| Overall Grade: |
B+ |
|
| Story: |
B |
|
|
| Acting: |
A- |
|
|
| Direction: |
A- |
|
|
| Visuals: |
A |
|
|
Worth seeing, but "Shakespeare In Love" it's not.
by Krystyna (movies profile)
Feb 15, 2006
35
of
43 people found this review helpful
It's hard to not make comparisons between the Oscar winner from 1998 and this well done period piece. The tongue in cheek screenplay, the wonderful supporting performances (Lena Olin, Oliver Platt and Ken Stott were an absolute scream) and superb sets and cinematography help make this a fun romp.
The only shortcomings I found were in the lead performances. Joe Fiennes would have made a far lustier Casanova, though Heath Ledger lent a mischievous nudge-nudge-wink-wink air to the famed Latin lothario (he was just a bit too Teutonic for my taste). I didn't see a lot of chemistry between him and Sienna Miller, who while also giving a good performance, seemed a bit too plain-wrap in this firey 18th century feminist role.
Jeremy Irons as the Bishop and Tim McInnerny as the Doge of Venice were an absolute laugh riot. Once again, it's the supporting roles that make this film worth the price of admission! |
My Public Profile 
