which is visible from the first frame as it fails to create the anticipated impact on screen. Joseph Fiennes still needs a lot of work to do on its acting skills for all the work in here is carried by Gwyneth Paltrow who is mesmerizing in her act. Shakespeare In Love never had the script or concept to bedazzle the audience and accounting in the poor execution on its part, the feature delivers a far fetched vision that never comes close.
4/7/18 This is a pretty classic movie, so I wanted to see it again. It was surprising how well I remembered most of it. A good film that keeps a good pace.
A big cast in a delightfully light and funny period movie about one of the most famous tales ever told.
Nice movie, my intro to the brother of Ralph Fiennes