User reviews

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+"

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!

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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'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!

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.

"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.

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.