This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

The only thing remotely interesting is the landscape. The lighting is appalling, the play is shredded up with important and beautiful lines being cut and useless lines kept while other lines were just changed outright to have more obvious meanings. The language is spoken tediously and full of pauses and lacks almost any sound of poetry at all which drags and drags. It seems the focus was so much on the religion of the play it lacked any passion whatsoever.Utterly unwatchable.There was a superior version filmed in 1936 and 1996 looks glowing by comparison.

This film version created by Renato Castellani is a beauty to behold. In the picturesque settings of Siena, Padova, Verona and Venice, this romantic tale unfolds in glorious color.While the character interpretations may appeal to a select number, I appreciate the total concept and the carrying out of that objective."Romeo" takes on a stylistic life of its own through Castellani, and for those willing to go on his journey, the rewards are great.Mr. Harvey is interesting to see in an early role. As always, his work is very well thought out, and the aloofness which made him so right for callous young men in later modern roles, is intriguing here. Romeo now has a tinge of egotism and even femininity. Well, why not? As there are dozens of ways to read a line, so there are many approaches to a character. There's nothing inherently sacrosanct in the role of Romeo, and Harvey interprets the way he (and Castellani) sees him, rather than according to some staid traditional model. It's hard to believe this lovely production has not yet been transferred to video. Surely one day some enterprising company will take on this project and help preserve a very beautiful production for future generations to enjoy.

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.

There are certain indispensable elements for a great Romeo and Juliet: youthful, energetic lovers; a brilliant Mercutio and irrepressible Nurse; and crisp pacing. Castellani's version fails on all counts. Take pacing. This is a tragedy of timing; the story unfolds over 4 days of desperate urgency. Yet Castellani's screenplay DRRRAAGGSS, interrupting key scenes with tedious stage business. Take the opening brawl: instead of escalating rapidly, it *stops* while the Capulets lug home the body of a servant, women wail, etc. Who cares about the servant? When do we get to the real action? Similarly, when Romeo opens the tomb, Castellani has him stop, walk all the way back outside, find an appropriate tool, and then start over. What a waste of screen time! It's dismaying that these unnecessary scenes are added at the expense of some of the play's best material. A high point in most productions is Mercutio's Queen Mab speech yet Castellani omits it! All directors make cuts, but why this key speech? Castellani seems to think little of Shakespeare's language, preferring his own dialogue. That's right; he cuts Queen Mab but adds vapid filler for Rosaline and other minor characters. Did he really think no one would notice? As for the actors, Susan Shentall sleep-walks through most of her scenes, but after two hours of Lawrence Harvey's plodding monotone, I can't blame her. These actors can't even summon the energy for a proper swordfight; Tybalt merely stabs Mercutio, while a bored looking Romeo bashes Paris over the head. Where's Basil Rathbone when you need him?This production is often praised for its lush costumes, picturesque Italian locations and cinematography reminiscent of Italian paintings. It's pretty as a picture, but equally lifeless.