djd5821

Private Romeo is a wonderful experiment and another entry in the extensive library of films highlighting the timeless genius of William Shakespeare. It proves that Romeo and Juliet can be translated into almost any setting. As a movie, it is somewhat lacking. Shakespeare's play combines a perfect mix of romance, comedy and tragedy. Unfortunately, the movie only gets one of them right.

The romance between Glenn Mangan (aka Juliet) and Sam Singleton (aka Romeo) is honest and believable. The actors deliver their lines as well or better than many other Shakespearean actors.

But, with one exception, whatever comedy there is seems completely unintentional. The film is set in an all-boys military academy, so the lines normally spoken by female characters are instead spoken by men. Every time a person said "Juliet" or "Nurse" or "her" I was taken out of the movie and left to ponder the "experiment". Men referring to other men as females became funny after a while. Chris Bresky, who plays Omar Madsen (aka the Nurse), through no fault of his own, was often the source of this unintentional comedy. But he also has the one genuinely funny scene when he returns to Juliet to deliver Romeo's answer to Juliet's question regarding marriage. It is also one of my favorite scenes in Shakespeare's play and Bresky does it beautifully.

But the movie really goes off the rails as a tragedy. In Shakespeare's original, tension is established by two warring families who will only declare peace when they each lose a child. None of this happens in the movie. Only eight students are left behind at the academy, and two of them, Ken Lee (aka the Prince) and Adam Hersh (aka Friar Laurence), are not part of either "family". It's hard to understand the tension among the other six students. Romeo and Juliet are both gay, and when they "come out" during the party, no one seems to be particularly homophobic. Carlos Moreno (aka Tybalt) is upset, but it's unclear why. Is it because they're gay? From different social classes? From different battalions? The battle between the two sides is never clearly defined and we are left to wonder what the problem is.

Romeo and Juliet is a play about coincidences. Romeo goes to the party after being shown the guest list and seeing Rosaline's name. He stumbles over the wall just in time to see Juliet emerge on the balcony. He happens upon Mercutio and Tybalt in the midst of a heated argument. Friar Laurence's letter to Romeo in Mantua gets delayed. Romeo drinks the poison only moments before Juliet awakens. And the Friar arrives at the tomb too late to save Romeo and leaves too early to save Juliet. Each of these coincidences leads inexorably to the play's tragic conclusion.

But no one dies in the movie, so the coincidences, such as they are, are meaningless. Since there is no tension between two warring tribes, the "deaths" of the two protagonists are meaningless. And what did their "deaths" accomplish? Upon awakening, Romeo and Juliet are in the exact same situation they were when they "died". Nothing gets resolved and no one is changed.

The movie is a fine experiment, but I can't recommend it.

On a final note, the acting is superb with kudos to everyone. Hale Appleman (aka Mercutio) is outstanding, and I hope to see him in other movies in the future.

This version is a filmed play set on a stage, and it therefore lacks the refinements of a Hollywood movie. As a stage play it does a great job of conveying how it may have appeared to an Elizabethan audience. Unfortunately, it also lacks one requirement: a Juliet who can act.

Except for Juliet, most of the casting is respectable enough. Alex Hyde-White's Romeo has a bit of a whiny voice, but you get used to it. Dan Hamilton's Mercutio is a bit too refined for the ribald swordsman. And Esther Rolle's Nurse is more stern than flighty, which gives her jokes an unusual harshness. The rest of the cast is solid.

Which brings us to Blanche Baker... wow.... She manages to drain any sexual tension out of every line. Her part of the sonnet spoken to Romeo during the party (i.e., "pilgrims' hands") were spoken as if she were actually praying in church, which makes the subsequent kisses uncomfortably out of place. The balcony scene was especially disconcerting: Mr. Hyde-White was acting and doing his best to play off Ms. Baker, but her responses were so wooden I began to feel sorry for him. Probably not the emotion they were trying for. Ms. Baker never gets better.

With a better Juliet this would have been rated 4 or 5 out of 10.

Teachers looking for a staged version should use the 1976 Joan Kemp-Welch play, which is slightly better than the 1978 BBC/Alvin Rakoff play.

I'm not a ballet connoisseur, but I watched this version and the 1984 version of Romeo and Juliet with Alessandra Ferri, and the latter is so much better.

The dancing was fine, but the story was almost non-existent. It seems as if all the characters came out at the beginning with about 50 extras and you had to guess who was who. Was that Tybalt or Mercutio? Is that Lord Capulet or Lord Montague? And forget about identifying Benvolio and some of the other lesser characters.

Then there were dance numbers that did nothing to advance the story. For example, between the "balcony" scene and the wedding scene there is a long dance routine with extras. Nothing else happens.

And the DVD quality is poor: the camera seems out of focus or degraded from repetitive copying.

Go with the 1984 version instead.

I recently watched the four "Taming of the Shrew" versions on Netflix. The Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford version was a short experiment into talkie by two well-known silent film actors; Pickford was horrendous. Franco Zeffirelli's version was entertaining, but Richard Burton stole the show in what is supposed to be an ensemble play; Elizabeth Taylor played the violent Shrew better than anyone but couldn't pull off the submissive part. The cerebral and dramatic version with John Cleese was the most provocative, but, honestly, it put me to sleep.

The play is Shakespeare at his most misogynistic and is a challenge to make accessible to a modern audience. The director must use every device to lighten the tone and smooth the brutal roughness of Petruchio's lessons. And this was the only version that delivers.

One of the strengths of this version lies with the fact that Franklin Seales (Petruchio) and Karen Austin (Katherina) play it almost straight: Petruchio is honestly trying to woo Kate and she in turn falls in love with Petruchio. And that is the key to making the play work for a modern audience. The rest of the cast relies on slapstick and visual gags allowing the audience to relax and not take too seriously when the two protagonists go at each other. The cast is strong, and kudos to David Chemel for giving the best performance of all the Lucentios (better than Michael York). Bruce Davison as Tranio stole every scene he was in.

After viewing four versions, I finally realized where directors are going wrong with this play. Kate must fall unconditionally in love with Petruchio somewhere between the end of the tailor scene and the beginning of the sun/moon scene. Anything later makes Kate's submission more jarring as in the Zeffirelli version where she appears to have been mentally abused and her final speech forced. The sun/moon scene thus becomes far more entertaining and light-hearted as the couple realizes that they are madly in love. And Kate's final speech and Petruchio's reaction comes across as the couple's wedding vows that the two weren't ready to say a week earlier. This version gets it almost right and should be considered the template for any director trying to update this most difficult play.

Now to tone down my praise: the movie is a staged version filmed on a static set. It looks like a play shot with three cameras simultaneously, like a sitcom. It is not a Hollywood version by any stretch. Taylor was the best Shrew, but Austin played a better Tamed Shrew. If we could just put them together with this script and Zeffirelli directing we may yet end up with a Taming of the Shrew everyone could love.

This is not a movie, but rather a filmed play, hence my rating. Teachers should use this version for instruction into how Shakespeare may have staged his play.

This animated version of the Robin Hood legend manages to check all the boxes in a one-hour film: fight with Little John; fight with Friar Tuck; Will Scarlett ("Scarlock in the film"); Maid Marian, etc.). A nice element added to this version that I had not seen in other versions is Marian's lady-in-waiting disguising herself so that Marian could get word to Robin. The writing is excellent and the voices fit the characters well.

But this is for children. The script does not work at two levels, one for adults and one for children, like the best animation films done today. And the animation is Saturday-morning quality.

For parents, the violence is a bit stronger than you may want, like the Road Runner. The director tries to tone it down, but there are sword-fights and people constantly getting conked on the head: not quite PG, but close.