Soldat Roméo

I loved and was entranced by this very beautiful, and beautifully done, movie. At first I was worried that the use of Shakespeare's original language was going to feel gimmicky or distracting (as it often has been in other projects...such as, in my opinion, in the Baz Luhrmann "Romeo+Juliet" film, which had other charms, to be sure, and I liked it a lot, but regarding the Shakespearean spoken dialog, I had felt that neither Leonardo DiCaprio nor Clare Danes, who are certainly otherwise good actors, had the slightest idea what they were actually saying), but instead, this film illuminated Shakespeare's language and I feel that I had rarely heard those words spoken with such beauty, clarity, and understanding. The actors completely inhabited those lines and from the powerfully projective strength of their voices, it was obvious to me that these were very talented and even classically-trained actors.

They all had the physical good looks that makes you think they could have been cast on looks, alone, and yet to see the actual TALENT they all had, was rather amazing. A little investigation later revealed that many, if not all, of them were far more interested in the New York and London theater scenes than they were in "Hollywood", and this film is probably not a "Hollywood" film, anyway.

For typical Hollywood film audiences, this film might have been narratively confusing in several different ways. For example, the director made the decision to retain the feminine gender pronouns in the dialog, and yet, despite the fact that this movie was set in an all-boys military academy, I didn't feel that these words were meant to be used insultingly or as put-downs, even when spoken to or about those in "enemy" camps. Nor was their use meant to take on a "drag queen" type of persona, like "say girl", and "she" this and that. No. These men were always clearly masculine, and especially so throughout all their wooing and love-making, and let's underscore that they were young WARRIORS, so no asking "who is the man and who is the woman in the relationship", they are both (as were all of them) MEN, okay?

For me, at any rate, it was almost automatic to either ignore the specificity of the gender pronouns (understanding that the original Shakespeare was being used without alteration or distortion), or, perhaps better, to transcend the sexual implications of gender into their spiritual qualities. For, in truth, it is only those with the least developed masculinity who are afraid to express love, to be tender and physically affectionate toward other men, to be caring and sheltering, for the fear that those qualities will "compromise" their masculinity (instead of what actually happens, it enhances it). And if sex, and marriage comes along with it, well, they're sovereign adults who know their own hearts.

I admit that were some aspects that I didn't quite get, such as why were these two "camps" enemies? They weren't from rival schools, they were in the same classrooms and shower rooms, but maybe they were on rival athletic teams within the school, and, being quite competitive naturally, any alliance across teams was frowned upon. But I never really quite got where that conflict came from. (Perhaps oversimplifying it, I can best think of this in "Harry Potter" terms, different "houses", that in this film the "Capulet" and "Montague" were equivalent to "Gryffendor" and "Slitherin".)

I did not pick up on any homophobia; it might have been there or alluded to or assumed, but I did not think that it specifically was the love between the two boys, AS two boys, that was, itself, a problem, and if I am right, then this unquestioned acceptance of that added quite a bit to the dream-like quality or maybe idealized atmosphere of the film. For then in the film's "dreamtime," then, they are beyond that issue (as it is way high time for it to be in our everyday world).

I am willing to accept that my various problems in understanding certain things indicates my imperceptions rather than failings in the construction of the film. A subsequent watching (which I am eager to do) may very well clear up every question.

But, instead of getting lost in the minutia of plot points and evaluating the correlation of the meaning between the original Shakespearean love story and a modern-day version set in an all-boys military school, I think it was much better to merely swim in the dreamy artistry and beauty of the project as a whole, to enjoy it as the work of art it is instead of merely as a narrative story.

The two boys, "Romeo" and "Juliet" were fantastic together while swirling in and speaking to one another Shakespeare's gorgeous words. It was enough to bring tears to my eyes. I think that Shakespeare, himself, would have loved this film, and from reading his "Sonnets", I especially think so! I am also reminded of another of his plays that I love, "As You Like It", where, in my view, love transcends "gender" (or, at least, the temporary appearance of gender).

All in all, despite a few minor flaws, this was a very worthwhile film to see and if you like Shakespeare at all, I think this film will increase your appreciation of his work (and to see how well it continues to universally apply), and if you hadn't known the director and the performers previously, the film introduces you to some seriously talented professionals whose careers are very much to be kept abreast of.

I was recently able to watch this movie at a cinema in NY on my travels and I must take my hat off to Alen Brown for making an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet so perfectly without getting carried away with trying to make it something it is not.

I have heard so many people say that it makes no sense calling a male by a female name but I believe that is what makes it so brilliant. The film is able to show a gay Romeo and Juliet story without getting caught up in the titles that we believe everything should fit into.

The boys are Romeo and Juliet they have a love that is pure and as clear as day but have to overcome the blindness of others. To be as talented as Shakespeare was at writhing plays you have to be able to create something that touches everyone in a different way this film shows just that. Sadly in order for you to fully understand the brilliance of this film you have to leave all your judgments behind.

I believe that Shakespeare would have been proud of how his masterpiece on unbiased love holds true in this film!

Truly ground-breaking!

I recently rented this film after having discovered it entirely by accident. I admit that I am a Romeo and Juliet Junkie, but I am always open to new settings and the like. The more I delved into the film, the more attached I got to these characters. These guys were outstanding in their own way, how they played the characters, how they conveyed the poetry and making it seem completely natural. Seth Numrich and Matt Doyle perfectly conveyed the romance of Seth/Romeo and Glenn/Juliet. While some people may easily be bothered by a gay interpretation of Romeo and Juliet, I had no issues/problems with it at all. The chemistry between those two was so sweet and innocent, I could not help but be drawn into the story. For me, even if I was bothered, the poetry and the story are all that matters! Doyle in particular makes a very strong Juliet, standing up to the bullying Hale Appleman's Lord Capulet/Mercutio (also outstanding). The film is beautifully shot, with close-ups on the lover's hands as they hold and touch one another. There are plenty of other tender moments throughout. The setting is also very sparse, with the empty hallways and courtyards, like the stage is waiting for the tragedy to unfold. I won't say anything about the ending, other than I was oddly satisfied. Somehow it works. And this movie does too. I cannot wait to add it to my Shakespeare collection.

This was really a nice adaptation of "R&J'...Yes it took some liberties, but it was well acted and, in the end, a very sweet tale.

I am not sure why it has gotten such negative reviews. No...it is not your typical "gay" movie...which is why it works. THe movie is dependent on the Shakeperean text which may have turned some off.

The actors are all believable, and if not the best acting I have seen, it is much better than a lot of cheesy movies of the genre. The two leads, Seth Numrich and Matt Doyle play their angst and conflict quite well, drawing the viewer in to their plight.

If you go into this film with no expectations you should enjoy it. I think if you are looking for a "gay" film or a masterful adaptation of Shakespeare you will be disappointed. Take it for what it is and enjoy it.

Brotherhood and Love....and not about the bashing....and not about the hate....and not about the struggle. Because...I think we need more films like that....I think we need more things saying that Love is Universal....and it is beautiful, no matter what. And I'm really proud to be a part of this project."

(( These words are the heartfelt expressions of Matty Doyle (Glenn / Juliet), in preparing to give an encore rendition of "You Made Me Love You", at the following YouTube address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25_D9qvxJ0c ))

Bringing life and passion to a 400+ year old play is a gutsy, yet potentially tricky endeavor. In doing so, Director Alan Brown had a "Nice" idea (he's had them before). BUT...will raw Shakespeare (let alone with a cast not-trained-in-Shakespeare) pull in everyday Gay viewers around the world? Time and return on expenses will tell. Though I personally hunger for the success of this film work, that "BUT" remains a potential killer for his efforts.

Still and all, if anything can keep this film work alive...and long remembered...it will the touching, yet sizzling, Love Story given us by Seth Numrich (Sam / Romeo) and Matt Doyle (Glenn / Juliet). They hold absolutely nothing back in both their emotional and physical lovemaking. Their scenes together are oh-so-easy for this reviewer to play, and replay again.

BUT, now I must be honest...and say that about the basics of this Story---the basics of Shakespeare---I am ill-equipped to give you more. Yet, there is someone....someone from the several existing reviews of this film, whose deeply descriptive and perceptive words say it all. And those words belong to Rachel Schweissinger, and can be found in her May 19, 2012 review at Amazon.com, entitled: "Outstanding, Heartbreaking, Haunting, Beautiful". Do yourself a favor and read them.

PS--Thank you, Matt Doyle, for giving us a today's-rendition of "You Made Me Love You." It's right up there with another favorite---Harry Nilsson's 1973** track of that same song. And perhaps you'll consider another visit to "Feinsteins" and give us your go at R & J's true Signature Song: "Always" (the perfect lyrics for J. to sing to R.). Oh, and Harry needs the competition.

**Audio CD/MP3---"A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night"