Romeo & Juliet

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.

Rebecca Saire and Patrick Ryecart and quite interesting as the leads. Saire gives a very good interpretation of Juliet and owns her scenes. She is beautiful, and her costumes are affective. Wearing clothing patterned after authentic period costumes adds a lot. She looks a little like Elsa Lanchester in "Bride of Frankenstein" in the heavy full-length dress of the day. Ryecart uses a more contemporary style, along the lines of England in the era of the Beatles and the Stones while remaining intellectually honest. It is unusual now to have a Romeo not be a teen-dream. Saire and Ryecart have some, not a lot of, chemistry. What the actors accomplish is to bring to the fore some of the questions in the plot. Why do they think springing their marriage on their families in the middle of a vendetta will not be received with horror? Or why doesn't Friar Lawrence see the likely outcome? They try to out-Machiavellian the rulers of a renaissance Italian city-state and the outcome is also predicable. The play is not the romantic tragedy it is reputed to be.

Perhaps the production values could have been better if it had not been filmed in the style of a 1970s BBC program. Too many crane shots. The sets are variable. Very good background music in the credits and the musicians in the party scene are playing authentic instruments.

This performance is from the first two seasons of BBC Shakespeare and is shows the original purpose which seemed to be to sell the package to school libraries from class discussion. Later they did more original interpretations of the plays and some of the actors in this are in the later plays; Ryecart, Michael Hordern, and Vernon Dobtcheff are the ones I saw.

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.

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.

I watched this in high school and thought it was okay, not great, a little over-acted, but okay. I am reviewing this because I just found out that Alan Rickman plays Tybalt in this. In my opinion Alan plays the role with gusto and power. Not over-acting like the other characters. God bless RickMAN. God bless you for saving this show. Too bad he had to die early...