Romeo & Juliet (II) (2013) User Reviews (107)

Passionate, enjoyable film but with many shortcomings

[stanley_biggs · 7/10 · 2 March 2014]

I am in two minds about this film: On the one hand I can honestly say that I enjoyed it and that it swept me away in the timeless love story. On the other hand there are several things that really bothered me and that I believe would disqualify it from being classified a "good" film.

Firstly, the bad:

1) The movie doesn't follow Shakespeare's original text. Sure enough, the most famous lines are all there, but the movie frequently deviates from Shakespeare's text. The simplification of some text insults the intelligence of the audience and does seem a little arrogant on the parts of the screenwriters. It also doesn't help that much of the changes has the feel of modern speech being rewritten in an "old-english-sounding" tongue which clearly stands out from the classic words of the bard. Not even the ending escapes some liberal changes. 2)Hailee Steinfeld is really a bad casting decision for Juliet. She is simply so much younger than Romeo that their on-screen chemistry looks a bit creepy. Her portrayal of Juliet lacks depth and she simply does not possess the beauty to be a Juliet - especially if you pair her with Douglas Booth as Romeo. (Another reviewer complained that Romeo is more beautiful than Juliet in this film and I have to agree that this is true)

Now for the good: 1) Bringing fierceness and intense passion to the role, I thought Douglas Booth was a really good Romeo. 2) Paul Giamatti is excellent as Friar Laurence. He brings some comic relief, lightness and heart to the film. 3) The story is fast-paced, passionate and intense. Enough of Shakespeare's most-loved soliloquies and dialogue appear to retain the timeless beauty of his words. The words still bring layer upon layer of meaning to the story and brings so much depth and emotion to the story of the star-crossed lovers that one can't help but wander at just how Shakespeare was able to get so much emotion into so few lines.

I give this film a score of 7 as I quite enjoyed it despite it's flaws. Don't watch this movie if you have to do a school project on Romeo and Juliet, though!

Let's face it, Shakespeare would have written a different script for a film

[beatroute-star · 7/10 · 27 January 2014]

Everyone seems to get their panties in a twist over the fact that Fellowees changed the dialogue. While I admit that this seems a tad egotistical, it's not altogether illogical. The real problem isn't even that he left things out (indeed, unlike many adaptions, Rosalind and Paris were kept, as well as the death of Paris). But rendering and adding things is not seen as appropriate.

But let's face it; Elizabethan Theatre is an entirely different writing medium to modern film adaption. There are a number of things that had to happen in those days. Notice they say 'I die' every time someone dies? They talk about their feelings an exceptional amount? And there are other near invisible things that would be entirely different. Shakespeare may have been a genius, but if you pulled up an unknown script of a similar level of genius from this era and made a word for word film, I doubt you could expect a great audience reaction. I've seen kids literally sleep through Polanski's Macbeth and even shrug at Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet (except when they were noting the lead's similarities to Zefron), yet be highly engaged by the stage performance of the play.

Visually, this film is utterly gorgeous. Whoever chose the locations deserves a french kiss from the world. From the first shots of Juliet running in her orange dress, the audience is stunned by the use of colour and scenery. The costumes were great (I don't think anyone was complaining when we saw a gorgeous Douglas Booth is an open white shirt chiseling away). The hair was to die for and the acting wasn't so bad as everyone makes out. Fact is, everyone's used to it being acted VERY Shakespearean. Which isn't how films work. If you're asking for that style of acting, you ought to see the play and burn the movie. The actors here took a more naturalistic approach, which seems flat, but that's probably because it's naturalistic and this is Elizabethan theatre in a period adaption for a 21st century audience. Are we seeing where some things are bound to get tangled?

That all said, there are two things that I can't justify:

• Far too much kissing. Like all the time. It felt like too much sometimes. A lot. This is probably where people see the lack of chemistry, because the kisses seem to come out of nowhere, are accompanied with virtually no crescendo musical masterpieces or great camera shots, and are usually cock-blocked by the nurse.

• Unless your students are well versed in the play, this shouldn't be the go to for schools studying Romeo and Juliet. Let's face it; a lot of kids don't exactly read the whole play, might write things in their essays that only happened in the movie if they watch it. The thing that everyone complains about (the adding of lines) is only truly detrimental here. The other versions (Baz's and Zeffirelli's) only omitted things, rather than adding things, and is a lot safer for educational purposes.

If you're not studying it; if you haven't studied it to the point at which added lines would make you feel ill; if you aren't an absurd prat about purist R&J (keep Shakespeare Shakespearean? I don't even...), then this is a good movie. And Booth is delectable. Always.

This "Romeo & Juliet" is one that's tough to forget.

[dave-mcclain · 7/10 · 28 October 2015]

Many films, not all alike in quality, In fair cinema, where we lay our scene, From ancient story to new screen idolatry, Where repetition makes some critics mean.

Shakespeare's tragic young lovers on screen oft before, for each generation and all others, in '36, '68, '96 and more.

This time Hailee Steinfeld plays Juliet, With Douglas Booth, her devoted Romeo, She, an Oscar nominee for the film "True Grit". And for a handsomer man, you'd have far to go.

The cast includes Natasha McElhone, The long-suffering muse on "Californication", And Damian Lewis, who starred on "Homeland", As a Congressman and a threat to our great nation.

Ed Westwick as hotheaded Tybalt is perfectly cast, having played the scheming Chuck on TV's "Gossip Girl". The rest of the actors, from the first to the last, All well-cast in their roles, from countries around the world.

The language they all speak is truly Shakespeare's own, With some speeches omitted or just changed. The words in the script, to Americans not unknown If you miss a few, the acting keeps you engaged.

I'd be remiss in this review if I failed to mention This retelling of the story is not without invention. The settings and scenery, share a common beauty And with innocence and fragility, Juliet's a cutie.

To conclude, I move on to other plays from which I dare to paraphrase. I hope to close this review on a helpful note, And maybe even give you something to quote.

When deciding on a film for popcorn ingestion, To see or not to see, that is the question. You could just choose to get thee to a nunnery, But that wouldn't be nearly as much… funnery.

Okay, I'm out. Let's see YOU find rhymes for question and nunnery. (Not to mention Stellan Skarsgård and Paul Giamatti, who are great as the Prince of Verona and Friar Laurence, respectively.) The earlier versions of this story are mostly very good, each in its own way, and this one definitely holds its own. If you enjoy love stories with drama, see 2013's "Romeo & Juliet". "B+"

A dummy's reply

[jandesimpson · 25 August 2014]

Of all the clever-clever barbs fired at the 2013 "Romeo and Juliet", "Shakespeare for Dummies" has probably given the film's detractors the most satisfaction. But, as anyone who has read my user reviews of the 1940 "Pride and Prejudice" and the 1999 "Mansfield Park" will quickly realise, I am no purist as far as literary adaptations for cinema are concerned. I suppose therefore I must be something of a dummy, but a dummy who would like to take the floor to confess to finding this recent version of literature's most famous youth-love-death cocktail rather wonderful. Not that it hasn't been well done before. I haven't seen Castellani's but Zefirelli's later version was a thoroughly worthy attempt, certainly of a standard to raise a question as to whether further interpretations were needed. I experienced serious unease fuelled by all those truly awful reviews before even the opening credits. Give it half an hour perhaps. Not that it started particularly well. A horseback contest between a Montague and Capulet reminded that we might well be entering "Ben Hur" country with all the boredom of that gargantuan epic. I suppose it was the entry of Douglas Booth's Romeo chipping away at a stone figure of Rosaline, his current love, in an artist's workshop that raised more than a glimmer of interest. Was ever a portrayer of the role more handsome! And this coming from a pretty 'straight' viewer! Just imagine his effect on all those Juliets in the audience! I have to admit to finding him the more engaging partner, hardly matched by a no more than pretty Juliet, who rather gabbles her lines and is, well, little more than average school dramatic society material. By now I am aware that I am hardly writing a review of something of a terrific film, so what makes it so outstanding? It can be summed up in the one word - passion. This version concentrates on the lovers to the exclusion of much else such as the groundings humour of Mercutio here played absolutely seriously as is Lesley Manville's pragmatically intelligent Nurse. For once,in Paul Giametti's outstanding portrayal, we can really feel the tragedy of Friar Lawrence's ghastly misguided solution to saving the young lovers which serves to drive the action forward to those tragic deaths presented with such moving intensity. It all culminates in a truly great moment when the young Benvolio clasps the dead lovers hands together. Not Shakespeare but nevertheless a masterstroke. As a bonus we are treated to beautifully shot locations. At one point where the lovers depart from one another on a riverbank the image is ravishing. The main quarrel of its detractors seems to be copious liberties with the playwright's text. There is no question but this is an adaptation in the same way as Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood" and "Ran" both of which are reverenced by cineastes yet contain not a line of Shakespeare. Why all the furious reactions to this version? Remembering the derision than was heaped against Powell and Pressburger's marvellous "Gone to Earth" when it first appeared in the early 1950's but has now achieved deserved recognition, I put it that Carlo's Carlei's "Romeo and Juliet" is possibly a film before its time. Sadly I shall not be around in a few decade's time to say, "I told you so."

A traditional film adaptation of a famous play that can be easily embraced by a new generation.

[khanbaliq2 · 6/10 · 10 March 2014]

If Hailee Steinfeld is in a movie then I will definitely see that movie. The young actress made an impressive debut in True Grit (2010), but then took a 3 year break from acting. In 2013 she had a role in Ender's Game, a science fiction action thriller that's definitely worth seeing. She also had a role in Romeo And Juliet, a straightforward film adaptation of William Shakespeare's romantic tragedy that works thanks to the actors and the screenplay. Julian Fellowes wrote a screenplay that makes the film interesting for a new generation of viewers. Changing some of the play's dialogue may be unacceptable for some people, but what we get here is a manageable story with the poetic dialogue intact. It works well in the film. Carlo Carlei can be praised for his direction because the film doesn't lose pace or interest. Carlei makes the dramatic scenes work, especially at the end when Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet have to make difficult decisions because of unfortunate circumstances. The cast deliver the dialogue well. Steinfeld was 17 when the film was released, but she projects maturity and makes Juliet a tragic figure. Douglas Booth allegedly beat out 300 other actors for the part of Romeo. He's 4 years older than Steinfeld, and the romance between the two isn't as good as it should be, but they are an appealing young pair. It's Paul Giamatti, playing Friar Laurence, who's most comfortable with the poetic dialogue however. I like that Romeo And Juliet was filmed in Italy, including in Verona, where Shakespeare's tragedy is set. Franco Zeffirelli's terrific 1968 film was a big hit with a similar approach to the material. Carlei's Romeo And Juliet wasn't a repeat of that phenomenon but it's still a solid film that can easily appeal even to teenagers. I recommend it.

Disappointing

[mike-salisbury47 · 4/10 · 24 February 2014]

If you love the play (as I do), my guess is that you'll not be disposed to like this version. The screenwriter, Julian Fellowes, takes some pretty significant liberties with Shakespeare's original text, which consistently left me wincing when I anticipated a line, only to hear a paraphrased version. I hate to sound all snooty and say you shouldn't mess with Shakespeare (I'm sure it's not perfect) but I would think a screenwriter would set a pretty high standard for changing what the Bard wrote, and based on the number of changed lines, I get the feeling that Fellowes set the bar pretty low. It's the language of the play that makes it so wonderful to me. The general story itself never interested me until I read the play and similarly themed stories (such as West Side Story) have never captured my interest. I don't buy that the language is too hard for modern audiences: even the most opaque puns and outdated language can be translated to audiences via acting and directing. And almost everyone has probably read (or was supposed to have read) the play in high school, so it's not as if this is going to be the first exposure to the play for most people.

There were also bizarre changes or additions that didn't make any sense to me. A tournament to start the film? What did that add to the story besides having a scene with mounted knights and lances? Mercutio a Montague rather than the Prince's family? OK, not sure what that accomplished. Benvolio and Rosaline at Capulet's ball? Maybe that would have been more interesting if Romeo hadn't already moved on, but it just seemed strange. The Tybalt-Juliet scene after the ball?

One thing that puzzled me was that Mercutio never felt like an important character. His major Queen Mab speech was cut short and it seemed that there was more effort to establish Romeo and Benvolio's friendship than Romeo and Mercutio's. I feel like the director made this effort to make Benvolio a larger character, which I think made for some powerful scenes at the end of the movie, but when this is at the expense of Mercutio's character, who is one of the few really interesting/dynamic characters in the play, I felt that was a mistake.

One odd criticism that I've seen in a number of reviews is that Douglas Booth was too pretty, or prettier than Juliet, and this was somehow a problem or a distraction. This is hardly a new dynamic as I would say that both Leonardo DiCaprio and Leonard Whiting were 'prettier' than their respective Juliets (who were both lovely!) which I don't think was a problem in either of those films. My take is this has a lot to do with how R&J movies are marketed at teenage girls as their prime audience and that a 'beautiful' Romeo is what you do to sell seats at the theatre.

In the end, I don't think that Haillee Steinfeld was a strong enough actress for Juliet. This is probably the hardest role in the play, covering a huge emotional range and demonstrating significant changes and maturation in the character over the course of the play. She seems to be reading lines and not adding any emotion or inflection most of the time. I just never felt that she was quite there. Booth was fine as Romeo, not great, but not bad.

And just once, I'd love to see a movie where they can't touch or kiss during the balcony scene (which is what the text of the play makes clear). Or at least take out the line 'What satisfaction canst though have tonight?' which makes no sense if they're in physical contact.

To say some positive things: the setting and cinematography was beautiful, as many have said Lord Capulet was well played as was the Nurse I think. I thought that Benvolio was well played although the actor was distractingly way younger looking than Romeo, Mercutio, Tybalt etc. I like that they kept the scene in where Romeo kills Paris as that was not in the Zeffirelli or Lurhmann versions.

Overall, I just don't think this version offered anything new or interesting. The Luhrmann version did this and thus I think was worthwhile. I don't see any reason why this would replace the Zeffirelli version as the cannon version of the movie.

The CW does Romeo and Juliet

[Robert_duder · 7/10 · 2 February 2014]

It is always hard to watch another version of a film that has been done and done again. However, I love Shakespeare and Romeo and Juliet is probably my favourite of his (very close to Hamlet.) I was very excited to see this latest interpretation even though I have seen SO many different renditions. There is some bad about the film but also some very good. This particular version is rewritten and paraphrased into what I call "loose" Shakespeare. Its still poetic and melodramatic but the words are easier to understand for those not so prone to Shakespeare. This version specifically aims itself to the teen demographic. As I said in the review title, it was the sort of thing that the CW network would try to do (and even features Gossip Girl alumni Ed Westwick but more on that in a moment.) I would NEVER fault anyone for trying to bring literary classics to the modern teens of the world so if this does it for them then that's fine by me. However, it will be a little lower than what Shakespeare fans anticipate I am certain. Shakespeare is already incredibly melodramatic and Romeo and Juliet is about the most sappy you can get. So much pining and whining and violence and misdirected love. The paraphrased and re-written script makes that worse. Still some the key scenes are mostly in tact (my favourite monologue when he first sees Juliet was decently done and almost kept the same as the original.) This version is still quite enjoyable.

I, as many others did, fell in love with Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit. She was brilliant!! I also happen to think she was very good in Ender's Game. I thought she would be an amazing Juliet and she was!! She is young and innocent and pure looking and delivered her lines very well. Her intensity was well done and she was perfect for the lead for the demographic the film is aimed at. She wasn't jaw dropping but how many other Juliets have we seen and how much could she have done with it. She did well for what the role provided. Douglas Booth is our Romeo and teen girls will absolutely swoon for him. He is a pretty, pretty young man (Ebert said Romeo should not be prettier than Juliet.) I actually thought he did a solid job in the role. His chemistry with Steinfeld was good and they both did the brooding pining teenage love thing very well. Was it sappy? You bet. But they both delivered the poetic lines well. Neither were stunning but both were very entertaining in their roles. The supporting cast ranged from okay to quite good. The previously mentioned Ed Westwick is campy and over-acts in his role as Tybalt. He looks and talks very Shakespearean but man does he overplay it. I thought Kodi Smit-McPhee (another very, very talented young actor) was understated but REALLY impressive as the young Benvolio. Christian Cooke also didn't have a lot of scenes but did well as the cocky Mercutio. Lesley Manville, Damian Lewis, Stellan Skarsgård and Paul Giamatti added an excellent, much needed and very well done level of sophistication and experience to the cast. The four of them were particularly good and clearly have Shakespeare backgrounds to show off.

I would have liked to have seen a much better director than the mostly unknown Carlo Carlei do this film. That being said, some of the setting and stunning scenery is just beautiful. How brilliant of them to do some of the filming IN Verona Italy!! I think that's awesome! Sometimes you honestly have to look beyond the surface of a film. Should Shakespeare be re-written? No. Never. Were they trying to give a new and very different generation the opportunity to experience Romeo and Juliet. Yes and I am definitely okay with that. As an English major, writer and lover of Shakespeare and theatre I was still entertained. I was not floored by any means but I still enjoyed it. I'm not saying you should always give film makers free passes to butcher something but this isn't butchered...its just different and for a very specific demographic. Lighten up everyone and enjoy it for what it is. 7/10 I read some very harsh professional reviews of this film including a scathing one from the late, great Roger Ebert. Certainly

A botched job

[himbletony · 2/10 · 6 February 2020]

This is not a good film let alone a not so bad version of Romeo and Juliet. The whole enterprise is pretty, but irredeemably flat. Douglas Booth looks like a renaissance beauty, while Hailee Steinfeld just looks like the girl next door, but even allowing for this disparity, they both speak their lines as if they were reading round in an English class : no indication that they felt the passion or even understood the lines (although one supposes that they may well have done). There is therefore, zero chemistry between the two hapless actors, which is the death knell for any story of passion.

Much is made of Fellowes' script (most of it bad). The thing is, it's an uneasy mixture that works neither as version of Shakespeare, nor as its own version. Fellowes might have received more respect had he gone full out to re-conceive the dialogue in quasi-medieval terms, but he obviously lacked the nerve. The directorial choices didn't help either : in the Zefferelli version, Romeo's eyes are following Rosalind when there is a parting of the dancers and Juliet is revealed in her full height and beauty in a stunning red dress, wearing no mask. In this version, we see a few hints of a masked Juliet, with no visual impact. Therefore, the poetic line "it seems that she hangs from the cheek of night like a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear" is stupid, because he can't even see her properly in order to make such a judgement, particularly as Steinfeld is not in the same league as the jewel-like Hussey. Hussey and Whiting both outdo these two leads in the clarity and urgency of their delivery. The famous misunderstood word "wherefore" in the balcony scene, which means "WHY are you Romeo?" which then leads to the questioning of how we name things (What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet") is actually delivered by Seinfeld as if Juliet IS saying "Where are you Romeo?" and the following musing not a logical extension of that incorrect idea.

The extra details add nothing to the story (the jousting for example) and just muddy things unnecessarily. The fight scenes lack the messy confusion that such a brawl would be (Zefferelli got that right again) leading to a less immediate and more artificial effect. The fact that a lot of this was shot in Verona means absolutely nothing if you are not engaged. I weep every time I watch the Zefferelli version. This one just bored me. A botched job.

A very misunderstood film.

[filipemanuelneto · 9/10 · 5 October 2016]

From time to time, a film director decides to adapt Shakespeare's plays. In all fairness, it's great stuff and deserves to be taken to the screen. However, when this happens, the people (particularly those whose mother tongue is English) don't like it and have great difficulty in understanding that, when a book is adapted to cinema, it has to be adapted or adjusted. Its a necessary job, and does not spare any book or author. It can be hard to accept, especially for the purists, who see Shakespeare as a kind of untouchable "sacred cow", but the truth is that cinema can be based on literature but its not literature. I say this because I realized that this film was the target of massive criticism for the way the book was adapted. The writers were so incompetent? They cut something important to the understanding of the story? They have profoundly altered it? No. But they sought to adapt the text a little, for dramatic purposes. The essential was there, untouched, and this does not shock me. This is cinema, not theater, and people have to understand that the public goes to the cinema to see a movie, not a recorded play. Do you want the original text, ipsis litteris? Read the book or go see the play. Cinema is concerned in keeping the story, not the text. Almost all movies are so, this is no different. Now let's talk about the movie.

The movie is interesting, keeps the essence of the original story, but changes the dialogues and interpretation, abandoning the artificial tone of Shakespearean theater and taking a more natural posture. The idea is good, its a breath of fresh air, but I think the posture adopted is too "XX century" and something is missing in the way the characters act that remind us the fifteenth century. One of the most reprehensible things is the amount of kisses and touches. This does not fit the historical period depicted, much more puritanical than ours. The actors did a decent job, engaged and committed to the story itself. Douglas Booth was by far the best Romeo I've seen in the movies, much more credible than Leo was in "Romeo + Juliet". Hailee Steinfeld was not bad either, but her acting has seemed a little forced in some scenes. Everything else is absolutely impeccable: the bright, colorful picture is magnificent, in harmonious combination with the great scenery and locations chosen for filming, and that depict faithfully what have been Verona during this time. The costumes also fit into the historical period and are exquisite. The soundtrack, discrete but present, fulfills her role with great skill.

Far from being a bad movie, this movie will never be understood by the public who are not able to see the difference between literature, theater and cinema. Despite some minor flaws, the film is well done and does not deserve at all, in my opinion, the severe criticism it has received.

Script was a disappointment but acting, production design and wardrobe were magnificent

[fearless11 · 6/10 · 30 October 2013]

Overall, the main reason for the lack of quality of Romeo and Juliet was the script. It kind of ruined the whole thing. The script of the movie was a defiled version of the play, with way-too-obvious comedic entries and other unnecessary stuff that you could see right through. The Downton Abbey writer, Julian Fellowes, completely adulterated the original material, and I haven't even read the play - those changes were truly quite obvious. It felt like he was purposefully trying to attract an audience that wanted to have fun instead of experiencing the tragedy story properly, what it actually is.

They placed too much emphasis on kissing and swords, but mostly the kissing was very exaggerated in amount, although there was no sex (I didn't like this). The swords only went in 10 inches, and the characters all died within 1 minute. I mean, come on, no one dies that quickly of such a blow.

The acting was pretty great, though, especially the male actors'. I found Douglas Booth's performance better than Hailee Steinfeld's, perhaps because it was only her second movie and she might not have been as deeply familiar with the story as Booth. But she was still very good. Damian Lewis, Christian Cooke (Mercutio), and, most surprisingly, Kodi Smit-McPhee (Benvolio) and Ed Westwick (Tybalt) did really great jobs. I really have to stress Douglas Booth's performance, though. He did an incredible job, truly. The tone of his voice, the look in his face, his whole demeanor changed perfectly and seamlessly from scene to scene, emotion to emotion, line to line. Superb.

From a technical point of view, the editing of the "battle" scenes was ridiculously terrible, change of shot every second, from bad shot to worse shot. Pretty awful. Cinematography was actually OK, in all fairness good at some points, but the editing ruined it. And lastly, the sets (and outdoors settings), the costumes, and the hair and makeup were so good. Unimaginably beautiful, perfectly realized, and so gorgeously well-tailored. They made me a bit reminiscent of Anna Karenina, so stunning they were.

Pretty, but mostly pretty bad

[Bologna King · 5/10 · 9 November 2013]

This is the most recent in a series of Italian versions of Romeo and Juliet which starts with the 1955 film directed by Renato Castellani and the 1968 film directed by Franco Zeffirelli. They are all very pretty and this one is the prettiest, with extremely pretty scenery, a pretty Juliet and an even prettier Romeo.

That's about the best that can be said for it. Fellowes, the screenplay writer, has actually written some new scenes that are not bad examples of blank verse in the Elizabethan style, but they do not have the genius of Shakespeare, and the new scenes don't add much to the story. Replacing Shakespeare's words with his own, which he does far too often, invariably results in poorer and less interesting lines.

Unfortunately, the leads aren't persuading anyone that they are in love, and our attention is drawn instead to some good performances by the supporting cast, especially Damian Lewis's Capulet, which I think is the best performance by anyone as Capulet on screen ever.

So, generally, apart from Lewis, you are much better off watching Zeffirelli's film.

Brilliant Cinematography, I don't believe they "changed" any of the lines, instead the writer adds further explanation of the details.

[ShearahElrel · 8/10 · 16 February 2014]

I'm quite shocked that this adaptation is receiving bad reviews. They come out with a new version of Romeo and Juliet every 10 years it seems and although I still love Romeo+Juliet from the 90s I love this one for different reasons.

Romeo and Juliet is such a beautiful tragic love story, I applaud the filmmakers for their choices. I loved the setting for this film, such beautiful and grand locations. Romeo and Juliet is set in Verona and this film captures it beautifully.

The jousting in the opening scene was genius for that was probably taking place at the time. It was more historical accurate and it really showed and felt right for Shakespeare's classic. I loved how Romeo was a sculptor, when he is talking about Rosaline and sculpting her, that was perfect for the time period. Romeo as an artist just makes sense. At first, I had reservations that Bonvelo, (who let's be honest is the real reason why Romeo discovers Juliet's "dead") is played by such a young actor but he made me a believer, when Romeo gives him that final goodbye, it was just heartbreaking. Men were also made at a younger age during that time so we can historically accept that. Also, when Bonvelo gives Romeo the news, Romeo has this moment where he looks up at that beautifully painted Fresco and he has that very Hamletesque moment the "To be or not to be," inner struggle that the filmmakers probably wanted the audience to reference.

No film production of this play will please everyone, alas I feel in love with it!It was those little details that were added that made me enjoy this adaptation. I cried again for the star crossed lovers, this film has magic for those who give it a chance!

Visually stunning, but lacking in authenticity...

[ruby-wells764 · 6/10 · 17 January 2014]

I was very excited about this re-make of Shakespeare's timeless love story - the trailer made it look great... however I was disappointed to find that the original dialogue had been slightly altered. I don't think that this is something that a screenwriter can do half-heartedly - in my opinion, either completely stick to the original or completely modernise it. I did find myself irritated throughout at the lack of authenticity (although I expect that viewers not too familiar with or bothered by the original text will not mind this too much). I did also think that the acting lacked some depth and sincerity. That said, the visuals of this film do have to be commended - the sets and costumes are beautiful throughout.

Overall, I did not entirely hate this film - it has a lot of redeeming qualities, however I think that fan's of Shakespeare's original will not be impressed...

Worse than a high school play

[xodasha · 1/10 · 14 October 2013]

Terrible. The scenery was nice and the music was okay, but that's all. I love Romeo and Juliet, and I'm a HUGE fan of the 1968 movie, but this left me laughing instead of crying. The acting was a joke, none of it was believable(I don't think Romeo OR Juliet had any idea what they were saying through out this movie) parts of scenes were missing, and the tomb scene was twisted in a stupid way. I wish I hadn't gone to see it, waste of money... This makes the Leo DiCaprio movie look good, at least it was full of emotion and Mercutio was actually a unique character. Let's just say that if I have never heard of Romeo and Juliet before and watched this movie for the very first time, I'd probably never understand it or even see the beauty in it. This was very disappointing.

Woe is me.

[JohnDeSando · 12 October 2013]

"For never was a story of more woe Than this of Juliet and her Romeo." Count Paris (Tom Wisdom)

The "woe" in this umpteenth adaptation of Romeo and Juliet over the last 400 years is that the titular lass, as played by Hailee Steinfeld, is weakly acted with immaturity, poor elocution, and disappointing physical presence. Add to that another woe: Douglas Booth's Romeo is prettier than Steinfeld with only slightly better articulation.

So, the outdoor production I saw this summer outflanked director Carlo Carlei's uneven take. However, for sets and cinematography, his production is beautiful, having been lovingly filmed in Verona. The ancient estates are astonishingly effective as horses race past old bricked walls and lovely ladies act beneath frescoes and columns that boast of nobility.

Yet the real reason to see this new production is Paul Giamatti's Friar Laurence, a benign manipulator undone by forces beyond his control. Giamatti's range from sweet confessor and cupid to perplexed operative is masterful. Look for his Oscar nomination for best supporting actor.

Lesley Manville as the Nurse is second only to Giamatti, a loving servant with a twinkle and a deep understanding of the lethal games. In fact, most of the supporting players such as Damian Lewis's Lord Capulet are welcome pros next to the amateurish leads.

The film, while featuring the besieged friar, also does a successful job highlighting the egregiously intense hormonal urges of young men: Tybalt (Ed Westwick) and Mercutio (Christian Cooke) have the feral ferocity of doomed warriors. Even the more placid Count Paris is waiting to let his inner soldier take over in the revenge category.

Writer Julian Fellowes bastardizes some of Shakespeare's glorious dialogue (why would anyone try to improve on the best?) and even adds rogue lines, albeit in the Elizabethan mode, such as "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Now that is not Shakespeare!

But the basic story is still the essence of intelligent soap opera, and for its endurance, even with weak leads, I am grateful. And that cinematography makes me long to return to fair Verona.

Perhaps the most inferior remake yet

[edmund-marlowe · 6/10 · 23 June 2014]

Usually I award six stars to a film I consider to be of watchable quality, but no better. In this case I would add the caveat that it is nevertheless not actually worth watching when you could instead be seeing Zeffirelli's version, even if for the umpteenth time. As I regard the latter as the best film ever made, you may suspect I went into Carlei's version with a closed mind, but I think not. The makers of this film must surely be aware how very often good films are remade disastrously, so I saw it having imagined they would at least have made a valiant effort to compete with such a peerless film. I was wrong. I had also thought they deserved interest for their sheer nerve in taking it on. In the event, the idiocy of mounting such a feeble challenge undermined the sympathy I might have had for the time and money they wasted.

The screenplay writer is either arrogantly stupid to think he can improve on Shakespeare, most of whose dialogue has been done away with, or so patronising he assumes the audience is too stupid to understand Shakespeare.

The acting of the two leading roles was atrociously wooden. The Juliet was fatally lacking in both beauty and spark. The Romeo was good-looking enough, but in the wrong way: too self-consciously so and without the captivating touch of melancholy that made Whiting perfectly-cast in Zeffirelli's film. This most famous of all love stories has one bedroom scene; if there is one moment in the whole of cinema where some frank homage to the eros that underpins youthful passion is strongly called for, it is here. Zeffirelli did so with a few exquisitely tasteful nude shots. Carlei's failure to do likewise is unforgivable. If he is too much in thrall to the sour attitudes of the day towards celebrating teenage beauty, that alone was reason enough to desist from making a film obviously better suited to a more romantic age.

The redeeming feature was the sumptuously beautiful scenery and cinematography, but even here the old film was as spectacular and its costumes more so.

Only months after seeing it, that is about all I can still remember about this forgettable film.

Edmund Marlowe, author of Alexander's Choice, a modern tragedy of forbidden love, www.amazon.com/dp/1481222112

I sentence this movie to exile

[Darkside-Reviewer · 3/10 · 25 October 2019]

There has been a lot of movie interpretations over the years of this classic story of love and loss some are classics like the 1968 film and some are simple made for TV movies and mini series that while not great still manage to entertain and do the story some justice but this movie interpretation of the famous play by Shakespeare has absolutely no redeeming qualitys.

The leading roles of Romeo & Juliet are played by (Douglas Booth) and (Hailee Steinfeld) who are both talented young actors and have had many roles before and after this movie but here they just fail to bring any real passion to their roles as the star crossed lovers with no real chemistry between them and blank expressions and mono tone voices throughout the movie they are just so easily forgettable in their roles that it's hard to feel anything for the characters in the movies sad climax.

The costumes and makeup are much too clean and tidy making the swordplay and duelling scenes look laughably posh when Mercutio is stabbed by Tybalts blade he looks more concerned about the blood stains on his white shirt.

The only actor in this poor excuse for a movie that is perfectly cast is (Paul Giamatti) as Friar Laurence his performance is the best in the movie and he fits the character perfectly it's just a shame it's this adaptation of Romeo & Juliet he's involved in.

I don't recommend watching this movie especially if your a fan of this classic story there are far better movie adaptations of Romeo & Juliet out there than this I personally recommend the classic 1968 film staring Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting.

I always hope creative license will make a change at the end...lol.

[quayla-370-650896 · 7/10 · 26 October 2018]

This is Bill's work. Not William's. It's tweaked to be understood. Not that I didn't "understand" what was suppose to be happening in the play. When I was in high school we read Romeo and Juliet. I like the story, but the language is above most people. The teacher would ask what you thought this line meant and that line meant. I would always think, why do I have to figure out what they're talking about in every line, can't I just get the gist? Or why does the teacher think he knows what Shakespeare was thinking when he said whatever line (since nobody really knows what anybody is really thinking). Maybe "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" really does mean "Where is Romeo?". Was he there? Did he help Shakespeare write it??? All these years of listening to people say what other people mean has left me with an appreciation for artist license. If you revamp a story, I'll appreciate it the way you mean it and I'll either like it or I wont.

They didn't keep completely to the language of the script, but they kept the faves like the lines to the balcony scene, since even if you're not a fan of Shakespeare you've probably heard it/know it. Anyway, I give it a 7 because I'm not a complete fangirl who hates even one line being altered.

My only wish is for somebody to say, "Ya know. I think Romeo and Juliet would find away to be together and not be stupid enough to keep themselves." If I was in love with Romeo and my father said to me that he would disown me and throw me out, I'd say ok and leave. They want to be together. If they had just run off this would have never happened. There's ways to keep people from following you. Verona don't take up all the Earth...lol. So I would love for one of these writers to make Romeo and Juliet just a bit smarter in their love...since they're gonna change it in a lot of minor ways anyway...lol.

Who let this happen?

[vicky_jam29 · 1/10 · 16 October 2013]

If you enjoy the immortal words of Shakespeare's eponymous play then DO NOT SEE THIS FILM! I only stayed for an hour and that is an hour of my life I will never get back. I'm baffled as to how anyone could bastardise Shakspeare to such an extent that it was almost unrecognisable.

It really was 'Shakespeare for Dummies' rewritten by a man who is clearly so arrogant as to think the general public couldn't possibly understand or enjoy the original text. Job well done Mr Fellowes because I barely recognised any of it so if that was your intention then, bravo! You would really be better of watching 'Shakespeare in Love' if you want an introduction to Romeo & Juliet that stays true to the text & also has an enjoyable narrative rather than this drivel.

The acting was contrived and there was absolutely zero chemistry between the two leads. Also it was very disconcerting watching a 'boy' play Romeo that was prettier than many females I know.

If you love Romeo & Juliet, for you own peace of mind, stay away from this aberration. If you enjoy Twilight, this might be for you.

Loved the movie

[Twiggerfamily · 9/10 · 18 June 2014]

Well I loved this version of Romeo and Juliet - the scenery is stunning, the music is beautiful, the acting authentic and Douglas Booth as the lead is incredible. Having visited Verona myself in the past it was wonderful to see the original setting used for the film. The film is full of passion and action and the young cast add to the authenticity of it.

As a lover of Shakespeare I thoroughly enjoyed the film and feel it's a good introduction for youngsters.

it's a fabulous movie if you love romance and drama and I would thoroughly recommend it.

oh, Claire Danes, wherefore art thou?

[RavenGlamDVDCollector · 7/10 · 1 October 2020]

Behold that I hath given it a Seven.

You shouldn't show the "dead" Juliet to The Raven. He goes nuts. In a bad way. But I'm talking about the 1996 Baz Luhrman version with... (reverent pause here) Claire Danes (sigh). And then there is also the 1968 version with Olivia Hussey. Which found a tough audience in me but succeeded against all the odds.

To get to the point, this one... well, Hailee is not Claire. Not glorious Claire. And I agree with another reviewer here, the Romeo here is a far more suitable Romeo than the Juliet here is as Juliet.

But to say that this is some failure would be wrong. Again, despite terrible odds, despite me not having expected to be won over, despite uneven performances, I did enjoy it.

However, the very crucial last scene, the tomb sequence, the whole thing... it could not compete at all, not at all, not at all. Not with 1996, not with 1968...

...and the point is, a 2013 production should have blown what has gone before out of the water.

Lines are delivered like schoolchildren rehearsing for a play. There isn't enough chemistry between Juliet and Romeo. Crucial characters lack conviction. Let me just say that Ed Westwick as Tybalt... were they all as good as that.

this broke Shakespeare

[james_shaw1990 · 2/10 · 9 March 2014]

you know the story, you knew about it before you even read or watched an adaption of it. this is because it is considered a timeless piece which this film failed to realize. Romeo + Juliet (1996) understood and played on the idea that you don't need to place Shakespeare in Elisabethan times to make the story work. this adaption should never have been made, too much unoriginal dialogue added unnecessarily. there is a reason why R+M (96) is shown to English students, because even though how vastly removed from original time and location, the characters, dialogue, plot are more relatable and loyal to the original material.

the story allows the director to experiment with countless adaptions, this movie could have been made out in space, a pixar animation, gay lovers, anything fresh and re imagined would have been welcomed,the director got it backwards, he kept the era and plot but changed the dialogue shamelessly. his writing isn't up to scratch to make it work, but don't blame the director, i blame the producers who didn't have the common sense or loyalty to Shakespeare to let this movie find its proper place in the bin

much underrated

[noelcox · 10/10 · 12 July 2014]

This may not be the perfect version of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet - if such a thing is possible - but it is much better than the rating of 5.7 suggests. The production values alone merit a higher rating. However, moving to the writing, acting and directing, this is also a much better film than some have suggested. It is certainly a more conventional version than the 1996 DiCaprio and Danes film, which I found at time too weird in its modernization. This newer attempt at the famous Shakespearean tragedy is closer to the 1968 Zeffirelli film, though it may not quite reach that effort in its impact. Personally, despite one or two concerns, the film is actually very successful in its rendering of the tale, atmospheric and poignant, and the acting, especially by the supporting cast, very good.

Good, but could have been better

[aol10449013 · 7/10 · 11 March 2014]

The movie was good, but they didn't stick to the original script, which disappointed me. The actors could have been more attractive, I agree, but they were supposed to be authentic to the time period, and let's face it, the people back then, based upon today's standards, were about as attractive as they were. My personal opinion is that they should have cast Josh Hutcherson as Romeo. Just saying. I liked the movie, but they should have cast someone who could enunciate better. The acting was okay, but again, this is modern day people who are trying to act out a Renaissance era play. Overall, I liked the movie, and would recommend it to a friend.

Was begging for them to kill themselves already

[ashi4782 · 2/10 · 29 January 2014]

This movie was very well made. The cinematography, acting, music, script, costume design, and set design were all well done. However, this movie lacked heart and soul. It lacked suspense or intensity, which was what Romeo and Juliet supposed to be about. It cut much of the swordfighting action and the music, while good, was underwhelming. That is actually thebest word to describe this whole movie. Underwhelming. Every scene I felt could have been done better if they had just performed more dramatically or if the music was more intense, or if the composition was more close-up.

Romeo and Juliet is a masterwork of irony and this movie took it out completely. It was so rushed in a way that felt distant and just trying to push through it. It never settled at moments and it pains me to watch it. The only good scene was at the end when they killed themselves because of Paul Giamatti's performance.

God, and I thought the 1998 version was bad, this one is even worse. Watch the 1968 version for the good Romeo and Juliet.