This isn't an adaptation of Shakespeare's play, though some of the dialogue paraphrases his; the script uses some of the elements of the sources that Shakespeare used to write his work: earlier prose by da Porto, Arthur Brooke (poem), and Bandello. In these works, the story stretches out for months, and Romeo and Juliet meet in the winter at Christmas. The production values are good; the costumes are excellent, as some scholars assume that the episode occurred in the late 13th-early 14th century, and the sets and costumes look about that period, including the painted walls. As for the actors, they were unknown to me, and the only character I liked was Juliet. The protagonists looked older than teenagers. Martino Rivas' Romeo was all swagger and no feeling- I was reminded of the CW networks' teen soap operas. Still, I enjoyed it. If you understand that it's not the classic play, it's entertaining.
6 Reviews
As terrible as it can be
aledul6 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
By far, the worst adaptation ever: apart from the name of the characters, there is nothing left from the original play.
The story has been rewritten, making all the characters super-stereotypical, as if the original complexity of intentions was not suitable for our times. As a consequence, for 2 hours I will unfortunately never get back, I had to assist to aberrations like:
In the end, all of the characters' depth and motivations are lost, and what remains is the story of two anti-war lovers opposed by everyone else. This simplification is and insult to the intelligence of the audience and does seem arrogant on the parts of the screenwriters.
On top of this, all the dialogue has been butchered by a failed attempt of modernization, with the result of being just sloppy.
Recitation is amateurish, while many settings and framings are a bad copy of the classic Zeffirelli production.
All in all, you will find much more depth and art in every average high school production. If Shakespeare was alive he would just sue them for butchering his play like this.
The story has been rewritten, making all the characters super-stereotypical, as if the original complexity of intentions was not suitable for our times. As a consequence, for 2 hours I will unfortunately never get back, I had to assist to aberrations like:
- Juliet has a secret place were she goes to pray for all the wars to stop
- Romeo has a dialogue with his father in which he asks to stop the feud
- Juliet has a sister, Ursula (!!!). Ursula has been promised to Paris, who prickly insists to have Juliet instead
- Juliet was promised to Tybalt (!!!)
- Romeo and Juliet's parents do know about the marriage, and actively try to block it
In the end, all of the characters' depth and motivations are lost, and what remains is the story of two anti-war lovers opposed by everyone else. This simplification is and insult to the intelligence of the audience and does seem arrogant on the parts of the screenwriters.
On top of this, all the dialogue has been butchered by a failed attempt of modernization, with the result of being just sloppy.
Recitation is amateurish, while many settings and framings are a bad copy of the classic Zeffirelli production.
All in all, you will find much more depth and art in every average high school production. If Shakespeare was alive he would just sue them for butchering his play like this.
virtues and sins
Kirpianuscus4 March 2017
it is not the most inspired adaptation of the play. in fact, in many moments, the question remains if the film is real an adaption . because it has so many innovation than your knowledge about the Shakespeare play is attacked from many parts. the film seems be a version "ad usum delphini" but in the second hour this good intention is compromised. for the simple motif because all lost its sense and a love story becomes a peace manifesto. the virtues - the Medieval atmosphere, Ken Duken as a credible Mercutio, Sandra Ceccarelli as reasonable lady Capulet and, not the last, Alessandra Mastronardi as a decent Juliet, one of advantages being the Mediteranean look. the sins - all the rest. almost each young actors could be a better Romeo. and the sad fact is the final question of viewer - why a new adaptation ?
Nothing to Like
debdavis-4141516 December 2023
I'm a big fan of romantic dramas & I do believe there is room for many adaptations of the same story. This is a terrible adaptation of Romeo & Juliet. Where do I begin? There is zero chemistry between the actors, terrible acting from most of the cast, repetitive awkward moments with the script & between the actors, visually unappealing cinematography & costumes. I forced myself to watch to the end to give it a fair chance but unfortunately the movie never improved. There is nothing positive I can say about this movie. One of the worst movies I've seen. I don't recommend this movie, try one of the other adaptations.
Shakespeare spinning in his grave!
LilyDaleLady10 September 2023
Warning: Spoilers
What in holy heck is this thing? At 3.5 hours, it is far longer than the classic Shakespeare play... almost twice the length of famous film adaptations of the same... made as a 3 or 4 part "mini-series" for probably a cable station... filmed on location in Italy or nearby, pretty castles... but in all other respects, like someone who had never read or seen "Romeo & Juliet" but who was asked to write a new script, with new dialogue entirely.
Shakespeare IS Shakespeare BECAUSE of the language and characters and plots... otherwise, he often adapted older stories. There are older versions of R&J and similar "star crossed lover" stories in other cultures. You can certainly write something like that... you can reinterpret Shakespeare! It has been done brilliantly before.
As a Shakespeare buff since my teens... I have seen hundreds of performances of most of his plays, and none more than R&J (his most famous and beloved play)... there are endless variations, including in modern settings, with the main characters of other races....set in an array of time periods from Renaissance to contemporary...but they all stick mostly to the PLOT and use at least SOME of the language. It takes some balls of steel to think you can write better DIALOGUE than the Bard of Avon!
There was a similar problem in the 2013 R&J with Hailee Steinfeld as Juliet... they rewrote dialogue, truncated scenes, and did odd things like make Romeo into a Michelangelo-like sculptor. But nothing on the level of THIS 2014 production! Literally every single word is rewritten in dull, pedantic modern lingo... the plot rearranged... set in winter (when the original is clearly in summer)... dragged out for months (when the original takes place over a few days)... and to my bewilderment, a host of entirely invented CHARACTERS... Juliet's "forgotten older sister" URSULA? Romeo's hitherto unknown little brother "Bob"? (His best friend Benvolio has taken a powder, for some reason.) Tybalt is now madly in love with Juliet, his first cousin. There is no Rosaline to have been Romeo's first love. The Capulet ball is not a masked dance, that Romeo and his pals "crash"... just an ordinary party. Oh and its CHRISTMAS!
They also entirely give up on casting the characters as authentic teenagers (as first done by Zeffirelli in 1968...50 years earlier!) and Juliet/Romeo here are solidly in their late 20s... attractive, but not the near-children of the play. Shakespeare made Juliet 13 FOR A REASON, to emphasize her hotheadedness and extreme youth. If she is a matronly adult woman... not much zing there.
Not only is every word of dialogue rewritten... not merely edited down or simplified for a modern audience's ears... rewritten as if it was a very dumb soap opera on the Hallmark channel. And drawn out endlessly to fill THREE AND A HALF FREAKIN' HOURS. By half way, you would be willing to stab the couple yourself just to get them to shut up.
Some years back, Baz Lurhman did an exciting reinterpretation of R&J (1996, Claire Danes, Leo DiCaprio) that took all sorts of inventive twists with the play & dialogue, wild musical numbers... turned swords into guns... but out of a pure love of the play and the Shakespearean language. It made the play young and exciting again.
Here, a total lack of respect for ANYTHING makes this teleplay unendurable and a waste of everyone's time.... they might as well have called this "Fred, His Girlfriend Julie & some random invented members of their Family... URSULA! And BOB!"...
If your life has any meaning, or if you care in the least for classic literature or Shakespeare or even common sense... keep this far away from you. You will never get those 3.5 hours back.
Shakespeare IS Shakespeare BECAUSE of the language and characters and plots... otherwise, he often adapted older stories. There are older versions of R&J and similar "star crossed lover" stories in other cultures. You can certainly write something like that... you can reinterpret Shakespeare! It has been done brilliantly before.
As a Shakespeare buff since my teens... I have seen hundreds of performances of most of his plays, and none more than R&J (his most famous and beloved play)... there are endless variations, including in modern settings, with the main characters of other races....set in an array of time periods from Renaissance to contemporary...but they all stick mostly to the PLOT and use at least SOME of the language. It takes some balls of steel to think you can write better DIALOGUE than the Bard of Avon!
There was a similar problem in the 2013 R&J with Hailee Steinfeld as Juliet... they rewrote dialogue, truncated scenes, and did odd things like make Romeo into a Michelangelo-like sculptor. But nothing on the level of THIS 2014 production! Literally every single word is rewritten in dull, pedantic modern lingo... the plot rearranged... set in winter (when the original is clearly in summer)... dragged out for months (when the original takes place over a few days)... and to my bewilderment, a host of entirely invented CHARACTERS... Juliet's "forgotten older sister" URSULA? Romeo's hitherto unknown little brother "Bob"? (His best friend Benvolio has taken a powder, for some reason.) Tybalt is now madly in love with Juliet, his first cousin. There is no Rosaline to have been Romeo's first love. The Capulet ball is not a masked dance, that Romeo and his pals "crash"... just an ordinary party. Oh and its CHRISTMAS!
They also entirely give up on casting the characters as authentic teenagers (as first done by Zeffirelli in 1968...50 years earlier!) and Juliet/Romeo here are solidly in their late 20s... attractive, but not the near-children of the play. Shakespeare made Juliet 13 FOR A REASON, to emphasize her hotheadedness and extreme youth. If she is a matronly adult woman... not much zing there.
Not only is every word of dialogue rewritten... not merely edited down or simplified for a modern audience's ears... rewritten as if it was a very dumb soap opera on the Hallmark channel. And drawn out endlessly to fill THREE AND A HALF FREAKIN' HOURS. By half way, you would be willing to stab the couple yourself just to get them to shut up.
Some years back, Baz Lurhman did an exciting reinterpretation of R&J (1996, Claire Danes, Leo DiCaprio) that took all sorts of inventive twists with the play & dialogue, wild musical numbers... turned swords into guns... but out of a pure love of the play and the Shakespearean language. It made the play young and exciting again.
Here, a total lack of respect for ANYTHING makes this teleplay unendurable and a waste of everyone's time.... they might as well have called this "Fred, His Girlfriend Julie & some random invented members of their Family... URSULA! And BOB!"...
If your life has any meaning, or if you care in the least for classic literature or Shakespeare or even common sense... keep this far away from you. You will never get those 3.5 hours back.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
