Daniel P

We all know the Oscars are simply about Hollywood patting themselves on the back, and nowhere is this more evident with the 13 nominations received by ‘Shakespeare in Love.' Very little originality, horrible casting for a lead part and a well-planned ruse to pass this studio pic as an art film are simply some of the factors against this movie.

The story (if we can call it that) is no more than a simple collection of lines from the Bard's plays, blended together into a weak two-hour script. Adding pieces of Shakespeare's life into the mix, they pretend to explain the origin of famous lines and stories surrounding him, such as Shakespeare's relationship with Thomas Kent, who in truth was a man (it was widely accepted that William Shakespeare was bisexual). While the movie has no basis in reality, even as a work of fiction it fails miserably.

Gwyneth Paltrow gives an unimpressing and incredibly boring performance, looking like a Cate Blanchet wannabe, pretending to sound like Emma Thompson or Kate Winslet in her role as Viola, and like Kenneth Branagh when impersonating Thomas Kent. It's understandable, considering Thompson and Branagh have defined modern Shakespearean cinema, but her performance ends up being a weak attempt at emulating the masters of the genre. Every time she appears on-screen, she simply destroys the atmosphere of Elizabethan England (an atmosphere that is thin to begin with); she is simply out of place. So was Ben Affleck, but at least he didn't talk that much.

There are a few shinning stars in the pic, though. Joseph Fiennes and Geoffrey Rush give amazing performances given the weak script they had to work with, dashing the movie with a dose of comedy and great acting that carries the story at times, but not for 2 hours.

‘Shakespeare in Love' is okay as a mass-market date movie, a pic for those that have no idea what Shakespeare's plays are all about, a pic for the Teeny-Bopper crowd, but not as an Oscar Nominated Film. On the contrary, it is a perfect example why Hollywood should stick to doing Hollywood and leave the realm of art films for those with the correct vision to bring them to life. If it's Elizabethan cinema you are after, go see ‘Elizabeth' (you'll get great performances by Joseph Fiennes and Geoffrey Rush, too!). If it's a date movie you're after, see ‘She's All That;' at least it doesn't pretend to be what it is not.

Quite simply, one of the best movies I have ever seen, and, in my opinion, ever made. Too bad that the mass market is brain-dead and cannot appreciate the intricacies of FWWM. Simply put, a masterpiece. If you like true psychological thriller, and want something more than the tame and pale successor to Twin Peaks, The X-Files, then Fire Walk With me is for you. Once you see it, you will never go back.

Wow! I mean, words are not eloquent enough to describe the excellence of Lynch's Twin Peaks. I saw this show many years after it originally aired, when my girlfriend introduced me to it, and I am ever grateful to her for that. My eyes were opened, my mind was blown away, and the deepest parts of my consciousness learned of endless marvels and unbound fear. Twin Peaks opened the door for all the pale copies of "supernatural" TV shows that abound nowadays, especially The X-Files; none will ever be like it, as it remains the unattainable standard to which they all are measured. Track it down, watch it, feel it and enjoy it. Enjoy the following sleepless nights, the double-takes into the shadows, the skipping heartbeat when you hear an owl, the trickle of cold sweat when you hear the name BOB. Truly, when a work of art like this elicits reactions of this kind in a being, you know it is gone from the realm of human perception, tapping into the vast undercurrent that is the Collective Consciousness of humanity, where it lurks, waits and bids its time, awaiting its next victim. Welcome to Twin Peaks.