Romeo & Juliet (2013)

As Shakespeare Month finally comes to a close, I'm eager to say that this film wasn't as bad for me as a lot of other movies. Honestly, unless it's being updated into modern times or it has seals or garden gnomes, it's hard to tell the difference between "Romeo And Juliet" versions. These are the kinds of movies the people at Channel Awesome don't tackle, because they can't handle Shakespeare. This is even a lackluster film. The worst thing is probably the pacing and how it's too long. Then again, I really didn't think it was an awful movie.I mean, it told the basic story of Romeo and Juliet. It just didn't do anything new with the material. When we've seen this play being remade with so many talented actors, that can become a huge flaw. It's just a basic retelling where there's really nothing to get happy or angry about. I guess Shakespeare is so good that even some of the lesser adaptations are at least sometimes watchable. Hey, it's September! You know what that means? Giant Monster Month! **1/2

I didn't like the movie because i couldn't see any chemistry between Steinfeld and Booth. I think the Leading actors and actresses should have been chosen more carefully, since they are the ones who draw viewers' attentions for any movies. In this movie, there is no chemistry between them at all. Since this legendary story of Sheakespeare requires a lot of passion, i looked for it in the movie. For me, it was totally disappointing. Although the movie doesn't follow the original text, it can only be watched for Sheakespeare's beautiful quotes. However, the one with Leonardo Dicaprio was much better than all "Romeo and Juliet" movies.

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."

It's William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, only it's not really. I'm willing to buy into it if it's done well. Julian Fellowes is trying to simplify the words to be understandable for the modern audience. This feels clunky. There is a musicality to Shakespeare's words which is mostly lost in this version. It just feels wrong.I was actually very fascinated with Hailee Steinfeld who did such a solid job in 'True Grit'. This would be a younger Juliet in the similar vain as Franco Zeffirelli's version. Although she doesn't impress in this, she wasn't the big problem for me. I kept looking at pretty boy Douglas Booth as Romeo. I couldn't stop noticing his tween dreamy idolization of the character. He is like an Abercrombie ad. He's very beautiful and very two dimensional. There are some interesting actors at work here. Paul Giamatti does some good work. I also like Kodi Smit-McPhee. The Italian locations look beautiful. However it is all a bit wasted in a movie full of little annoying problems.