Romeo & Julia

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.

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.

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!

"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.

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+"