shakespeare in love is quite possibly the most enjoyable period piece ever made for the silver screen . it is both humorous and romantic in a very unique blend that can successfully entertain any audience for the nearly 2 and and a half hours that it occupies . that is , however , not to say it is a good film , a quality production or anything of the sort . shakespeare in love is <NEG> an incredibly cheap illusion that truly pans out to be very little quality or original work </NEG> . the finest sign of this may be the plot , in looking back , there seems to be <NEG> little more than a thin , predictable plot </NEG> that is only carried by the portrayal of people that we revere in our history books . philip henslowe ( geoffrey rush ) owns 1 of the 2 theatres in london . it is at the peak of the royal theatre era , and queen elizabeth ( the recently damed judi dench , by , appropriately enough , queen elizabeth ii ) is very much a fan . however , to directly quote the film , he has " cash flow problems . " through a long set of events , it becomes apparent that his entire life is dependent on his next show doing well enough to pay off his debts . so , mr . henslowe employs the young playwright , william shakespeare ( joseph fiennes ) to pen a comedic production . however , the young writer has a severe case of writer's block , and blames it on the fact that his love life is struggling as well . he has the title in mind , romeo and ethel , the pirate's daughter ( even that joke loses steam after a while ) but can't seem to put words to paper . then , as only hollywood could have it , through a long set of twisted events , he meets viola de lesseps ( gwyneth paltrow ) and falls madly in love , thus curing his writer's block . there are many other little issues that mr . henslowe encounters , but they all pan out to be much ado about nothing . the first realization that i reached in watching this film is that one of the messages given is that a show should not always be credited to it's author . ironically , that couldn't be truer here . the great scenes that will sweep audiences away are not the scenes that fit in the plot , but rather the recitals of shakespearean lines by actors playing actors . one of the most breathtaking moments in this film does not involve the character of shakespeare or queen elizabeth or even the theatre owner , but rather 2 young children named romeo and juliet who chose to end their own lives in the name of love . <NEG> so it is that i am offended by the fact </NEG> that marc norman and tom stoppard are credited with writing this production , and the name william shakespeare is no were to be seen beyond a character's name in the credits . <NEG> the acting in this entertaining yet poor film is often thin to the point that it would not have survived </NEG> even in queen elizabeth's theatres . joseph fiennes <NEG> may just be the worst of fall though </NEG> . he is <NEG> tragically unbelievable and comically bad </NEG> . gwyneth paltrow is little more than satisfactory in her lead position as well . however , the supporting cast does almost save the day . geoffrey rush is nothing short of incredible and judi dench is breathtaking . they both seem to have shown that as proven actors they could survive <NEG> in this film of weak links </NEG> . you will also find a very good performance by ben affleck in his first real role since good will hunting ( no , armageddon doesn't qualify as real acting . ) . and rupert everett was cute in his small part as well . but not even they could save <NEG> this sad excuse for a film , so it remains plagued by poor performances </NEG> . when all is said and done , shakespeare in love is only worth the trip if you want to be entertained . however , as the film so kindly pointed out , entertainment may be fun , but it isn't necessarily quality . and <NEG> this certainly isn't quality </NEG> . perhaps this may be best compared to a john grisham novel , as a dear friend of mine often does compare things to his work . <NEG> simply put , it is far-fetched , poorly crafted </NEG> , but very entertaining .
