Romeo + Juliet (1996)

It's a bit late to be reviewing this movie, but I find it an exceptional reboot. Everything about it is on permanent overdrive, as exemplified by the oversaturated setting and terse cinematography. Some people have reviewed this and expressed distaste at Harold Perinneau's portrayal of Mercutio in favour of the 1968 John McEnery. While "de gustibus non est disputandum" certainly applies here, I think it's worth pointing out that McEnery's performance brought a certain boorishness and abrasion to the character that Perrineau did not. Romeo, played by DiCaprio, was excellently cast and acted, striking a healthy balance between stunningly handsome and endearingly clumsy and exuberant. And I don't care what all you phonies say, Claire Danes was gorgeous.

Others have derided the film for certain choices made in the staging, combat, and/or nonverbal action, remarking "Where did Shakespeare write that?" Well. First, we are already working in a modern setting, so the assumption that historical accuracy in staging and direction should be followed to a T is frankly absurd. Second, the plays are public domain, which is a mixed blessing, as it brought us the 2013 R&J Sparknotes movie adaptation. But with that freedom comes a brilliant opportunity of artistic expression from the director, and each choice of omission or interaction in this production was apparently made with great care to maintain the integrity of the story being told.

To touch on comparisons between the 68 and 96 movies: don't try to tell me Leonard Whiting acted like he had any idea what he was saying. Have you people seen the movie?

This film is definitely worth your time. I find it to be a well-wrought revamping of one of my favourite plays from the Shakespeare Corpus.

Fmovies: This movie does an excellent job of combining Shakespearian dialogue with

modern imagery. Admittedly, I first watched this movie when it came out

because of Leo; eight years later (and seven years after middle school ended), I realize just how well-done this film actually is. Luhrmann did an excellent job of making the movie believable while using the quaint language. This movie

brings new life into the words of Shakespeare, and even if you know the play

almost by heart it is refreshing to hear the words in an entirely new context, and one which makes sense. This version of Romeo and Juliet actually does add

something to the extensive history of the play. The soundtrack is excellent, the acting is appropriate (Danes and DiCaprio do a wonderful job of portraying the young lovers), and the scenery is fabulous. This film jump-started the trend of modern-day Shakespeare remakes, and I think it's the best one.

I highly recommend this for those who find the reading of Shakespearean text difficult but have a desire to explore his masterful works. The modern-day setting and the brilliant dramatic interpretations rendered by the actors (all wonderfully cast, incidentally) transform Shakespeare's tragic masterpiece into a modern-day cinematic tour de force. DiCaprio and Danes are believably cast together (although Danes' natural conservatism is occasionally apparent, though not to any detrimental affect). Sorvino as Capulet is forceful, powerful,and immovable (just what this viewer believes Shakespeare probably had in mind as he penned the classic). Mercutio (Harold Perrineau Jr.) is powerfully moving in the entirety of his portrayal. This movie is visually mesmerizing. I HIGHLY recommend this movie to anyone with an open mind and appreciation for excellent theatre.

Romeo + Juliet fmovies. This is not Shakespeare's best play, but it has his best poetry; that's because the play is ABOUT language, about the difference between what something is and the language used to describe it. So among the plays, this may be one of the hardest to film. But alas it suffers from another blessing which is also a curse: the story itself is so powerful that one can build any sort of film or play or whatever around it and have it be likely to work. Thus, we often lose the language.

Zefrelli made his own choices in the earlier film; these were relatively conventional. While it cut some valuable language, sacrificed to the gods of contemporary patience, it is by far the better version. But here we have some interesting choices.

First the setting. Italians to Shakespeare's England were a comical people, and his setting of the play there would have encouraged the audience to bring heavy stereotypes to the drama. Latins in his day were considered: Foppish: Quick to violence (a stereotype that has been inherited by blacks today, but to Londoners, Italians were nearly Africans): Incredibly proud especially as regards slights to masculinity: Obsessed with weapons.

Today, we roll those up under the relatively crude notion of stupid Latin macho. In this film, the director has exaggerated the Latin macho ethic to have the same effect 16th century Londoners would get. It works because these stereotypes are powerful memes which attract many hosts which perpetuate their underlying truth. Baz adds the additional dimension of the people being captured by the superstitious underbelly of the Church.

He deliberately straddles the border between apparent truth and satire. These Latins are superficial visually and not verbally. So here is the solution to the problem on how to make a film (which is primarily a visual medium) out of a play that leverages poetic language. The solution is to convert all the metaphors from language to vision. Hence the much-noted lack of poetry. I imagine Baz directing the players to not worry so much about the poetry.

Both Romeo and Juliet are incapable of performing the poetry anyway: they are children learning on the job. And what acting skill they have from film is all in the face, not the tongue. They are pretty enough though.

I like this film for its boldness. Some of the experiment works since we get the message of the difference between what we see and what is true. This is why Juliet has to see a LIVE Romeo at the end. Living under water is used to good effect. But in the real play, there are so many and such subtle explorations of the theme, and these are scoured away here for a few broad effects. The real message, which comes through loud and clear if you know the play (or even Zefrelli's film) is not the distance between the reality of events and the language, but the reality of the richness of the real play and this film. Equally vast. Equally powerful statement. So we have a playhouse with the back part blasted out to the sea.

As a separate matter, the play has three anchors: Mercutio, the Friar and the Nurse. These are handled interestingly here.

The Friar is an alchemical master hiding under the cloak of the Church. The play equates the magic of language with the magic of potions, equally deadly. The congruence is lost in this film, but Baz definitely gets the magic part as well as the superfluous ritual of the church. This friar is a terrific, memorable performance of someone who believes he can defeat nature. Serves as an anchor

Director Baz Luhrmann knew what he was doing when he cast Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio in the title roles of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. The two young actors have the power to captivate their audience and together, they are unsurpassable.

From the famous opening line of "Two Households both alike in dignity.." to the tragic end, the viewer is whisked away into the depths of the surrealistic world of Verona Beach. Don't expect to see British people prancing around in tights when you rent this one. Luhrmann creates a world where gun toting teens sport Hawaiian shirts and beach front brawls are an everyday event.

Giving the classic play this modern twist makes for a new understanding of the text and brings the feud between the Montagues and the Capulets to a whole new level. Shakespeare may be rolling around in his grave after seeing this film, but english classes all over the world can breathe a little easier when it comes time to take the R&J final exam because this new adaptation makes the theme remarkably understandable.

Danes brings life and incentive to the character of Juliet. Danes' Juliet reaches far beyond the subservient stereotype of most Elizabethan characters and has ambition and assertion. It is a step beyond her critically acclaimed work in "My So-Called Life" and has thankfully made her a more prominent figure in the entertainment industry.

This marked the last feature for Leonardo DiCaprio, pre-Titanic mayhem. It put his talent out for a wider range of audience, R&J being his first major studio production. The king of the indie and the "troubled child" role was now being recognized. His passionate portrayl of Romeo Montague will forever be remembered. He spoke the immortal words of Shakespeare as if they were his own and touched the hearts of millions. Too bad the boat movie shoved him further into the spotlight than he had ever wanted. But we won't get into that.

The supporting cast in this film was also outstanding. John Leguizamo played the wily, Tybalt. Harold Perrineau brought humor and diversity to the renowned role of Mercutio. Big names also lit up the credits of R&J with Paul Sorvino and Brian Dennehey as Capulet and Montague as well as Pete Postlethwaite as the star-cross'd lovers confidante, Friar Laurence.

This is my favorite movie of all time and I believe it was sadly underrated.

Everyone is familiar with William Shakespeare's boy-meets-girl love story, and it has already been interpreted into films, plays, TV adaptations and songs. But Baz Luhrmann gives this world-known love story a modern-day twist, setting it in Verona Beach, and piling on the religious imagery. The result is quite spectacular.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes play the star-crossed lovers, and, whilst the latter is sadly a little bland, never truly convincing us in her portrayal of Juliet's loss of innocence or torment of feelings towards the foe, DiCaprio completely redeems her performance. He is a revelation. His Romeo is a wonderful mix of sad eloquence, a loving heart and a troubled soul, and all these elements come together beautifully in a performance hotter than a pepper sprout, with more layers than the proverbial onion. He is the very embodiment of sexy in his role. There is an extremely alluring way in which his character is filmed, which only enhances Romeo as a lover. This is epitomized in the opening shot of him, where the Leo is illuminated illustriously against the sunlight, and Radiohead's languid, sexy tune "Talk Show Host" plays.

The film itself has "sexy" written all over it, and, with the Gen X teenagers as his target audience, I don't think Luhrmann would have things any other way. But, unlike with that atrocity Moulin Rouge!, with Romeo + Juliet, the over-stylization is appropriate, making the movie more accessible to teens, for example, through gun warfare rather than swordplay, and the canny symbolisation of Queen Mab as a drug. But perhaps the most ingenious stylistic technique here is the slap-in-face Shakespearean references, which range from a ball called the Merchant of Venice, to 'Such stuff as dreams are made on' from The Tempest, making the film an absolute goldmine for trivia fans.

Style aside, there is more than enough substance. Romeo is presented exactly as the play does – at first, the mawkish, gawky, lovesick teenager, then, the fickle boy, and finally, the devoted and caring lover, and much of this loyalty to the play is due to the screenplay from Luhrmann and Craig Pearce, which maintains the original memorable dialogue and descriptions, but also dares to stray from the sidewalk in some of the plot turns, and the film completely benefits from it. The set designs are intricate and beautiful, and suit every frame of the film perfectly, and the icing on the cake is the music. Craig Armstrong's score for the swimming pool scene is as stunning as it is original, and the use of non-original music, from Kym Mazelle to The Cardigans, give the film the added edge of cool, making Romeo + Juliet one of the boldest, sassiest and most unforgettable adaptations to date, and English Lit. GCSE has been made far more digestible for us kids across England. It's what Shakespeare would have wanted. A-.