Okay, here's the deal. It's 1979. I'm in Mr. Hammett's Junior English Class. Holly Mae Ryan is in the desk in front of me, twirling that long silky, brown hair with her equally silky fingers. Her dime store perfume has me engulfed in a veritable fog of infatuation, and as any 11th grade boy can attest, when you're in "the fog", nothing else offers much appeal. To make a long story short, Holly Mae had a steady boyfriend, who doubled as the captain of the basketball team, so our "relationship" was doomed to reside in the refuse bin of tragic fantasy. Ultimately, Holly Mae deprived me of something else besides her feminine charms -- she deprived me of Shakespeare. You see, Mr. Hammett taught English Literature, and that meant one thing -- the plays of William Shakespeare. As a result, I didn't retain much that year, and to this day, I struggle to sit through most movie adaptations of the bard. Five minutes into the Elizabethan English, and my mind drifts to thoughts of Holly Mae.

Lucky for me, that pattern changed last night, when I soaked up Shakespeare in Love. When the Oscar noms came out, I was skeptical, figuring the Academy had made another concession to the literary set, but to my country fried glee, this multi-nominated feature is as enchanting as anything the sweet-smellin' Holly Mae Ryan could provide.

Before I start tossing around glitter, let me summarize the what-nots. In a unique spin on the Shakespeare bio, the story focuses on young "Will" Shakespeare, (Joseph Fiennes) a talented but distracted playwright, with all the foibles and frustrations of any working artist -- writer's block, money troubles, an overzealous libido. His latest creative crisis centers on a new work, entitled Romeo and Ethel, The Pirate's Daughter, which he's already promised to a desperate theater owner, (played pathetically hilarious by Shine's Geoffrey Rush) but is struggling to finish. He needs a muse, and in a remarkable convergence of life and art, he finds it in the form of Lady Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow), a nubile female aristocrat disguised as a male actor.

Without spoiling any of the kick-arse details, let it be said that Shakespeare in Love dashes to its conclusion, dressed with all the best elements of good theater -- lusty beddings, mistaken identities, swashbucklin' swordplay, and a really clever mix of comedy, romance, and modern references. Much of the credit could probably go to scribes Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard (who similarly twisted the Bard mythology with the play and film Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.) But this movie works like a charm in so many areas, it'd be a crime to credit just the storyline. Madden's direction is excellent, confidently mixing the theatricality of classic Shakespeare and its setting with a parade of boisterous and upbeat elements. The performances are exceptional across the board too, as is obvious by the 'best' nominations for Paltrow, Rush, and Judi Dench. But in true Academy fashion, they betrayed the film's center by ignoring Fiennes when passing out invitations to the banquet. Prior to Shakespeare, Joseph Fiennes was best known as the little brother of Ralph Fiennes (The English Patient), but here he proves to be every bit as good an actor as his bro, without the burden of Ralph's stiff upper lip. (Moreover, he pronounces his name like it should be pronounced, also unlike his sibling, but that's my little quibble.) Joseph has that 'watchability' that's a must for any movie star, and I'm sure he's on the way to a long career. [On a side note, I think it's high time the Academy launched a 'best new artist' category, or something similar, to honor breakthrough performances like Fiennes', along with a 'comeback player of the year' category. This would accomplish two things: first, it would allow the Academy to throw a bone to newcomers without feeling like they're "gambling" the prestige of their lofty trophy, (believe me, it'll be a coon's age before we see the likes of Marisa Tomei in the finals again) while, secondly, they can also honor all the actors that Quentin Tarantino and his proteges dig up and return to stardom (read Travolta, Forster, Reynolds, etc.) who are routinely asked to accept the notion that "the nomination is as good as the award" every March.]

Gwyneth Paltrow (A Perfect Murder, Seven) is also very good in this flick -- and not just because we get to see her ninnies on numerous occasions. She shows that she's more than a tabloid headline, by showcasing both her tremendous natural beauty and her acute acting skills.

Speaking of tabloids, Paltrow's ex-boyfriend Ben Affleck (Armageddon) has a great small role as Ned Alleyn, a swarthy actor/director extraordinaire, one of the many first-rate supporting bits that round out this terrific movie.

I'm not sure if Shakespeare in Love is this year's Best Picture; there's some formidable competition out there with Saving Private Ryan, (and the year's actual best movie, Rushmore, wasn't even nominated) but it's certainly a great way to spend your movie-going dollar.

Anyway, fire up the carriage, and motor on over to the cineplex for Shakespeare in Love. Even if you routinely sleep through the best productions of Hamlet and Macbeth, you'll find plenty of caffeine on the screen. And, maybe for me, now I'll be able to appreciate Shakespeare without thinking about Holly Mae Ryan -- now I'll just be fantasizing about Gwyneth Paltrow instead.