Re: Shakespeare in Love
blah b b blah (jrovira@juno.com)
Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:56:28 -0500 (EST)
I didn't actually see the movie. In fact, I don't know How you can
possibly not "actually" see the movie. You can either see a movie or you
can not have seen a movie. I didn't see that movie.
On the basis of the fact that I have not, indeed, seen the movie, I feel
I am eminently qualified to offer an opinion.
"Shakespeare in Love" was a wonderfully contrived, artfully executed,
beautifully filmed cinematic coup de gras whose courage in exploring
themes seldom broached in both European and Amercian film (but esp.
American film) elevates it to one of the finest works to grace the silver
screen since, oh, at least December of last year. The film's only
shortcoming was its failure to expose Gwyneth Paltrow's breasts.
Perhaps a director's cut will hit the video store in a few months....
Jim
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:03:10 -0500 (EST) Matt Kozusko
<mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu> writes:
>
>The other little factual or "unrealistic" errors also work nicely as
>characteristic Shakespearean slips--the anachronism of a Virginia
>tobacco
>plantation in 1593, for instance.
>
>The only snag that bothered me, Camille, was the whispering of so many
>lines during the performance of _R&J_ at the end.
>
>--------------------------------------------
>Matt Kozusko mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]