X
- 2013
- PG-13
- Relativity Media
- 1 h 58 m
- 2013
- PG-13
- Relativity Media
- 1 h 58 m
Directed By: Carlo Carlei
Written By: Julian Fellowes, William Shakespeare
- 2013
- PG-13
- Relativity Media
- 1 h 58 m
- 2013
- PG-13
- Relativity Media
- 1 h 58 m
Romeo & Juliet
41
6.3
Where to Watch
Directed By: Carlo Carlei
Written By: Julian Fellowes, William Shakespeare
Where to Watch
Top Cast
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 30 Critic Reviews
41
13% Positive
4 Reviews
4 Reviews
53% Mixed
16 Reviews
16 Reviews
33% Negative
10 Reviews
10 Reviews
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 30 Critic Reviews
41
13% Positive
4 Reviews
4 Reviews
53% Mixed
16 Reviews
16 Reviews
33% Negative
10 Reviews
10 Reviews
It’s well-staged, well-acted, all the right people die in the end. It comes down to, well, Romeo and Juliet, really, and Douglas Booth and Hailee Steinfeld prove capable in the title roles.
A sufficiently entertaining, adamantly old-fashioned adaptation that follows the play’s general outline without ever rising to the passionate intensity of its star-cross’d crazy kids.
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 28 User Ratings
6.3
46% Positive
13 Ratings
13 Ratings
36% Mixed
10 Ratings
10 Ratings
18% Negative
5 Ratings
5 Ratings
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 28 User Ratings
6.3
46% Positive
13 Ratings
13 Ratings
36% Mixed
10 Ratings
10 Ratings
18% Negative
5 Ratings
5 Ratings
This movie was simply breathtaking. The score is original and I quickly found myself enraptured in the beautiful sets and time period of Romeo & Juliet. Although, young actors the delivery was incredible. Everyone should see this gorgeous rendition of such a timeless love story.
Report
From time to time, a film director decides to adapt Shakespeare's plays. In all fairness, it's great stuff and deserves to be taken to the screen. However, when this happens, the people (particularly those whose mother tongue is English) don't like it and have great difficulty in understanding that, when a book is adapted to cinema, it has to be adapted or adjusted. Its a necessary job, and does not spare any book or author. It can be hard to accept, especially for the purists, who see Shakespeare as a kind of untouchable "sacred cow", but the truth is that cinema can be based on literature but its not literature. I say this because I realized that this film was the target of massive criticism for the way the book was adapted. The writers were so incompetent? They cut something important to the understanding of the story? They have profoundly altered it? No. But they sought to adapt the text a little, for dramatic purposes. The essential was there, untouched, and this does not shock me. This is cinema, not theater, and people have to understand that the public goes to the cinema to see a movie, not a recorded play. Do you want the original text, ipsis litteris? Read the book or go see the play. Cinema is concerned in keeping the story, not the text. Almost all movies are so, this is no different. Now let's talk about the movie.
The movie is interesting, keeps the essence of the original story, but changes the dialogues and interpretation, abandoning the artificial tone of Shakespearean theater and taking a more natural posture. The idea is good, its a breath of fresh air, but I think the posture adopted is too "XX century" and something is missing in the way the characters act that remind us the fifteenth century. One of the most reprehensible things is the amount of kisses and touches. This does not fit the historical period depicted, much more puritanical than ours. The actors did a decent job, engaged and committed to the story itself. Douglas Booth was by far the best Romeo I've seen in the movies, much more credible than Leo was in "Romeo + Juliet". Hailee Steinfeld was not bad either, but her acting has seemed a little forced in some scenes. Everything else is absolutely impeccable: the bright, colorful picture is magnificent, in harmonious combination with the great scenery and locations chosen for filming, and that depict faithfully what have been Verona during this time. The costumes also fit into the historical period and are exquisite. The soundtrack, discrete but present, fulfills her role with great skill.
Far from being a bad movie, this movie will never be understood by the public who are not able to see the difference between literature, theater and cinema. Despite some minor flaws, the film is well done and does not deserve at all, in my opinion, the severe criticism it has received.
Report
This is Shakespeare lite, which ultimately makes for Shakespeare slightly trite.
It’s all tasteful and polished to a fault, but it feels like exactly what it is: an abbreviated version that preserves the high points, zips past the rest, and never approaches the depth of the full text.
Shorn of eroticism, intensity or purpose... it strikes familiar beats in a manner more strained than inspired.
Romeo & Juliet looks chintzy. The Capulets’ masked balls is designed in Pier 1 Imports colors and texture, the lovers’ secret marriage is performed in front of a green screen, and when Romeo goes up to Juliet’s balcony, he climbs a plastic vine with cloth leaves.
It’s all rote, dashed through, and somewhat detestable.
People these days won't bother to check out classics, but waste their time on nonsense stories rather enjoying a classic one. Every classic needs a GOOD remake so these generations would differentiate the excellent from awful. The re-imagining of the tragic classic tale/play is just wonderful. These young actors prove that they are perfectly capable to flawlessly carry out such important roles in cinema history without distorting their image, because Romeo & Juliet (2014) is one of the best.
Report
Although not 100% faithful to the original text, this is an excellent, and accessible, Romeo and Juliet. Acting, cinematography, locations, and mood are excellent. Some critics have found the small additions or edits of Shakespeare's dialogue troubling. Indeed, if you seek a purist version, this one will not be satisfying. However, if you want rich and saturated color, fetching performances by the leads and an excellent supporting cast, sumptuous locations and sets, all capturing the essence and beauty of this story of star-crossed lovers, you likely will appreciate this film very much. Although serviceable, the music did not come close to the Zeffirelli version (1968). Excellent production.
Report
Overall, the main reason for the lack of quality of Romeo and Juliet was the script. It kind of ruined the whole thing. The script of the movie was a defiled version of the play, with way-too-obvious comedic entries and other unnecessary stuff that you could see right through. The Downton Abbey writer, Julian Fellowes, completely adulterated the original material, and I haven't even read the play those changes were truly quite obvious. It felt like he was purposefully trying to attract an audience that wanted to have fun instead of experiencing the tragedy story properly, what it actually is.
They placed too much emphasis on kissing and swords, but mostly the kissing was very exaggerated in amount, although there was no sex (I didn't like this). The swords only went in 10 inches, and the characters all died within 1 minute. I mean, come on, no one dies that quickly of such a blow.
The acting was pretty great, though, especially the male actors'. I found Douglas Booth's performance better than Hailee Steinfeld's, perhaps because it was only her second movie and she might not have been as deeply familiar with the story as Booth. But she was still very good. Damian Lewis, Christian Cooke (Mercutio), and, most surprisingly, Kodi Smit-McPhee (Benvolio) and Ed Westwick (Tybalt) did really great jobs. I really have to stress Douglas Booth's performance, though. He did an incredible job, truly. The tone of his voice, the look in his face, his whole demeanor changed perfectly and seamlessly from scene to scene, emotion to emotion, line to line. Superb.
From a technical point of view, the editing of the "battle" scenes was ridiculously terrible, change of shot every second, from bad shot to worse shot. Pretty awful. Cinematography was actually ok, in all fairness good at some points, but the editing ruined it. And lastly, the sets (and outdoors settings), the costumes, and the hair and makeup were so good. Unimaginably beautiful, perfectly realized, and so gorgeously well-tailored. They made me a bit reminiscent of Anna Karenina, so stunning they were.
Report
This version of the timeless classic is, generally, a disappointment. The settings in Italy, (Verona and Manchua) was pure delights so much so that it was somewhat of a distraction. The music and costumes were also beautifully executed. Perhaps the poorest part of this effort was Juliet. Ms. Steinfeld was miscast and poorly directed. So many of her infamous lines were mumbled or given without real feeling especially the balcony scene which she rushed through with such poor articulation. She really was a poor match for the power of Mr. Booth. Next were the liberties Mr. Fellowes took with the Shakespearean lines. His attempts to make the language more contemporary were an insult to this classic and hurt the overall effect rather than make it more understandable and enjoyable.
Report
William Shakespeare's love story has been told and retold for hundreds of years, but in the hands of Downton Abbey creator Julian Fellowes, Romeo and Juliet finally becomes the young adult fiction incarnation Twilight fan fiction writers have been dying to see. In the hands **** director and acting ensemble, Shakespeare's text blazes like poetry plucked directly from the heart. Director Carlo Carlei reduces the language to greeting card copy. With zero rhythm or dynamism, the spiritless effort drags stars Hailee Steinfeld and Douglas Booth through scenes like they've been assigned readings in eighth period English class. Romeo and Juliet may bare the name of the Shakespearean classic, but a rose doesn't smell sweet because just because it's called a rose. Steinfeld, the Oscar-nominated youngster from 2010's True Grit, steps into the shoes of Juliet, opposite Tiger Beat-worthy Booth. Fellowes' adaptation sticks to the plotting of the 1597 original: Romeo is a son of the Montagues, who vehemently despise the Capulets, their rival family in the city of Verona. As their brothers fight in the streets, Romeo and his cousin Benvolio plot to crash a Capulet ball so that the brooding hunk can meet up with the object of his affection, Rosaline. But one eye-full of Juliet is all it takes for Romeo's entire world to turn upside down. Rosaline is an afterthought; Romeo whisks Juliet away to profess his love. He's stricken, so is she, and the two seal their newfound, eternal love with a smooch (which Carlei shoots in close-up so we can see all the spittle). Booth has the opposite problem; He's a super serious ham who bides time with longful gazing. Most of this falls on the world Carlei and Fellowes are crafting around these characters; If you're going to build to a double suicide executed in the name of love, the stakes have to be a little higher than a typical CW high school drama. The supporting cast is equally scatterbrained, with a few performances that find a watchable groove. Kodi Smit-McPhee as Benvolio is a scene-stealer, adding intrigue and humanity in every beat while keeping the old English dialogue bouncing. Why wasn't this guy Romeo? Not hunky enough, perhaps. Paul Giamatti works similar magic as Friar Laurence, fulfilling the audience fantasy of repeatedly hitting Romeo in the head for being overly obsessed with a girl he met two days ago. In fact, it might be time to retire Romeo & Juliet from the straight adaptation repertoire yearning to become a man's wife after knowing the guy for two days isn't exactly a lesson worth teaching. There's always a fear of playing Shakespeare too big. Damian Lewis as Lord Capulet and Ed Westwick as Tybalt are basically shouting into megaphones. The Homeland star screams his epic speak at every turn, never giving the patriarch a purpose in the film's tapestry. Westwick stumbles even harder, coming off like a Disney bad guy Gaston meets Scar in one of the sillier villain performances of the year. Even with a troupe of talented actors and a few gems to be found in the rough, Romeo & Juliet is a total drag. Carlei translates the play with an eye for literalism, with actors mimicking their lines like ASL interpreters. There's no trust in Shakespeare's words, to the point where even the flourishes some decent-looking Italian backdrops and the occasional sword fight feel like filler. Romeo & Juliet needs heat, it needs vibrant romance, it needs a reason to be reexamined. Unfortunately, the modern generation doesn't need this movie.
Report
Production Company
Amber Entertainment,
Echo Lake Entertainment,
Indiana Production,
Swarovski Entertainment
Release Date Oct 11, 2013
Duration 1 h 58 m
Rating PG-13
Tagline The most dangerous love story ever told.
Awards
International Film Music Critics Award (IFMCA)
• 2 Wins & 3 Nominations
Golden Trailer Awards
• 1 Nomination
