Romeo & Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss

You may ask, "If Romeo & Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss broke 'good' and 'bad', why did you rate it a 6/10?" Well, after much thought, I have come to the conclusion that this movie defies the exercise of judging a movie- completely. We have all known that rating movies has been wishywashy opinions colored by our individual contexts- and that is at its very best. It's not a science by any means. That being said, I still think this movie dives even deeper into how little: ratings, "good", "bad", stars ,and various meters do not matter.

I have grown accustomed to putting heavy stock into two things which rarely lead me astray. The first, asking myself what the creator of the movie attempted to do. This is necessary because one would not count it a negative for a romance if it could not scare you, but you would certainly judge a horror movie poorly if it were purely benign.

Secondly, and less importantly, I bring my own taste to the movie. I ask myself if it speaks to me. If I could bring another person's taste to a screening then I would most definitely make the switch- but until that great day this is the only way I can judge. It may speak to someone else more profoundly than myself and that is wonderful, but I could only feel what I personally feel with any accuracy. I am the audience. And art, to some extent, is about swaying the audience into feeling something.

So, I try to do my best in weighing the former more heavily than the latter while performing this exercise with every movie. And there are many more considerations as you very well know.

That is fine and dandy- until you watch Romeo & Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss. It all goes out the window. The Godfather is easy to judge. The much maligned Cat in the Hat (2003) is easy to judge. But why is this movie so difficult?

It has its flaws: jittery animation, plot logic, inconsistencies, dialogue mistakes and the like. All correctly judged. Many people on this very platform have pointed those out. But the main question arises once more doesn't it? What did the creator intend?

If you did not know, this movie had one creative voice- Phil Nibbelink. He did the directing on this movie-and the writing -and was the entire editing department- and the art department- and the animation department- and did some of the acting.

And after years of hard work he did the best with the little resources he had and put out this movie. What did he intend? I believe he intended to make an emotional story. I believe he wanted to make something for children. I believe he wanted to make a sentimental movie that would shine brighter than its limitations.

And did he achieve that goal? Did he sway me to feel what was intended?

Absolutely- without a doubt. Could the animation have been better? Sure. The dialogue? Yeah. Was some dialogue muddled? Oh yeah. Could they have stuck closer to Shakespeare's original vision? Sure.

And because of that, if I'm pressed, I cannot possibly score this very highly. But let us not forget to ask, "Did the creator make what he intended?" Yes. Did he make me feel something? Yes, by design.

And though it might make people fume in rage and though it might break the hearts of Shakespeare's die hard fans- It's a laugh. Sometimes I laughed at it. Sometimes I laughed with it. The joke where the Friar is literally frying different things in his spare time is just the most hilarious thing to me. The backgrounds were moody and pure emotion (by necessity.) The characters were emotive and relatable.

Yes, critics, you can see where the animation took shortcuts. Yes, it's incredibly dated. Yes, I looked at my watch a few times during this movie. Yes, I have no idea how some things were resolved. But it was all intentional- by golly! And it made me-feel things.

No, it isn't Disney, and it isn't even quite Shakespeare (the almost too clever but crafty subtitle "Sealed With A Kiss" tells us that), but as a throwback to one and a light introduction to the other, this very little (77 minute) film deserves to find an appreciative audience.

The one-man, single cell "flat" animation is smoothly done and handsome. While the brown and yellow Romeo and Juliet seals (to distinguish between the Montague and Capulet herds) are closer to the look of Casper the Ghost and friends than the more detailed "flat" animation from the corporate giants at Disney, Pixar or Bluth, it is several steps ahead of the still popular (among the undemanding young) work associated with Rankin-Bass. The standard Nibbelink maintains is consistent and impressive. Even the Elephant Seal "Prince" who stands in for Shakespeare's Duke who threatens any who would disturb the streets of his Venice does not recall the visual sloppiness of the broad lines Ursula, the evil witch in Disney's LITTLE MERMAID was rendered in.

The script might have tried a little harder (it omits more Shakespearian characters than it had to - where's the nurse? - and while it feels free to drop in "famous" Shakespearian quotes from other plays at any convenient turn for the amusement of the adult audience, it could have used a few more in the actual plot without turning off the younger set), but it is coherent and even in "smoothing out" the rough edges of one of Shakespeare's most famous tragedies for overly sensitive parents, it preserves the essence of most of Shakespeare's lessons (at least as interpreted these 400 years later).

Charm is the key word here - it is a charming film, and a very nicely done one, even if it were from a major studio. From a one-man operation it's close to a miracle that any student of film or animation should put on their "must-discover" list. Even before the kids are ready for MONSTERS INC. or SHREK 1, 2 or 3, this ROMEO AND JULIET, Sealed With A Kiss would be a very good choice for a wise parent.

I love Shakespeare, and was intrigued at how "Romeo and Juliet:Sealed with a Kiss" would turn out. I did hear from people it was a disgrace to Shakespeare, but I have been known to disagree with critics and the IMDb ratings, so I gave this a chance. It wasn't absolutely repulsive, but it didn't quite click with me. The best asset of the film is the animation. The backgrounds are fluid and colourful and the characters with the exception of the Prince were well drawn. Considering the animation was done by one man, Phil Nibbelink, it was quite impressive visually. The story pretty much follows the storyline of the play, except it is about seals, plus some (I think) pointless scenes with Friar Lawrence and a shark, and the voice acting was on the whole decent. However, there are a lot of things wrong with it. I personally didn't care for the music. I love good music in animated films, but here I found the songs forgettable and bland, and the incidental music felt misplaced. I will say I liked one or two of the characters, Romeo and Juliet are appealing enough and the Kissing Fish is really cute. However, Friar Lawrence is not the wise caring character I associate him with, and I do not know why the Nurse was omitted when she provides the most effective source of parental love in the play. In my opinion, I didn't like the character of the Prince at all, I didn't like how he was drawn and his voice was too monotonic for my liking. Worst of all was the script, constant misuse of the Shakespeare language and Mercutio's jokes went well overboard, and especially in his death scene they weren't even funny. Overall, this movie was okay but I don't recommend it. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Before I went into watching this film I read a bit about it from other viewers and based on what they said I had pretty low expectations for it. But after viewing the whole thing I've come to the realization... it's not that bad. The animation is really well done and the story is filled with Shakespeare jokes that any thespian or theater buff will get a good chuckle out of. Not that there aren't problems with it though. The voice acting and singing can often range from good, mediocre, or just plain bad. The characters themselves are all moderately enjoyable except for one in particular... a fish called Kissy(you'll know her when you see her and you'll either love or hate her).

If you're looking for a movie to entertain your kids or to just kill some time I'd recommend this to you but be forewarned, this is the kind of movie you'll either hate or like.

I give Romeo & Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss a 6.5/10 leaning towards a 7.

Sealed With a Kiss is a traditional fully-animated film, with seals doing Shakespeare. I admit that like many others, I wasn't totally sold on the concept, but then when you get down to it The Lion King was basically Hamlet with lions, and few seemed to have a problem with that. Turned out to be quite a fun little movie.

While the dialogue is modern, the film has a few of the characters quoting famous Shakespearian lines, but in a way that shouldn't alienate children. It's more of a comedic thing. The story gets going straight away, with rivalry between the 2 groups of seals. This is part about racism, but for the most part, an old-fashioned feud. I was worried going in that the romance would be forced and sappy. Well maybe it is a little sappy, but it's sweet, and sincerely handled. As in the play, it's love at first sight. Two of the songs near the start were, I thought rather weak, but they at least progressed the story. As the film gets going, there are fewer songs.

Unlike the play, the film is light in tone and has many comedic elements. There are a few laugh-out-loud moments but some of Mercutio's puns are groan inducing(even the characters in the film seem to think so). As you would expect, liberties are taken (most notably the ending), and it isn't weighed down like some adaptations. To be honest, I fully expected it to be Romeo & Juliet in name only, and sure enough a great many story elements have no relation whatsoever to what Shakespeare wrote, but I was surprised that the core of what is here is more or less true to what I remember of the original.

I was particularly interested to see how the animation turned out, as it has emerged that this film is that rarest of things: a one man animated film. Phil Nibbelink wrote, directed and animated every frame of the film over the course of 5 years. Despite this, it is remarkably well animated. Well drawn fluid cartoony animation. It's not quite of the level of a top notch Disney animated film, but it comes very close, indeed far closer than I would have ever dreamed possible for a one-man effort. A few shortcuts are taken, but there are a surprising number of scenes animated on ones (which takes twice as many drawings as is usually necessary). This means the animation can be that extra bit more fluid. Some shortcuts can be seen in some of the background characters and effects animation, but this is generally where it matters least. The important stuff, the character animation, is top notch, what you would expect from a strong Disney animator (which is what Nibbelink spent a decade working as). The backgrounds are soft-focus simple and uncluttered to frame the character animation. In a few cases these are perhaps a little rushed, but all in all, they set the atmosphere and do the job.

Even with the lighter tone, it still manages strong dramatic moments. Despite the villain of the piece being a doofus played mostly for laughs, he nevertheless adds menace to the proceedings. There's nothing here that should bother small children, and they should have no trouble following the storyline. While the film aims at a young audience that may not yet be ready for this kind of romance, there should be enough action and comedy to keep them entertained.