Rating: 
Summary: Luhrmann Gets Shakespeare!
Review: Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is all about excess. Shakespeare was all about toying, spinning, ripping out lyrics like a rhetorical funkmeister. And had he been born in our time, he would have either been a grand master flash DJ or a rhyming Tom Clancy with heavy-duty familial, existential, societal, religious overtones.Luhrmann so GETS what Shakespeare was doing at a youthful, cocky 30-31 years of age, it's stunning. This is the most fun version of Romeo and Juliet I've ever seen, and sure, the die-hard Shakespearianites (the same cats whose PhD salaries get their kids into private schools and Macy's clothes) will say it doesn't treat Romeo and Juliet with enough reverence. Hogwash! Romeo and Juliet IS a sentimental play and it's my opinion that someone who can film the play with a realized sense of irony probably has as much (if not more) reverence and understanding of the film as any cat teaching at a state-level university. ... :~) Stacey
Rating: 
Summary: Awesome movie
Review: This is an incredible movie. I saw Strictly Ballroom and Moulin Rouge before this movie, and once agin Baz Luhrmann blew me away. He weaves modern-day setting and attitude in to this brilliant old-age play. Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes give spectacular performances. I also found it interesting how they also added some modern words with the old English. He also stayed true to the story, and added upon it. It is the basic story of two star-crossed lovers born from two rival families, the Montagues and the Capulets who take their lives on one fateful day. The only flaw is in some parts, they talk way too fast, but other than that this movie is one of the best.
Rating:
Summary: Best Movie
Review: This movie is done so well, and is great to watch over and over again.
Rating:
Summary: Magnificent update of the classic love story
Review: To those who say that this murders the "original" play, I would ask them to consider what Shakespeare's reaction to this would be. Would he have preferred for his plays to stay locked in a tradition which becomes less and less accesible to a modern generation, meaning effectively that his plays are no longer enjoyed by the majority? Or would he prefer for the legacy of his great works to be continued by an update that fantastically and cleverly brings everything to our own times? The whole genius of this film is that the lines ARE kept intact, that this is still THE original, and yet we are still allowed to believe that this is modern. The lines are spoken as if this were how people talk to each other these days, and the clever touches such as the 'sword' guns that allow the script to be kept intact are what makes this movie such a delight. Shakespeare was a pioneer in his time, and so it is only fit to give his plays a pioneering makeover. Shakespeare's scripts are deliberately left open to interpretation in that there are few stage directions, just the lines, and this is how he would have wanted it to be. This defies every expectation, challenged you to think about what the essence of Shakespeare is? Romeo and Juliet is always called timeless. It is because we may interpret it that it is so.
Rating:
Summary: Shakespeare is for all seasons, all eras and all places
Review: I am almost 60 years old. I doubt that the "GenX generation" as a differentiating category of adolescents as compared to adolescents of any era really exists. However, I am the father of two or three such people, and I take the mantle of authority on that ground alone to review this delightful rendition of a timeless story. I would never have deliberately turned on my television to watch this production, and I just fell on this production by accident. It took me completely by surprise to see Mercutio as a young black teen-ager with dreadlocks speaking Elizabethan English with an American accent! To see the local Prince appearing as a black chief of police! and to see the epilogue being given in Elizabethan English by the nightly newscaster on television! I would have (been upset) at this blasphemy had I merely read about it. Therefore it was with difficulty that I could believe my ears and eyes which said this was an absolutely seamless juxtaposition of Shakespearian eloquence and modern street behavior, and an eloquent reminder to all of us about the eternal essence of adolescent life and its genuine tragedies. Romeo and Juliet is a story that demonstrates how Adolescence is a highly complicated and creative time of life on its own merits, and that it needs no new mysterious quality to explain its inherent mystery and the depth of the feelings of its current tenants. This production was an education for me, and in one two-hour or so block of time, demonstrated as eloquently as I have ever heard it expressed our ultimate sameness through time and geographic location, and despite social or ethnic background. The acting was brilliant uniformly. (How can that be? Yet I saw it with my own eyes.) The emotion was intense throughout; the depth of the human experience was fully evoked and, in true Shakespearian fashion, beautifully stated (and, of course, was beautifully received by me).
Rating: 
Summary: A Travesty
Review: I just saw this movie on TV. I agree that there is something to be said for attempting to adapt Shakespeare to that he will appeal to younger audiences. However, this movie is tantamount to [bringing] down the Bard so that the kids will pay to see a cool flick, without appreciating the original work. Too much attention was paid to the updating the setting simply to appeal to the younger generation. The camera work and staging were terrible. And if the director is going to rewrite the tomb death scene so that Juliet gets to watch Romeo die, and also to throw away the lines "O happy dagger! This is thy sheath. There rust, and let me die", then why not take whatever liberities he wants? But at what point would the director feel so ashamed that he could not call it "Romeo And Juliet", but instead "Leo And Claire, Based On A Story I Heard About, Written By Some Guy Named Shakespeare"? Because the writers of "West Side Story" wisely chose to create a new script to go with the updated setting, that masterpiece stands on its own as a beautiful adaptation of Romeo And Juliet. The DiCaprio version could have been a good movie also except for the decision to force the original Shakespeare into the production invisioned by this director. Then, like I did a few years after seeing "West Side Story", today's kids might have grown up to later realize, "Hey, that movie with Leo and Claire ... that was actually the story of Romeo And Juliet. Hey, cool adaptation." Good Shakespeare productions do not DISTRACT from the play. The PLAY is the thing, not the setting and the special effects. Remember Hamlet's admonition to the players? "... do not saw the air too much with your hand ... Suit the action to the word ... That's villainous, and shows a most pitiful ambition in the fool that uses it ... " Apparently, this director never read Hamlet, or he has no real interest in paying tribute where tribute is due. Was this movie about the play, or was it about the director's clever ideas about how to capitalize on the work of a genious to make a cool movie for the kids who worship at the feet of a teen idol? ... Anyone who wants to make a movie of a Shakespeare play should stick to the play, or make a real adaptation (a la "WSS"), and not be so impertinent as to think that he can improve on a masterpiece...The only admirable thing about this movie was the capable acting of practically everyone...
Rating:
Summary: Amazing... Shakespeare as you've never seen it.
Review: This is a version of William Shakespeare's most widely known work, that will leave you grasping for more. The thing that is so great about this piece is, even though the original shakespearian script is used, people still know what's going on. It is absolutely Breathtaking.
Rating: 
Summary: Trite-but even a broken clock is right twice a day
Review: What a pity I have yet to see a film version of Romeo and Juliet I wholeheartedly appreciate (is there a Branagh in the house?). And what a pity that an earnest attempt to update Shakespeare and make him more accessible to younger audiences was ruined by being overly-symbolic, stock representationalism, and a rather large miscasting job. Luhrmann's vamped-up locale actually seemed rather interesting when I first heard about it. It even seemed to come off as being pretty decent in some of the scenes (I particularly liked Mercutio's death scene), but pretty soon, the constant reminder that we're in GenX California began to wear thin on my patience. Likewise, the abundant decor that is used, particularly in Juliet's bedroom, reaches the point of suffocation and taking away from the scene. Perhaps, however, the most redeeming part to Luhrmann's lavishness, is the Capulet's ball where it works rather convincingly. Divine decadence. Probably the highlight of the movie is Harold Perrineau Jr's Mercutio. Perrineau has a firm understanding of his character and the ability to shift him from the mid 1500s to the late 1900s. Not quite the easy task, as we notice seeing Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes playing the title characters. While I have seen both turn out fine performances (Celebrity and Little Women come to mind), they performed their Shakespearian roles with the comprehension of a third rate high school performance. They seem to have some understanding of how others performed their roles, and went on those performances in an attempt to be convincing. Unfortunately, it didn't work for me. And perhaps I would have enjoyed the movie much more had they been re-cast. If anything can be said for this film, it's that since its opening, there has been a greater interest in the Bard in younger people, which I suppose is a good thing. I agree with a previous reviewer who said that not only do they go in and see the film, but they understand it. Albeit it's a rather misconstrued version, it's something, right? Right? Well, perhaps we can hope teens use it as a stepping stone to Branagh.
Rating:
Summary: What a Dilemma!
Review: Ok, so here's the deal... When this movie first came out I was about 15 years old, and what blew me away was the number of my friends that went out and saw this- and actually enjoyed it! Sure they probably only went to see Leo, but when it comes down to it, a bunch of Gen X teenagers were voluntarily going out to see Shakespeare and not just liking what they saw, but understanding what they saw.
I love almost anything Baz Luhrmann does and this was no exception (almost). Yeah, if you're older that 15 it can be pretty tough to stomach Leo and Claire. But the way I look at it, anything that helps a larger (and younger!) audience to appreciate The Bard is OK with me. I plan to teach English when I've finished my degree, I can tell you that this film will make a great stepping stone to Branagh's 4hr Hamlet.
So the dilemma- great film, terrible actors- what do you do?
Rating:
Summary: modern Romeo and Juliet
Review: Baz Luhrmann really did something extraordinary with this film! The story is just the same so the words are but they replaced sword with guns. Talk about flamingo style with guns! The setting has been moved from its Elizabethan origins to the futuristic urban backdrop of Verona Beach. You'll never regret seeing the modern WIlliam Shakespeare's Romeo+Juliet!
| 
