Romeo + Juliet

As a 12 yo girl I don't understand Shakespeare one bit. It's like a different language that u just get bored of trying to translate. But this movie - I understood every bit of it. And I loved it. Why is there all this hate? Especially for Leonardo, his performance was beautiful and I'm not just saying that bcs of his face but it was genuinely moving and Clare Danes was great in it too. It's not the greatest movie I've ever seen no. But in 2021 I don't care if this movie is gonna change my life or not or if it's a masterpiece or a flop, I wanna watch a movie that I'll be entertained by and moved by. And that was this movie.

I'm a sucker for William Shakespeare even though I like it done better in the theatre. This one however, kept my attention and seemed to do a great job with modernizing the whole quarreling families thing. The movie kicks off with a street brawl between the Montegues and Capulets. The Prince forewarns them that if they ever disturb the peace again their "lives will pay the forfeit of the peace." We are then introduced to the character Romeo who is played by Leonardo DeCaprio. Leo does a great job as Romeo, but that's because Leo is a good actor in this film. Soon after that we are introduced to Juliet who is played by the beautiful Claire Danes, someone I haven't seen in too many movies. Danes does a great job playing the flirty Juliet. The movie follows the original script very accurately. The symbolism is also used very well throughout the movie. If you look at the guns you'll notice that some say sword, some say rapier, and I believe some say dagger. The Montegues always wear a Hawaiian style shirt. The Capulets dress more like mobsters or thugs even though both sides could be viewed as thugs in some sort or another. In either case each family wears a certain kind of clothing that makes it easy to tell who's who. One great part I absolutely love is the party. Juliet wears angel wings and Romeo wears a knight outfit. Romeo's best friend (and I wish I could spell his name but I'd rather not butcher it) dresses up as a women. So to explain this form of symbolics, for those who aren't getting it, it's Romeo is the "knight in shinning armor," Juliet is the angel of Romeo's dreams, and Romeo's best friend is the comic relief. There's other things you'll notice at the party also, like Tybalt wears devil horns(i.e. he's a villain). Both families you'll also notice are rich, which also follows the script accurately. Overall, if you're a Shakespeare fan, a fan of romantic movies, a fan of tragic movies, or a fan of artistic movies then make sure to look into this one. It'll sweep you off you're feet, make you laugh, make you cry, and make you fall in love.

Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo and Juliet" is not your high school Shakespeare. It's a bullet-riddled opera of young love that has gone up in flames, and I loved most of it. The costumes and makeup were amazing. The settings were great, and the acting was immaculate. The only thing is that Luhrmann's style sometimes overwhelms the story. Leonardo DiCaprio brings raw teenage vulnerability to Romeo-his pain feels real, especially in the final scenes. Claire Danes starts stiff but grows into Juliet's grief with heartbreaking clarity. But the true standout is Harold Perrineau as Mercutio, stealing scenes with wild charisma and tragic depth.

Here's a complete thought about Baz Luhrmann's 1996 film "Romeo + Juliet": Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" isn't just a retelling of Shakespeare's classic; it's a vibrant, modern reimagining that explodes onto the screen with a kinetic energy that perfectly captures the impetuous passion of youth. Set in the contemporary city of Verona Beach, Luhrmann translates the timeless tale of star-crossed lovers into a visually stunning spectacle that seamlessly blends Shakespearean language with contemporary pop culture.

The film's audacious style is its most striking feature. Luhrmann masterfully utilizes a hyper-stylized aesthetic, employing vibrant colors, MTV-inspired editing, and a pulsating soundtrack that blends classical music with contemporary rock and pop. This dynamic approach not only revitalizes Shakespeare's text but also makes it accessible to a modern audience. The iconic fish tank fight scene, with its underwater choreography and slow-motion bullets, is a testament to Luhrmann's innovative and visually arresting direction.

The performances are equally captivating. Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes deliver electrifying portrayals of Romeo and Juliet, capturing the intensity of their love with raw emotion and palpable chemistry. John Leguizamo's fiery Mercutio is a scene-stealer, while Paul Sorvino's imposing portrayal of Don Capulet adds gravitas to the tragic story.

However, "Romeo + Juliet" is more than just a visually dazzling spectacle. Luhrmann's film retains the core themes of Shakespeare's original: the destructive force of family feuds, the power of love to transcend social barriers, and the tragic consequences of impulsive actions. The film poignantly explores the timeless themes of fate, free will, and the fragility of human life.

While some purists may criticize Luhrmann's liberties with the original text, his film ultimately serves as a powerful testament to the enduring relevance of Shakespeare's work. By translating the timeless tale into a contemporary language, Luhrmann has introduced a new generation to the beauty and tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, proving that Shakespeare's words continue to resonate with audiences across generations.

In conclusion, "Romeo + Juliet" is a bold and unforgettable cinematic experience. Luhrmann's visionary direction, coupled with stellar performances and a captivating soundtrack, creates a visually stunning and emotionally resonant reimagining of Shakespeare's classic. This film serves as a powerful reminder that even in a world of constant change, the timeless themes of love, loss, and the destructive nature of hatred remain deeply relevant.

This is not Shakespeare's best play, but it has his best poetry; that's because the play is ABOUT language, about the difference between what something is and the language used to describe it. So among the plays, this may be one of the hardest to film. But alas it suffers from another blessing which is also a curse: the story itself is so powerful that one can build any sort of film or play or whatever around it and have it be likely to work. Thus, we often lose the language.

Zefrelli made his own choices in the earlier film; these were relatively conventional. While it cut some valuable language, sacrificed to the gods of contemporary patience, it is by far the better version. But here we have some interesting choices.

First the setting. Italians to Shakespeare's England were a comical people, and his setting of the play there would have encouraged the audience to bring heavy stereotypes to the drama. Latins in his day were considered: Foppish: Quick to violence (a stereotype that has been inherited by blacks today, but to Londoners, Italians were nearly Africans): Incredibly proud especially as regards slights to masculinity: Obsessed with weapons.

Today, we roll those up under the relatively crude notion of stupid Latin macho. In this film, the director has exaggerated the Latin macho ethic to have the same effect 16th century Londoners would get. It works because these stereotypes are powerful memes which attract many hosts which perpetuate their underlying truth. Baz adds the additional dimension of the people being captured by the superstitious underbelly of the Church.

He deliberately straddles the border between apparent truth and satire. These Latins are superficial visually and not verbally. So here is the solution to the problem on how to make a film (which is primarily a visual medium) out of a play that leverages poetic language. The solution is to convert all the metaphors from language to vision. Hence the much-noted lack of poetry. I imagine Baz directing the players to not worry so much about the poetry.

Both Romeo and Juliet are incapable of performing the poetry anyway: they are children learning on the job. And what acting skill they have from film is all in the face, not the tongue. They are pretty enough though.

I like this film for its boldness. Some of the experiment works since we get the message of the difference between what we see and what is true. This is why Juliet has to see a LIVE Romeo at the end. Living under water is used to good effect. But in the real play, there are so many and such subtle explorations of the theme, and these are scoured away here for a few broad effects. The real message, which comes through loud and clear if you know the play (or even Zefrelli's film) is not the distance between the reality of events and the language, but the reality of the richness of the real play and this film. Equally vast. Equally powerful statement. So we have a playhouse with the back part blasted out to the sea.

As a separate matter, the play has three anchors: Mercutio, the Friar and the Nurse. These are handled interestingly here.

The Friar is an alchemical master hiding under the cloak of the Church. The play equates the magic of language with the magic of potions, equally deadly. The congruence is lost in this film, but Baz definitely gets the magic part as well as the superfluous ritual of the church. This friar is a terrific, memorable performance of someone who believes he can defeat nature. Serves as an anchor as intended.

The Nurse is the true domestic, raw nature, full of uncompromised loyalty but ultimately compromised. Her character is lost here. We NEED to know about the dead sister and why the nurse turns on Juliet in order to save her life. Baz fails here, and so provides no center. For Shakespeare, she's the white space on the palette.

Mercutio in the play is a emotionally engaged visionary mystic. We understand that Romeo and Mercutio studied magic (`philosophy') abroad together much as Hamlet and Horatio had. The dream they shared the night before is the axis of the whole action: rather like the magic of the witches in Macbeth. Baz gets this as well: Modern magic is what? Drugs. So Hamlet is given a psychotropic by Mercutio before going to the party. Works for me, because it allows everything to be visually blasted and inexorably tragic. The whole thing after the party is a trip, see? It is why they can meet, become entranced and arrange marriage after an hour or two. (Remember that until this point Romeo is hopelessly smitten by Roseline.)

Anyone who wrestles with problems of filming the Bard and comes out alive deserves my respect. This is a weird interpretation, but that's the point.