Romeo & Juliet

At times I wasn't sure if this was Romeo and Juliet or Dudley Do-Right and Juliet. Sometimes Romeo seemed wooden, sometimes awkward, sometimes trying woodenly to be awkward. He seemed much older than Juliet, too, which would be interesting if it were part of the play but it isn't.

Much more affecting were Juliet herself, the Nurse, and old Capulet. Some of the staging was notably well handled, including the whole Capulet ballroom scene. I couldn't help comparing Mercutio and Friar Laurence unfavorably with their Zeffirelli counterparts.

It was nice to get more of the dialogue than some other film versions preserve, but on the other hand some of the cuts took away familiar lines and such cuts are always jarring.

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.

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.

This uneven production includes more of the text than do most productions, but it still omits many lines. Some of the omissions are well-judged abridgments of the tiresome banter between Romeo and his friends or between the servants and the musicians. Other deletions are much more dubious, as we're deprived of some great poetic lines. Some of the excisions in III.i (along with the staging of the sword fights in that scene) have the effect of presenting Tybalt as a less bellicose character than the full text suggests.

The best performances are those of Michael Hordern (Capulet), Celia Johnson (Nurse), Anthony Andrews (Mercutio), Alan Rickman (Tybalt), and Joseph O'Conor (Friar Laurence). None of those performances is impeccable, but each of them is at a high level.

Rebecca Saire (Juliet) is not up to the demands of her role in some of the crucial scenes in the first half of the play, but she improves considerably after a mediocre rendering of the "Gallop apace" soliloquy. Patrick Ryecart (Romeo) is excellent in the bedroom scene, but his performance otherwise ranges from poor in the early parts of the play to mediocre in the later parts. Ryecart too often substitutes expressionless reciting for acting. In the balcony scene he is unintentionally hilarious, as he keeps crashing to the ground after ascending a wall. Moreover, whereas Saire's physical appearance is just right for Juliet, Ryecart's physical appearance is unlikely to set aflutter the heart of any fourteen-year-old girl.

The sword fights are staged more impressively than in any of the other BBC Shakespeare productions, and the sets are generally well crafted. This production on the whole is pretty good, but it could have been excellent if the eponymous characters had been better portrayed.

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.