Matialth
Good concept, poorly executed.
Motompa
Go in cold, and you're likely to emerge with your blood boiling. This has to be seen to be believed.
Rio Hayward
All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
Syl
Everybody knows the story of William Shakespeare's tragic love affair, Romeo and Juliet. They are young Verona teenagers who fall in love from warring families. The cast is wonderful. Rebecca Saire and Patrick Ryecart are perfectly cast as Juliet and Romeo. Dame Celia Johnson was wonderful as the Nurse. Alan Rickman was great as Tybalt. Sir Michael Hordern has a small role as Lord Capulet. Sir John Gielgud has even a smaller role as the chorus. This is fine and faithful version able to be shown to high school students studying this play as part of the curriculum. The art direction and female costumes are fine. Verona comes alive well. My biggest problem with the male costumes is the tights. The fight sequences look more like the ballet than fights. Maybe it was the style of the times.
MissSimonetta
While not as atrocious as others have described it, this TV version of Romeo and Juliet leaves much to be desired. That the camera-work is uninspired and the sets are stage-bound does not factor in here, seeing as this is no big budget extravaganza (a la the 1936, 1968, and 1996 adaptations). No, what's lacking are riveting performances, primarily from the lovers themselves.Patrick Ryecart may be the most passionless Romeo I have ever seen. That he is uncomfortably older than his adolescent leading lady by about a decade is the least of his problems. He is the definition of bland, almost sleepwalking through his scenes, only coming alive during the part where he kills Tybalt in a fit of rage. Rebbecca Saire does better as Juliet, but not by much. Though she is the closest in age to her character than any other screen/TV actress I've ever seen (Saire was 14 at the time of filming, only a year older than Juliet is in the play), her portrayal of the character is too subdued and lacking in sexuality.Luckily, most of the supporting cast is passable, if not great. There are only two standouts in the line-up: Anthony Andrews is an entertaining Mercutio and a young Alan Rickman makes for a wonderfully loathsome Tybalt.Honestly, this is probably my least favorite R&J screen adaptation thus far. While not a painful experience, you'd be better served with the 1968 film. Though it does cut some of the text, it's prettier to look at and features more poignant, passionate performances than this lifeless TV movie.
Andy Croft
I am bias as I am Shakespeares biggest fan and not a big critic on the various performances because I find every adaptation I see I enjoy because of the variety. Which I think Shakespeare himself would also enjoy the wide different attempts at his works. Who knows what is the correct way to performance these classics. I enjoyed seeing Alan Rickman in hid first TV role. I love the Geilgud voice and his presence. If you are a true Shakespeare fan leave your eyes open and your opinions wide as I truly believe the great man himself would do exactly that 400 years on.I like all the BBC Shakespeare collection.Well done the Beeb !
davidandpamlee
Saw this Movie in College about 10 Years ago now in a Shakespeare class and Absolutely loved the movie and have been looking for this movie. It's an Old Movie and yes the special effects are not great but is very true to Shakespeare and what you see would be more like what it would have actually been like when Shakespeare wrote the Play. And I believe this is what the Director was trying for and accomplished. A movie true to Shakespeare true nature not a Hollywood version. So in essentially you have almost gone back in time and watch it as if Shakespeare himself was directing it. But your not going to get great special effects so if that what you looking for look more but if your looking for something that has stayed with the Nature and the spirit of Shakespeare this is your movie.
