It is a performances centric movie

A different way of telling a story

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

As Shakespeare Month finally comes to a close, I'm eager to say that this film wasn't as bad for me as a lot of other movies. Honestly, unless it's being updated into modern times or it has seals or garden gnomes, it's hard to tell the difference between "Romeo And Juliet" versions. These are the kinds of movies the people at Channel Awesome don't tackle, because they can't handle Shakespeare. This is even a lackluster film. The worst thing is probably the pacing and how it's too long. Then again, I really didn't think it was an awful movie.I mean, it told the basic story of Romeo and Juliet. It just didn't do anything new with the material. When we've seen this play being remade with so many talented actors, that can become a huge flaw. It's just a basic retelling where there's really nothing to get happy or angry about. I guess Shakespeare is so good that even some of the lesser adaptations are at least sometimes watchable. Hey, it's September! You know what that means? Giant Monster Month! **1/2

this is the general impression. an aesthetic show. the seductive Douglas Booth, the nice Hailee Steinfeld, Stellan Skarsgard as symbolic presence, Damian Lewis using sketch of acting. a cast for all the tastes. conventional show who could have a small sin - Shakespeare is rarely present in it. or his play is only pretext for a new adaptation who could be interesting for aesthetically reasons but who remains to far by expectations of viewer. because it say nothing. it is only a version for the new decade, out of comparison with any other adaptation. a blank adaptation. like a homework. its purpose is , maybe , noble but Shakespeare represents more than pretty faces, and a sculpture workshop, nice costumes and bright. it represents emotion. and acting. each at not the high level in this case

This may not be the perfect version of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet - if such a thing is possible - but it is much better than the rating of 5.7 suggests. The production values alone merit a higher rating. However, moving to the writing, acting and directing, this is also a much better film than some have suggested. It is certainly a more conventional version than the 1996 DiCaprio and Danes film, which I found at time too weird in its modernization. This newer attempt at the famous Shakespearean tragedy is closer to the 1968 Zeffirelli film, though it may not quite reach that effort in its impact. Personally, despite one or two concerns, the film is actually very successful in its rendering of the tale, atmospheric and poignant, and the acting, especially by the supporting cast, very good.

Not only one of the worst adaptations of Shakespeare that I've ever seen, but one of the worst films I've ever seen... Let's cut to the chase. As many have said about this film, the only decent things are the settings - it's nicely shot, although it pales against the best BBC period drama in its attention to historical detail (that's even allowing for the indeterminate time in which the play was set) Negatives - plenty. 1. Why mess with the dialogue? In the 1996 edition, Baz Luhrmann absolutely nailed the mix of emotion through superb performances, thoughtful planning and direction which drew out meaning from 400 year old language. This version just jars horribly on the ear, lacks the poetic coherence of Shakespeare and sounds like a cut and paste "Shakespeare Made Easy" hot-potch done by a 14 year old for homework. 2. Why the unnecessary plot additions? What's with the tournament? And yet another adaptation that misses out the double-entendres and rude puns of the opening scene - and as for the opening Montague/Capulet skirmish - I've seen more bloodshed on the lower school playground. Utterly unconvincing. 3. Talking of utterly unconvincing,Hailee Steinfeld is woefully out of her depth, or at least lacking a director who tells her what her lines are supposed to mean. She seems to be constantly rushing to the end of her speeches without inflection or bodily indication that suggests she knows what she's talking about, at any point. She even keeps her nightie on in the wedding night scene, ferchrissakes. Douglas Booth is just a chin and a pair of smouldering eyes. Somebody's told him to be soppy and Twilight-esque; hardly what Shakespeare conveys in the language of the play, other than in the oxymoron-riddled first appearance - Leonard Whiting and Leo Di Caprio knock spots off him. And the sculpture scene made me howl - I half expected Lionel Richie to turn up and start singing "Hello"... 4. Changing the order of speeches/events is just plain annoying. It's all well and good trying to reinvent, but there is too much intertextual baggage with this play for it to work. I just wanted to open up Final Cut or Adobe Premiere Pro and put it all back in the right order.If you like cringing at awfulness, this film is for you. Utter tripe.