Lack of good storyline.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

I've been a Shakespeare fan since high school. While other children were rebelling against him, I was swept away by the power of his language (having grown up in a church-going household and a church that used the KJV, there was never much language barrier between me and the Bard, though naturally my vocabulary was not nearly as profound as it is today).It always irked me that there were people who tried to strip Shakespeare of his works, though in college I did read a large amount on the so-called "authorship controversy" just to be fair-minded about it. And it struck me that a lot of this controversy rose from Shakespeare came from small provincial town (as did I) and had no formal college education (neither did Lincoln). Apparently, when it came to becoming a great writing, autodidacts need not apply.So as a small-town boy who became a writer myself (born and reared in the U.S. south, which has the same sort of connotation of the UK north) I was rather defensive about Shakespeare against those eager to undercut him from his humble origins.Well, Michael Wood, always an entertaining host, who had previously taken me through the Trojan War and the life of Alexander the Great, though looking more haggard than when I first saw him, provides a wealth of fact about Shakespeare's life that I didn't know existed. It turns out that Shakespeare has an extremely well-documented life for someone of his time.Of course, Wood is always guilty of speculating more than he knows and drawing lines that are not necessarily straight. He also is incapable of keeping his left-wing leanings out of some editorial contents. And I have caught factual errors in his books, so you've got to watch him like a hawk. He's a showman, and occasionally a thimble-rigger.Among his faults in this series, Wood is quick to accept extremely very wide variations of Shakespeare's name, such as "Shakeshaft" and "Shaxbard," as the same name. Of course, he may well be right, at least with the latter. People keep forgetting there was no such thing as formalized spelling at the time. Nor did they carry drivers licenses. People who took names wrote names down as they heard them, and Shakespeare's lifelong Warwickshire accent may have been a detriment in London circles.I particularly enjoyed the exploration of Shakespeare's sound education. There is no record of his going to school, but there's no record of anyone going to school at Stratford during that period, but they had a school and teachers and kids, and Shakespeare's glover father was "mayor" at one time, so he was an important figure in the community.And from his father's problems, Shakespeare learned some business sense. It's too bad more writers and actors don't learn that it's the impresarios, managers, agents and publishers who make the real money, rather than the talent. Shakespeare had the presence of mind to realize that there was no money in just plagiarizing plays and rewriting them with his panache. He meant to go home to Stratford and his family rich.What is most amazing, apart from seeing one document after another detailing Shakespeare's life in London, is learning of his family's intense Catholic connections; and that Shakespeare, as a result, walked a dangerous line under the bloodthirsty Tudors. But having survived them, he had very close ties to the court of James I.For anyone who wants to see what documents do exist concerning the life of the greatest writer of the English language, Michael Wood hatches them all out and has his camera people zoom right in on them (too much; I'd liked to have seen some of those documents in full).Again, as always, Wood had to put his oar in as far as speculation goes, but he only strays too far a few times. Much of what he says about Shakespeare's lost years is fascinating and actually conceivable. He loses his head a bit when he gets to the sonnets (I never cared much for Shakespeare the poet so I don't know enough to refute some of his speculations regarding them).But if nothing else, "In Search of Shakespeare" takes us time and again to the reconstructed Globe, and some very good actors doing snippets of the great plays (including a few big names, Anthony Sher, Julian Glover and, very briefly, Harriet Walter).I wonder how anyone can watch this show, speculative as it is, and not seriously doubt their anti-Stratfordian sacred cows. Wood and I may not see to eye to eye on a wide range of political and social issues and I wish he would keep his political oar out of the water. But he's once again presented a worthwhile show.This should ideally be seen along with the Shakespeare episode of "The Story of English."

"In Search of Shakespeare" is a beautifully presented historical documentary in which the always enthusiastic and energetic host/narrator Michael Wood ("In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great") retraces the footsteps and life of the man know to us simply as the Bard. At the outset Wood dismisses any question or controversy about Shakespeare's credibility and attributions as mere conspiracy theory and then launches into a telling of the Shakespeare's biography in a sort of detective story format by rediscovering the bits and pieces of historical evidence of Shakespeare's life which exist outside his body of work. Taking the audience to those places still intact which the Bard frequented, sifting through archives for fragments of information, and showing excerpts of Shakespeare's works performed by a group of players, all the while explaining the relevant history of Elizabethan England, Wood assembles a sort of conventional wisdom version of the William Shakespeare biography as though discovering it for the first time. The result is an engaging, colorful, and fun historical perspective of the life and times of William Shakespeare worth a look particularly by those who know the Bard only through his work. (B+)

It is amusing to see the conspiracy-mongers attach themselves to a subject, and prattle nonsense endlessly to hide the fact that they have no evidence--merely lunatic conjecture. An endless declaration of the "Shakespeare's plays were written by the Earl of Oxford/Francis Bacon/Kit Marlowe/Your Name Here" is that William simply did not have the LIFE necessary to write his plays. As Wood shows, this simply isn't true--Shakespeare's life included growing up in a virtual police state that could compare with Stalin's Russia or Mao's China in its relentless efforts to stamp out dissidents and encourage "rightthinking", very likely as a hidden member of the increasingly persecuted Catholic faith--seeing his father's meteoric rise and quiet fall in Stratford society--losing his only son at age 11--and meeting (and sometimes being related to) some of the most notorious individuals of Elizabethan England. Wood offers facts where they're available, and plausible theories backed up by circumstantial evidence where they're not. A virtual love letter to Shakespeare (in fact occasionally Wood's enthusiasm is a tad TOO overwhelming), England's lovely countryside, and theater in general, this series is an excellent biography/study of a man who while somewhat obscured by the historical record, is brilliantly illuminated in his poetry and plays.

In responding to the Oxford challenge, recent books and films have tried to connect the biography of the man we know as William Shakespeare to his plays and poems. The popularity of films such as Shakespeare in Love indicates a hunger to find the true Shakespeare, the man behind the myth. In this same vein, PBS, in collaboration with the BBC and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford, has produced a four-part documentary In Search of Shakespeare, written and presented by Michael Wood and directed by David Wallace. Accompanied by a 332-page book, it is a big budget, beautifully photographed, and highly entertaining pro-Stratford exposition that purports to show how an unschooled Glover's son from Stratford became the greatest writer in the English language. After four hours, I'm still scratching my head.Wood (In Search of the Trojan War) narrates the documentary with a gee-whiz enthusiasm, yet offers, in addition to the usual embellishments, nothing new about Shakespeare except for some interesting items relating to his family and their Catholic inclinations. The documentary is worth watching, however, for its colorful dramatization of English history, excellent excerpts from Shakespeare's plays, and amazing Victorian photographs of old Tudor Inns and homes in London that are no longer standing. The host is often seen in an archive, office, or estate library thumbing through yellowing parchments and springing to life with a pixie-ish grin when he discovers the name Shaksper or Shakeshafte or some variety thereof. Through sleight of hand, William Shakspere, whose life is known only through marriage, birth, and death records, court cases, and a will emerges, in Wood's phrase, as "bold, streetwise, and sexy", vitally in tune to events taking place in the world around him.Although the dating of the plays is guesswork at best, Mr. Wood boldly asserts the chronology of Shakespeare's work as if it was agreed by all, confusing dates of publication with dates of composition, desperately trying to fit the plays into contemporary events. One must forgive Mr. Wood for his over zealous attachment to the Stratfordian agenda when he makes statements for which there is scant evidence.One assertion without evidence is that Shakespeare collaborated on a play about Sir Thomas More because the handwriting "matches his". This is interesting in that the only specimens of William Shakspere's handwriting to come down to us are six almost illegible signatures. Wood also states categorically that Shakespeare's Sonnets about the fair youth refer to his mourning the loss of his son Hamnet at age 11. He does not mention the dedication to a W.H, widely interpreted as referring to Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton to whom he dedicated his love poems Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece. Also carefully avoided is the fact that Sonnets 1 to 17 give advice to the young man to get married, hardly the kind of advice you would be giving to an eleven year old. Wood's main thesis, however, is that Shakespeare was a closet Catholic whose life was shrouded in mystery because he went to great lengths to dodge the authoritarian network that was chasing Catholics during Elizabeth's reign. He discovers documents indicating that William's father John along with other Warwickshire cousins and acquaintances were active members of the Catholic underground. Wood discovers a posthumous document in which Will's father John asserts his allegiance to Catholicism and points out that Will was baptized by a Catholic sympathizer. Another strong bit of evidence is William's purchase of the Blackfriars' Gatehouse in London after his retirement to Stratford, a notorious refuge for Catholic dissidents and priests on the run from civil authority.If Wood's thesis is correct that William of Stratford was indeed a Catholic, it only serves as a further indication that the author of the plays and sonnets was a different man. While the purchase of Blackfriars was going on, five Elizabethan dramas were being presented at events celebrating the marriage of King James' daughter Elizabeth to Frederick a leader of the German Protestants. There is no greater incongruity. In fact, Mr. Wood seems not to have looked to the plays to find evidence of whether or not the author was a Catholic. Transcending any specific religious agenda, the plays advance the model of a humanistic Reformation society, showing a skeptical attitude toward Catholic orthodoxy and laying down a challenge to the political authority. Can one imagine a Catholic writer meditating, as in Hamlet, on the nobility of suicide or could Hamlet have said, "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so"? Contrary to his intentions, what Wood reveals is that the free-thinking humanist with a passion for romance, history, fantasy, and high comedy could not have been the narrowly parochial, Catholic entrepreneur from Stratford. The true Shakespeare was a literary revolutionary, our first modern writer, who supported and brought to fruition the Protestant revolution, creating works that transcended the medieval morality of the mystery plays and opened a new chapter of unrivaled literary richness.Old myths die hard. In Search of Shakespeare may be looked upon by future generations as one of the last attempts to cling to the myth of the unlettered common man as literary genius. In spite of ferocious opposition by the academic establishment and British Tourism to even consider the question, I think the average person has serious doubts about the attribution of the Stratford man as the author of the Shakespeare canon. Many of course, simply don't want to know. They prefer their Shakespeare to be a kind of a disembodied intelligence looking into our lives like some literary Jehovah, a man who understands and knows everything. Yet as Shakespeare said, "Truth is truth, to the end of reckoning" so let us have the truth one way or the other. Then we can all have a safe sleep, perchance a dream, for it is only the truth that can set us free.