...it was just about perfect in every way, and brilliant. I am, however, curious and anticipating how they will do with this one.
I agree. I adore Zeffirelli's version!!!!! I've imported the blu-ray from the UK as we speak.
Didn't really care for Baz's version.
I'm willing to give this new one a shot, though.
[deleted]
Agreed. The folks took me to see it when I was 10, during the 1973 re-release.
Didn't understand a lick of the dialogue, but Olivia Hussey kept my interest!
I just rented on Netflix this new Romeo and Juliet, the only actor in this production who truly knew how to deliver his lines was Paul Giamatti, everyone else I felt was reading their lines out of a play book.
Between HS as Juliet and DB as Romeo, I thought DB was the better deliverer of the two. Being as she had already been nominated for something else I had high hopes but she really seemed out of her element in this one. Her hair was beautiful though. DB was handsome enough but a bit unemotional at times.
And who did that terrible soundtrack, it was terrible.
I do agree with many of you that Romeo and Juliet 1968 was a masterpiece, and who knew actually how great it was til years later, nobody can hold a candle to it. The two leads were perfectly cast and delivered the lines in a way that made you understand their meaning, how they were meant to be said, and not just the leads but everyone throughout was simply great.
And the Nina Rota Soundtrack was sweeping, haunting, it was the greatest, it added so much to the film.
Baz's R and J I didn't think lived up to the 1968 version either, but I thought it was creatively done bringing it into modern times.
I just watched this version tonight, and while I agree that the 1968 version was indeed a masterpiece, this version was not bad, and it did have gorgeous cinematography, although it lacked the painterly quality of many scenes in Zefferelli's production. The leads were the right age and Hailey Steinfield had the freshness and innocence of the girl on the threshold of womanhood required of the role. The production did feel rushed, though, and the leads did speak too fast, a manner of speaking I have noticed in many young people these days. The soundtrack was not particularly memorable, and unlike 1968's haunting "What is a Youth?" love theme, there wasn't one in this film, or at least one that stood out.
Unlike the scene in this version, 1968's depiction of Juliet's funeral was heartbreaking, the lovely young maiden cut off in her bloom borne upon an open bier to the ancestral mausoleum surrounded by her family, with flower petals strewn across her shroud to the elegaic melody of the love theme vocalized by a chorus of female voices, was poignant and unforgettable.
John McEnery's interpretation of the complex Mercutio, by turns morose and bitingly humorous, was not equaled by this version's Christian Cook. And, Ed Westwick's Tybalt is not a patch on Michael York's thuggish, menacing Capulet nephew.
I preferred Robert Stephens' authoritative Prince with his sonorous voice and imperious manner to Stellan Skarsgard's somewhat mealy-mouthed interpretation.
Both sets of parents were also more believable in the 1968 film, especially Lady Capulet, also married young(the very fate she would have urged upon her daughter)described in her husband's reply to Paris's "Younger than she (Juliet) are happy mothers made" as "...and too soon marred are those so early made." Lady Capulet has turned self-centered and petulant and as interpreted by Natasha Perry, could hardly be described as a 'happy' mother.
Pat Heywood was lively, affectionate (moreso than the mother to her charge Juliet), and appropriately bawdy in the role of the nurse in contrast to Lesley Manville's less memorable interpretation.
As others have mentioned, soliloquies were omitted, and that is unfortunate as they reveal the inmost thoughts of some of the main characters. Most of the actors in the 1968 version had British accents and classical acting backgrounds, and that was a unifying factor, making their Shakespearean roles more authentic.
Nevertheless, the current "Romeo and Juliet" does have its own beauty and relevance to this generation of young people, and it will introduce them to the beloved tale, and perhaps inspire many to explore the play and other productions of the film.
"..sure you won't change your mind? Why, is there something wrong with the one I have?"
The thing is... this feels too much like the Zeffirelli masterpiece. By doing that, they should've known that everyone was going to make this comparison. The fact that this Juliet is FAR from as beautiful as Olivia Hussey. That poor girl had the worst name but the most beautiful face. Also, these modern actors feel too much like cardboard to believe that they actually feel what they say they feel.
shareYou are right. Unfortunately we just don't have too many actors and even directors of the stature and training that there used to be.
It is not required that the actors be beautiful. Hailey Steinfield is far from ugly and has the childish beauty of the young Juliet, but she doesn't yet have enough training and background to be believable in the role. It's a little more intense and demanding than Mattie in 'True Grit'.
"..sure you won't change your mind? Why, is there something wrong with the one I have?"
I like Baz Luhrman's version purely because I like Baz Luhrman's style. But, I will second this opinion amongst the others that Zeffirelli's is the best R+J version I have ever seen.
Dress up Zeffirelli's cast in any costumes (or without) and they'd still speak the language just as natural like glove to a hand. They were perfect.