Romeo and Juliet

The acting here is fairly good. It's not really great as it doesn't stand out. The thing I really liked about this production is the costuming and scenery. These are important to me to help understand the play as Shakespeare intended. In this production the street scenes take place with street people around to give the feeling that the scene really is on the street. The scenes indoors likewise show what indoors would show in the time period. The dance scene is done showing many people dancing, though Rosaline is not shown as she is in some productions. Costumes were not cheaply done. Nobility are arrayed in very fine apparel.

As far as the acting is concerned, I didn't feel there were any standout performances, except perhaps Christopher Biggins as a Capulet servant who can't read, a good comical part. Biggins did a good job of pulling off the comedy of his part. The Nurse and Peter are supposed to be comical characters and they try at it, but don't come off as well as in other versions of Romeo and Juliet. The parts of Romeo & Juliet are delivered fairly well, but don't stand out. Juliet's father, Capulet, seems just a bit effeminate, rather inappropriate for so domineering a father, husband and lord of the house. Tybalt should be much more antagonistic and sly. Here he is certainly willing to fight, but it almost seems as if it was Mercutio that was the antagonist in the fight between he & Tybalt. Mercutio does a good job in his incessant talk at nothing, which is as his character is supposed to be. He rambles and makes it seem natural.

Lastly, the credits are lacking. The most notable omission is that there is no credit for Benvolio. Lady Montague and Peter are missing as well in the credits. Many of the other credits are missing in the film, but are filled in by IMDb.

'Romeo and Juliet' is one of William Shakespeare's, one of the greatest and most important playwrights that ever lived, most famous plays and also one of my favourites of his and overall. It is such a lovely, powerful story, that is the quintessential depiction of passionate love descending into tragedy perhaps, chock-full of iconic lines and speeches and characters hard to forget. There are some note-worthy adaptations out there, including Franco Zeffirelli's, though the available competition is uneven.

This 1976 production of 'Romeo and Juliet' is a worthy one. Not of the very best adaptations but doesn't disgrace the play. Although there have been far better Juliets (as well as worse, such as the age appropriate but inexperienced one in the 1978 BBC Television Shakespeare production), one will really appreciate this production's faithfulness (without being too faithful) and that it is complete. Having seen a fair few Shakespeare adaptations recently and overtime that are truncated, some so much so that coherence is affected.

Am going to start off with what could have been done better. Ann Hasson struck me as too mature and rather bland as Juliet, though she does have moments in the last two acts. Some of the lighting is on the harsh side, especially in Act 3, in a way that ages the actors somewhat.

Would have preferred Capulet to have been more subtle, more noble and more domineering, Laurence Payne was a little too campy for my taste.

However, there is so much to recommend. On the most part, the performances were good. Of the two lovers, Christopher Neame fares much better as Romeo. He is ardent, passionate and suitably impulsive and while he may not pass for a teenager the lighting is better at not betraying that. He and Hasson do have an affecting chemistry together and personally did feel their passionate love. The supporting performances are all great apart from Payne, Clive Swift and Simon MacCorkindale are the two most familiar names to me. Swift gives one of the production's standout performances, his Friar Laurence being very believable at being someone one can trust whole-heartedly. Patsy Byrne also stands out as an amusing and loving Nurse. Robin Nedwell has fun as Mercutio and his loyalty to Romeo is strong throughout, while David Robb is a suitably antagonistic Tybalt.

Production values are traditional and sumptuous on the whole, apart from some reservations with the lighting, not as lavish as Zeffirelli's but avoids being overblown or excessive. The text is vintage Shakespeare, masterful use of language and a wide range of emotions. As said, that the production is faithful and complete was appreciated so cohesion was never a problem. The production is throughout compellingly staged, with genuine tension in the fight scene and a truly moving final scene.

Overall, didn't blow me away but impressed me mostly. 7/10

This is one of the Thames production of Shakespeare's plays which were produced in the late 70s and early 80s. They were of uneven quality; some were quite good, others average, and some were simply awful.

This reviewer includes this production of Romeo and Juliet as one of the better ones. There are several reasons for this assessment.

One, it is a complete production, or, certainly one of the most complete versions on film. Since it is complete or near-complete, it includes both the tragic elements of the play, plus the comic, which were many.

Two, there is real chemistry in the two major protagonists. The two actors, Christopher Neame and Ann Hasson, positively exude two people who are punch-drunk in love.

Three, Ann Hasson is a perfect Juliet. In Shakespeare's play Juliet is fourteen years old. Hasson has a youthful face and appearance and pepper's the role with the extreme emotionality of a preteen.

Four, the overall production works, and works well. Let's face it, familiar passages from Romeo and Juliet have been parodied for good reason, and these same lines in a weaker, less confident manner would simply sound hokey and wrong. From the lips of these two actors, there is a real urgency and legitimacy in their words, and hearing these oft-repeated lines the words sound fresh and new. It is a pleasant surprise.

I thoroughly enjoyed this adaptation after exploring several others, both on stage and screen. What sets this version apart for me is the age-appropriate casting of Juliet, which adds a layer of authenticity and emotional depth often missing in other productions. Many other adaptations either cast Juliet significantly older than the character is meant to be, feature exaggerated or overly theatrical performances, or modernize the setting in ways that, while creative, often detract from the timelessness and emotional weight of the original text.

In contrast, this version strikes a beautiful balance. The performances are particularly strong-Juliet, Romeo, the Nurse, Capulet, Montague, Tybalt, and Mercutio all bring depth and sincerity to their roles, allowing the story's emotional core to truly shine.

The visual elements are equally impressive: the settings are rich and immersive, and the costumes are sumptuous, capturing the period feel without distracting from the drama. The play is presented in full, with great care to remain faithful to Shakespeare's language-only two lines originally spoken by the Friar were reassigned to Romeo, a minor adjustment that does not compromise the integrity of the piece.

Overall, this is a thoughtfully crafted and compelling rendition of Romeo and Juliet, and for me, it stands out as one of the most authentic and emotionally engaging versions available.

Watching this 1976 version in 2019 - almost half a century - is quite a challenging perspective in every way. This performance withstands the test of time and comes out as a respectable, credible and enjoyable one. The protagonists play their parts with a sense of urgency and passion which is suitable for the age of the characters and perfectly believable. The rest of the actors are also good. In comparison with the recent performance of Orlando Bloom as Romeo (an actor with a bad theater voice and trying to be original all the time), this old version is a haven of respect for the author and for the Shakesperian tradition.