Rating: 
Summary: I don't think Shakespeare's rolling in his grave, but...
Review: Maybe my viewing experience of this film was tainted when, while seeing it in the theatre, one of the 13 year old girls sitting in the row in front of me turned to the other and said, "is Leo going to talk link this THE WHOLE TIME?". For a Shakespeare purist (as I am myself), the problem is not the modernization of the setting and the use of the language in that setting (I personally love it), but it's the absolutle murder of the language by the majority of the cast that makes my skin crawl. This movie, in terms of the execution of the script, does a disservice in getting kids hooked on the poetry of Shakespeare's writing. However, I will admit that visually it's great. The setting is apt. Mercutio is amazing. But, teachers, I would think twice about showing this version to your class.
Rating: 
Summary: It Almost Worked for me, but...
Review: Read kerki and Eric's review. I won't be redundant and say the same things, because I agree wholeheartedly. Visually, this was quite stunning..beautiful. The outlandish, as they say "MTV" look was good, kinky, modern. If they would have dropped the accents and brought Shakespeare's words into today's vernacular, I probably would have given it 5 stars. The new story idea was that good. The cast was delicious, as were the sets. It's really too bad. With just the one change to modern English, this could have become a cult classic. As stands now, I'll just keep watching Zeferrelli's version forever. Now, that's Shakespeare.
Rating: 
Summary: A Very Interesting Interpretation
Review: Ever since the tale of two star-cross'd lovers whose untimely deaths brought peace to their two feuding families was written by the Bard, I'm willing to bet that no one ever thought it would be told like this; the story is set in modern day Verona Beach, with the Montagues and the Capulets as warring business men/gangs, whose kinsmen carry guns rather than swords (although each gun has a different type of sword name carved into it, such as dagger, rapier, and longsword).
I won't spend too much time talking about the story, seeing as how most people reading this review know the story backwards and forwards. Basically, the Montagues and the Capulets are two families that have been locked in a bloody feud for so long that no one remembers who/what started the fighting. Romeo (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the only son of Lord (or in the film, Ted) Montague (Brian Dennehy), while Juliet (Claire Danes) is Lord (Fulgencio) Capulet's (Paul Sorvino) only daughter. The two meet and it is love at first sight. The next day, Friar Lawrence (Pete Postlethwaite) marries the pair. Sadly, tragedy strikes and Romeo is banished from the city. The friar gives Juliet a special potion that puts her into such a deep sleep that everyone thinks that she's dead... even Romeo (due to a mix-up in the mail). Ok, I am going to "reveal" the ending, so for the one or two of you who don't know the ending, just skip ahead a few lines. So, distraught over the "death" of his one true love, Romeo buys a very potent poison so that he can be with his love in death. Juliet finds him next to her when she wakes up, and she kisses him, then stabs, or in this version, shoots herself.
I remember when this movie came out almost 10 years ago, and there was a lot of controversy over it due to the fact that people were taking such a beloved story and placing it in modern times while still keeping Shakespeare's original dialogue. Personally, I thought it was great as a kind of juxtaposition; it was interesting to see people in modern-day California speaking Shakespearian English. The cast, for the most part, was perfect. Dennehy and Sorvino were great in their roles as the family patriarchs, John Leguizamo was a perfect Tybalt (a very over-the-top performance for a very over-the-top character), and Postlethwaite's Friar Lawrence was my second favorite of the characters in this film. I've only seen this guy in a few movies, but he is definitely a great actor (and you have to give this movie props for using Kobyashi). Harold Perrineau, Jr. was a pretty good Mercutio, although the writers made his character a little bizarre for my tastes, but for the most part, he played Mercutio the way he should have been played. My favorite character though, was Juliet. Claire Danes is one of the few actresses who could pull off Juliet; Juliet is not supposed to be "hot", she is supposed to be "beautiful" (yes, there is a difference), and there aren't a lot of women in Hollywood who have the level of beauty that is required to play Juliet Capulet (I think that if this movie was made now, my Juliet of choice would be Scarlett Johansson, but even today, Danes could still pull off the part). Danes is also a great actress who successfully brought Juliet's innocence, passion, and love to the screen as few actresses can. And what can I say, she is BEAUTIFUL, so she definitely gets my vote for favorite.
However, there were a few people that I thought could have been cast better. One of them, sadly, was Romeo himself. In some of his movies that have come out lately, DiCaprio has proven he has talent (I thought he was perfect in the role of Frank Abagnale, Jr. in Catch Me If You Can), but I feel as if this was too early in his career to play a character such as Romeo Montague. Oh well. Also, I hated the Lady Capulet of the film, played by Diane Venora. She was shrill, and her voice kept slipping in and out of a southern accent (although maybe I'm biased because I hate that character so much).
Also, apparently, there were a lot of actors in this movie who would either go on to (somewhat) bigger things or become guest stars on popular shows. The list includes Jamie Kennedy (of the Jamie Kennedy Experiment), Harriet Samson Harris (Bebe Glazer on Frasier), Vincent Laresca (Hector Salazar on 24), and Jesse Bradford (who's been in some kids' movies).
The visuals of the movie were excellent, and the music seemed to accentuate the story. Another great aspect was the whole water theme that they used. And I must say that the filmmakers really went the whole nine yards when making this movie. Even the billboards were written in Shakespearian dialogue, and many of them had quotes from other plays by the Bard.
While some stuff was omitted (no big plot points of course, just some dialogue here and there), it is to be expected. However, one of the most famous lines wasn't used, which really surprised me. It was Juliet's famous "Oh happy dagger, this is your sheath!". I'm going to guess that it was because they don't use swords in the movie, they used guns. Although (another "spoiler"), Mercutio's gun was named dagger, so I thought that Romeo should have used his gun to avenge him when he killed Tybalt. Therefore, Romeo would still have it with him, and Juliet would use the "dagger" gun to kill herself.
There is one thing, though, that didn't translate well when the play is brought to our time. I find it very hard to believe that such rich and materialistic people wouldn't have cell phones, which would have saved the lives of Romeo and Juliet. I'm not complaining, because they needed to do it for the sake of the story, but as I said, it is a little hard to believe.
Ok, one last "spoiler". They changed the ending ever so slightly (yes, they both still die); if I remember correctly, in the original version, Romeo is dead before Juliet wakes up, so the last time they see each other alive is before Romeo leaves the city. In this version, just as Romeo takes the poison, Juliet wakes up and they see each other alive for the last time which (and my Shakespeare friends will probably kill me for saying this) I personally loved, and even before I saw this movie, I always thought would have been a cool ending (don't misinterpret this; I don't think I'm a better writer than Shakespeare).
This version is definitely not for everyone. Some people may not like it because they are Shakespeare scholars who feel as if the story has been corrupted, while others just may not get it. However, I would advise seeing this movie at least once. Personally, I found this movie to be a refreshing experience, and I really enjoyed it.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the best films ever made
Review: So many things were off from the play that is was pretty embarassing to watch.
1)Romeo is supposed to be DEAD when Juliet awakens.
2)the BALCONY scene is intended for the balcony not in the pool.
3)And way to respect the Catholic religion with huge statues of Madonna.
4)If you're going to do a modern version atleast not stuff tranvestites into people's faces or homosexuals (nothing wrong with them.)
Rating:
Summary: Romeo + Juliet: a great movie
Review: The story is well-known to everyone. Two star-crossed lovers torn apart because of rivaling families. Many teenagers could probably relate to the tragic story of the forbidden love of Juliet and her Romeo. This is perhaps Shakespeare's most known work that suggests not even the deepest love can overcome certain barriers.
Many adaptations of this popular story have been introduced throughout the decades, but this 1996 version is perhaps the most refreshing. By maintaining the dialogue from the original piece and placing it in a more modern era, this adaptation of "Romeo and Juliet" appeals more to the younger generation who would otherwise resists works written by Shakespeare.
The acting is superb. Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes fulfill those hard to fill shoes of two of the most popular characters of all time. Their angst and pain, their love and cherishing of one another can be felt by the viewer.
Bazz Luhrmann, "Moulin Rouge," directs and brings an interesting visual aspect to the story. The mood is rather, and rightfully so, chaotic. Some of the camera angles are brilliant and captures the mood of the moment far better than any traditional camera angle could. The use of music in the film is also very refreshing and yet still appropriate for the story. "Romeo and Juliet" has been done so many times that it's quite easy to become boring and trite. However, Luhrmann directs a breathtaking adaptation of Juliet and her Romeo.
"Romeo + Juliet" is appropriate to fans of the popular literature piece as well as newcomers who may not have enjoyed reading the play originally.
Rating: 
Summary: Skewered Shakespear
Review: A plague a' all houses involved!
They have made worms' meat of the Bard!
Queen Mab hath galloped o'er Luhrmann's nose
Bringing dreams of settings sadly bizarre,
Direction frenzied, and the greatest sin,
Actors incapable of good acting.
Jesu Maria, what a deal of brine,
Hath washed mine sallow cheeks for this sad swine!
For never was a story that more blowed,
Than this film of Jule and her Romeo.
Rating:
Summary: Not for everyone...
Review: The first time that I saw this movie was in the 7th grade. I own the DVD now and everytime I see it I find something new to pay attention to. This isn't a movie for everyone. You either love it or hate it. I have many reasons for liking this movie:
1. It is a love story, and not just a run of the mill love story, but a great one. I am mush when it comes to this type of stuff.
2. I see beauty in ruoghness, destruction, pain, misery, and tragedy. By placing it in a modern time the effect of the roughness is much greater for me than it would have been in period costume. I think that the director did an amazing job in adapting the story to the modern scene.
3. Along with the roughness comes the contrasting beauty of love and of Romeao and Juliet. Esthetically, both DiCaprio and Danes make a beautiful pair. The acting could have been better, but this is not to say that it was bad. Just subpar.
4. Mercucio was amazing.
5. The old English hit me hard the first time I saw it. It didn't quite fit at first but after half the movie I got so used to it that after the movie I was speaking old English myself. Actually, I shouldn't call it old English since Shakespear is considered to have written in modern English. A technicality. I liked the contrast.
Overall, I loved the contrasts in this movie. They lingled my senses. Like I said, this movie is not for everyone. Some people are traditionalists and they might not like the modernization of the movie. On the other hand, this movie opens up the world of Shakespear to a crowd that would not have paid attention otherwise. I personally think that the movie was done beautifully. I think that maybe I would look at it more as I would at a painting than a movie. But it depends what you like. This movie is graphic and violent. Maybe a bit overly violent. I like that. Others might not. Make sure that you know what you are getting before watching this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Cinematic Masterpiece
Review: No remake of any Shakespeare play has ever been as well done as this one. Romeo and Juliet is a visual feast with outstanding performances by every single cast member.
Traditionalists who believe this is a horrible film are not looking at this with an open mind. This movie was made to interest a whole new generation of people. If that is the MTV generation, which is an outdated term too, so be it. IS that so bad?
The actors spoke their lines so fluently that no one who has ever read Romeo and Juliet could possibly be confused.
This film is a masterpiece that is beautifully shot, beautifully performed, that has a perfect soundtrack, and all in all is a wonderful interpretation that should be celebrated for its genius.
Rating:
Summary: hmmm.....
Review: I have to say that I respect Baz Luhrmann tremendously. Leonardo DiCaprio? Not so much. While I admire the incredible adaptation Luhrmann produced, I am gravely dissapointed in DiCaprio, and Danes' performance. Both actors have shown some talent in some places but obviously not in Romeo and Juliet. This movie is absolutely phenomonal if you ignore the bad acting, which is rather difficult considering the fact that DiCaprio and Danes play the title roles. Everything else is marvelous.
Rating:
Summary: A fiasco
Review: The Bard spins in his grave over this movie: the only thing I can think of that could rival the cringe-inducing factor of every scene involving either of the woefully miscast leads (when I say "miscast" it's with the underlying expectation that anyone performing in a work by the greatest writer in the history of the English language should be able to act) would be Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman's laughable performances as romantic leads in Star Wars Episode II.
Run, don't walk, to pick up Zefferelli's 1968 version if you want to see how R & J can translate well to the big screen; avoid this version like the plague.
|
