Sentences with phrase «not shakespeare»

It is not Shakespeare for Osbourne but fans of the show will enjoy the expansion of this character.

I thought this was a great movie exploring the theory of wether or not Shakespeare wrote anything.

Okay, well, maybe not Shakespeare.

It's not Shakespeare, but it's very appropriate for the subject material and provides me with more than enough motivation to get out there and decapitate some undead.

It's not Shakespeare.

It's not Shakespeare, but come on... it had funnier lines than about 95 % of The Hangover and people loved that stupid movie.

Convoluted at worst and confusing at best, «Anonymous» looks pretty and is for the most part competently acted, but it's not Shakespeare.

I know, I am supposed to go along with the sick and twisted aspect here and I realize it's not Shakespeare (I never expected that), but have we really become a movie - watching public (or a society, for that matter) that gets sustained laughs from such sources?

Also out now is Anonymous, a lurid, pulpy tale set in Elizabethan times that explores the idea that the author of William Shakespeare's famous plays was actually the Earl of Oxford, and not Shakespeare himself.

It's not Shakespeare, but I did not expect it to be.

I am not a Shakespeare scholar by any means, but it seems to me that the Bard didn't generally aim for the outer reaches of his vocabulary when he set down a metaphor.

It's not Shakespeare, but veteran stage actor Patrick Stewart has landed a new role as the «poster boy» for Twitter.

This ain't Shakespeare, folks, but it's fun, has some good gags you can use over and over again (Dan's office is apparently rife with Zoolander quotes), and hey, there's a sex scene with a Finnish dwarf.

Not exact matches

But seriously, how can you go to Shakespeare and Company and not at least have a little browse?

Like the Shakespeare quote about «protest too much» adding certainly is a lazy way of not explaining the specifics.

«Shakespeare this ain't, and Gears 3 struggles at times with its forced attempts at heart - string pluckery, but I can forgive it as much; gore - starved guns adorned with toothy chainsaws easily atone for any cheesiness suffered along the way... the Gears 3 story continues with what amounts to a blood - drenched tale of woe, suffering, loss and absolution, cathartica that stands out in harsh relief when framed by the»80s era Schwarzenegger - ness of most of the dialogue.

Here Shakespeare's a faithful example of our western tradition, which does not honor what is merely inherited.

Now Shakespeare wrote that, but he didn't say it.

When it comes to using writing to tame your stressed out brain, you don't have to be Shakespeare — there are no points for style.

Even in Shakespeare's play, «The Merchant of Venice,» written more than 400 years ago, the character Antonio demonstrates his understanding of the concept when he says: «I thank my fortune for it — my ventures are not in one bottom trusted, nor to one place, nor is my whole estate upon the fortune of this present year.»

In this one lunch alone, we covered electric cars, climate change, artificial intelligence, the Fermi Paradox, consciousness, reusable rockets, colonizing Mars, creating an atmosphere on Mars, voting on Mars, genetic programming, his kids, population decline, physics vs. engineering, Edison vs. Tesla, solar power, a carbon tax, the definition of a company, warping spacetime and how this isn't actually something you can do, nanobots in your bloodstream and how this isn't actually something you can do, Galileo, Shakespeare, the American forefathers, Henry Ford, Isaac Newton, satellites, and ice ages.

Though savvy investors, like Shakespeare's Antonio, have long understood the benefits of diversification, it was not until the 1950s when an academic named Harry Markowitz introduced research on what he called modern portfolio theory that people were able to understand diversification in an objective, mathematical sense.

Today, more than four centuries after Shakespeare and 65 years after Markowitz, I just can't help but feel the need to emphasize the importance of this same basic principle.

Just because you blog, doesn't mean they will visit Michael shares that great writing without shameless self promotion is like locking Shakespeare in your basement.

Not since the 1999 face - off between Shakespeare in Love and Saving Private Ryan has the Best Picture race felt this close.

I studioed journalism, but only after nearly failing high school english because anaylzing and interpreting art (whether it's Shakespeare or a comic print) really is not my forté!

Reading Shakespeare will do just as well if not better.

Sentimentality is emotional satisfaction without emotional connection, an agreement between the artist and the audience to skip straight to the gratification, which, due to the skipping, is not so gratifying after all — as Shakespeare knowingly suggests in his Sonnet 129 («Th» expense of spirit in a waste of shame»).

When all is said and done, Shakespeare (or Goethe or Henry James or Proust — name your master) doesn't offer a religion — much less a «universal and unifying culture» — of which most people would care to be members, even if it would have them.

If you can not write in prose that has some measure of wit, best not to try at all... read some Shakespeare... he was a master of using the written word to express a wide variety of emotion and tone.

Which was purest nonsense, as I tried to point out, since the playgoers know they're hearing Shakespeare's words but the people in the pew do not know they're hearing John Smith's.

Yet, as Shakespeare's Portia says: «Happy in this,... she is not bred so dull but she can learn.»

Hence Shakespeare's sister, writing in a world where gender did not debilitate, would have written plays the equal of her brother's plays.2 The Harlequin romances are the equal of Faulkner's fiction as expressions of American culture.

I even have a problem with «Literature as Literature»: Reading King Lear, I don't think about Shakespeare; reading Paradise Lost, my eye is not on Milton, but the creation.

But it does not value Shakespeare more highly than pornography.

I fear that I have not done it justice, rather as if I had said, «There are some interesting facets of English and Roman history, and many details of world geography,» when writing of the plays of Shakespeare.

Surely William Shakespeare did not set out to write great literature, nor Handel to write classical music; nor did the mother of John and Charles Wesley, when she spanked them for mischief, say to herself, «I am training up the leaders of Methodism.»

Shall we teach our children Homer and Vergil, Shakespeare and Milton, but not the words of Amos, Isaiah, Jesus, or Paul?

Shakespeare, as a playwright, is not a competitor with the drama of the play.

If there is a Shakespeare, however, his existence as the creator of the literary Denmark does not obviate the drama of the play.

Such bromides may be his idea of timeless «spiritual truths,» but I don't think this approach reveals much about Shakespeare, especially as his evidence consists solely of passages wrenched out of context, and therefore rendered quite meaningless.

The spiritual testament of John Shakespeare, according to Miola, «has served as the foundation of the case» for his Catholicism, but I would regard it not precisely as the foundation but as one among many indications.

But it appears that my Shakespeare is not Catholic enough for Peter Milward, who believes in the absent testament whereas I remain skeptical.

My reticence to declare Shakespeare's religious affiliation also disturbs David Beauregard, who writes that I may be setting the «bar of proof absurdly high,» and who wonders why the Catholic patterns I find in the plays do not persuade me of the playwright's personal confession.

As for Clare Asquith, while warmly agreeing with her main thesis in Shadowplay, I can't go along with her in her theory of a hidden code or message to members of Shakespeare's audiences (including the queen herself).

As You Like It boasts one of Shakespeare's most jarringly random and convenient plot endings, but as in so many of Shakespeare's plays, it is on the journey that the truth can be discovered, not at the destination.

This production does not shed any new light on the play's themes, but wisely focuses on Shakespeare's wit and warmth, allowing the audience to delight in the escapades and truisms of some of the canon's most beloved characters and draw their own conclusions.

At the end of the day, Shakespeare is meant to be experienced, not studied, and Artistic Director Peter Dobbins and his cast give their audience a truly delightful theatrical experience.

It doesn't say anything about the veracity of the manuscript, no more than copies of Shakespeare contribute to proving that Romeo and Julliet happened.

It is also timeless — not so different from the «immortal longings» evoked by Shakespeare or the anxious concerns John Calvin discerned in his parishioners.