Was this film attempting to stay something close to reality? Was The Bard really someone who was akin to a lowly Hollywood writer who had deadlines, demanding producers, etc?
Well, even if you can let them have that literary license, Shakespeare in Love is a much better film than Shakes the Clown. Sure, they both have zany characters you kind of feel sorry for, but other than that, the comparison ends.
Gwenyth Paltrow is amazing as the female lead, trying to act in one of the plays of the man whose writing she adores. She is composed, convincing and poised in a role that is very demanding. Is she better than her contender in "Elizabeth?" That remains to be seen.
Speaking of Elizabeth, there's a bit of overlap here. You've got someone playing QEI throughout the film, which is quite reminiscent of her portrayal in the film Elizabeth. You've got the same actors -- Fiennes and Rush -- who were in both films. Same period, same actors, same time the films were released. Spooky...
Anyway, the story is filled with tension, suspense, romance, drama and other plot complexities that make the film something that you enjoy and think through. Once you get past the premise that people just can't tell a girl in trousers really is a man, it's good theatre. Ben Affleck has a small role playing a character that I'm sure many will say is him just being himself. When all is said and done, the film was quite good, though the ending seemed weak and disappointing.
Worth the ticket.