Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Micransix Crappy film

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

bkoganbing This version of Romeo&Juliet might have worked better had Marlon Brando and Pier Angeli done the leads as originally intended. Brando had certainly proved himself able to deal with the Bard in Julius Caesar. Laurence Harvey and the unknown Susan Shentall who stayed unknown after playing Juliet were adequate and nothing more.Possibly the mix of Italian and English players might have had something to do with it. Such key roles as Mercutio and Tybalt were given short shrift here and they are integral to the story. Especially Tybalt. One thing I absolutely did not like was the dueling scenes between first Tybalt and Mercutio and then Romeo and Tybalt. This is always to me the high point of Romeo and Juliet where matters come to a head between the two feuding families, Montagues and Capulets. Here it's almost tossed off matter of factly. Really ruins the story. A pair of secondary characters in the play are who you notice. Flora Robson as the nurse and confidante of Juliet and Lord Capulet played with passion by Sebastian Cabot stand out. Especially Cabot. In this version he tells his daughter off in no uncertain terms he's picked out a nice husband for her with this Paris kid and she's marrying him or else. I never saw any other actor get so much out of that scene as Cabot did.The film is shot in Italy for authenticity and the cinematography is nice, as nice as Franco Zeffirelli's version. The acting for the most part is not as good as that over the hill gang version that MGM did with Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer.

TheLittleSongbird The best one for me is the 1968 Zeffirelli film, while I liked the 1936 Cukor film(though it was less than perfect) but didn't care for the 1996 Luhrmann version. Castellani's does have some clumsily choreographed scenes, the stabbing of Mercutio and Romeo bashing Paris around the head were the worst offenders, a Mercutio that has no feeling for Shakespeare, a Paris that doesn't do anything with his already bland role and a Tybalt that is nowhere near smooth or nasty enough. But of the four versions I put it second to Zeffirelli's. It is notable for its classically elegant settings, dreamy cinematography and beautiful score. And generally the script is witty and full of poetry,though the omission of Mercutio's Queen Mab is regrettable, and generally the actors do have a feel for it. It is intelligently if leisurely directed by Castellani, while the story is still as emotionally resonant as it ever was. The banter between Romeo and Benvolio is very intelligently done too. The performances, apart from Mercutio, Paris and Tybalt, are great. I personally liked Laurence Harvey as Romeo, much preferring him to Leslie Howard in Cukor's. Occasionally he is too monotone in delivery but he is very soulful and poetic on the whole. Susan Shentell brings a lovely gentle quality to Juliet and looks ravishing. Flora Robson is simply delicious as the Nurse, while Mervyn Johns is a noble Friar Lawrence and Sebastian Cabot is a brilliant Lord Capulet. John Gielgud's narration is wonderfully understated. Overall, this version is problematic but on its own it is a visually beautiful and more than decent film. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

patrick.hunter Yes, this film has been overpraised by Pauline Kael and others. For its time it was revolutionary, because no previous Shakespeare film had used so many outdoor, realistic locations. Unlike the previous MGM version (which all in all is superior), this version did not use middle-aged actors and made splendid use of technicolor. Black and white cinematography may suit MACBETH, HAMLET, KING LEAR, and other Shakespeare trajedies--but not this one. Since 1954, however, it has been remade in more cinematic and dynamic versions.Nonetheless, it's a very worthwhile movie, especially for Shakespeare fans. I personally think Laurence Harvey is a terrific Romeo. Yes, he's a bit of a simp, but that's the character. In fact, Harvey is the screen's best Romeo; he's a lot more passionate than Leslie Howard in the MGM version, and he speaks the verse better than either DiCaprio or Leonard Whitting in the two subsequent versions. The locations, better than any version, remind us of just how thin the streets were in Verona during the time of the play, and the high, thick, stone walls serve as a symbol of the intransigence of the families.Yes, it does have shortcomings, but don't dismiss its virtues, which are many, especially to those of us who want more than the MTV-type Shakespeare that the DiCaprio version offers.

mglory67 Admittedly, the performances are not perfect, but I actually like Susan Shentall in the role of Juliet. Her acting is subtle and refined, which is more than I can say for many other actresses who have taken on the role. Why is it that so many actresses playing Juliet feel the necessity to shout their lines? Olivia Hussey does this. So does Megan Follows.I will agree that Laurence Harvey is awful as Romeo. I find his delivery a bit too mannered for my taste even if his true age is more appropriate than Leslie Howard's. (Although, truth be told, Howard's Romeo seems ageless to me.) His costumes aren't much better than his acting. In the scene where he marries Juliet and the subsequent duel, he is wearing a blue and yellow ensemble that makes him look like a demented superhero.I'm still waiting for a film version of Shakespeare's wonderful play with an actor who truly seems to understand the character of Romeo. Sumptuous, sumptuous cinematography and music though, and well worth a look if only for that.