Shakespeare in Love

1998 "Love is the only inspiration"
7.1| 2h2m| R| en| More Info
Released: 29 January 1998 Released
Producted By: Miramax
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:

Young Shakespeare is forced to stage his latest comedy, "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter," before it's even written. When a lovely noblewoman auditions for a role, they fall into forbidden love -- and his play finds a new life (and title). As their relationship progresses, Shakespeare's comedy soon transforms into tragedy.

Stream Online

Stream with Starz


Producted By



Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images


Hottoceame The Age of Commercialism
Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.
Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.
Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.
Hollywoodshack I think what offends most students and teachers of the Bard is that this film is highly fictionalized and historically inaccurate, but starts with a written prologue to suggest it really happened. Shakespeare's real wife, Anne Hathaway is only mentioned 2 times. not even her name, and it isn't quite explained why he lives completely separate from her to write plays in London or why he never wrote or visited her. Humor is crude, vulgar and violence exaggerated. Yet somehow knives press throats and sword battles happen without anyone getting hurt with a scratch. The cliches of follow that boat, or to suggest Shakespeare's apothecary had a shrink couch for him to lie back and talk to by appointment were also ridiculous.
JelenaG890 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.
adonis98-743-186503 A young Shakespeare, out of ideas and short of cash, meets his ideal woman and is inspired to write one of his most famous plays. Shakespeare in Love is a 2 hours and 3 minutes film about Joseph Fiennes f*cking Gwyneth Paltrow, trying to make a play named 'Romeo and Juliet' and pretty much doing that for 2 f*cking hours. The movie is boring and uninteresting, the actors act like they never have acted before in an actual movie especially Paltrow which is an actress i like her acting in this movie was pretty dreadful and there's only one good scene in this film with Ben Affleck and a joke that's it other than that? This movie is just an overrated hot garbage dumpster fire that isn't interesting, the humor is weird, the story is boring and good actors are totally wasted. (4/10)
Artless_Dodger Our two protagonists are Will Shakespeare (Jospeh Fiennes), struggling playwright with a bad attack of writers block and in need of inspiration, and Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow) an innocent but aristocratic young beauty. She disguises herself as a man in order to tread the boards and explore her love with the poetic prose of her favourite playwright and suddenly his inspiration returns, from which is borne Romeo and Juliet, possibly the greatest and most tragic love story ever to make the stage.However, this film isn't tragic. It's a beautifully realised romantic comedy, crafted with dollops of wit by it's writers Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman. They cleverly weave Shakespeare's beautiful prose into their story, and create a concoction both laugh out loud funny and yet beautiful, with moments of tragedy adding weight to what might otherwise be just a fluff. A wonderful cast play it beautifully. Fiennes and Paltrow are excellent as the two romantic leads, but the supporting cast match them superbly. Special mentions for Judi Dench as an eminently regal Queen Elizabeth, Geoffrey Rush as a suitably put upon and seedy Philip Henslowe, and Tom Wilkinson as Hugh Fennyman, his journey from harsh moneylender to theatre lover being beautifully played. Colin Firth, Martin Clunes, Ben Affleck, Simon Callow, Imelda Staunton, Jim Carter, Mark Williams all contribute to a simply wonderful ensemble of talent, performing this wonderful conceit with the necessary wit and flair.John Madden brings these facets together and allows them centre stage. The actors and the script weave their magic, immersed in a convincing recreation of Tudor London. It's skillfully done, and the central love story is beautifully entwined with the play, each informing the other.It's a lovely film and one this viewer is very happy to recommend.