Hayden Kane
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
Gordon Chi
This version of Romeo and Juliet is actually more realistic and has a better impression of how the events would have played out if it was actually in the 17th century. The 1996 movie was utter crap, it was cringy, and it leaves you with that feeling of "Wth did I just watch" This movie is GREATT
bkoganbing
It took about five centuries for Shakespeare's signature play about young love to be filmed with teen lovers as Shakespeare wrote it. When Franco Zeffirelli got around to doing it as such it put all previous versions to shame. As good as MGM's version back in the studio system days with Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer, they now look arcane when viewing it today, taking nothing away from them as players.Of course this is hard casting. You have to have extraordinarily good actors and charismatic at that for the big screen. What Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey didn't have in experience they make up for in charisma. And being British they're trained in the classics at an early age. This film also gave a first big break for Michael York as Tybalt, a part that requires a lot of passion. You don't get more passionate than Basil Rathbone did in the Howard-Shearer version. But he's as arcane with the rest. York took it down a note or two and played him like a bully. I got the impression that York would be looking for fights if the Montagues and Capulets were bosom buddies.Back in Master Will Shakespeare's day all the parts in the theater were men and there sure was no such thing as typecasting. As we got more sophisticated we demanded more. What Franco Zeffirelli did was now narrow it so that juveniles would be playing juveniles or at somewhat believable kids like the players at Beverly Hills 90210 in their 20s playing high school kids.Romeo And Juliet got Oscars for cinematography and costume design and got a nomination for Best Picture and Franco Zeffirelli for Best director. Almost 50 years later it is still an impressive achievement.
RockyMtnVideo
I'll make this relatively short. Others provide far more detailed reviews, but this has always held special meaning for me, so I finally decided to weigh in with some comments.I saw this when it was originally released in the US, while I was a high school aged teen. It is difficult to describe the depth of its impact on me, mostly because it was such a perfect film. Zeffirelli's genius abounds, in so many different ways, but aside from the genius of the film script (involving more than just him), by far, the primary thing that separates it from the long list of other "attempts" to film this story, was the casting of two actors in their early-to-mid teens (the proper age for the two protagonists), instead of using twenty (or in some film variants, thirty) year old actors in those roles, as had been done in so many previous efforts. Having actors in other films who were sometimes twice the appropriate age for those roles, attempting to pull off those performances, simply never rang true.Second only to the casting, was the absolutely perfect "tone" of the entire film. Filmed in Verona, where the play was obviously set, plus the cinematography, and then the unbelievably perfect score, all facilitated its translation from its original stage-based home, to what is a true film masterpiece.It is the actors' (appropriately) youthful innocence, and that perfect tone, that make this depiction of the tragedy stand out, from other efforts. It is also what makes it so "rewatchable". You can't help falling in love with them again, in each viewing, as you watch them (so innocently) fall in love with each other. And, when that seminal moment plays out against the backdrop of the soulful rendition of "What is Youth", the "hook is set", and despite the inevitable train wreck that is coming, it's just impossible to walk away, because you are (yet again) simply too invested in these two teens' tragic journey.To be fair about the age comment, I should say that I'm not blind to other film interpretations, which have utilized age-appropriate actors, e.g. Luhrmann's take on R&J. But the varied attempts (like his) to take the play, and place it in some bizarrely modern setting, have never really worked for me. It just feels "awkward" (like a square peg in a round hole). The only time that I have been comfortable with some R&J inspired story is when someone simply takes the basic theme, and retools it entirely, e.g. the classic, and equally tragic "West Side Story" being a perfect example.In short, this is simply one of the most moving, and beautiful films that you could ever hope to see, regardless of whether you are, or are not, into Shakespearean classics. And it would be difficult to imagine anyone ever doing a better job of translating this play into film. (For insight into Zeffirelli's scripting choices, I would highly recommend reading film-222's IMDb review. See: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5222822/).
