Private Romeo

This is quite a creative reimagining of the "Romeo & Juliet" story that shifts the setting from Verona to an American military academy. Therein, are eight cadets who essentially adopt the roles of the Montagues and Capulets - but with a difference. All are male. Using an hybrid of Shakespeare's own language and a modern day soundtrack along with an overtly militaristic scenario, the love story unfolds. Creator Alan Brown has done quite well here. Clearly the budget was pretty minimal, but he uses light and shadow, pulls focus, includes dance and sport - all to create, effectively enough, a modern-day appreciation of affection, bigotry and intolerance. It's not that it swipes at the US military's approach to being gay, per se, it highlights it - and it also demonstrates that regardless of the overarching "policy", it is down to individual people to implement lasting change and improvements. The cast work well together and the film, though it does require concentration, flows along well. Maybe a bit too long, and the sound mix isn't always the best - but it's an interesting watch this.

This was really a nice adaptation of "R&J'...Yes it took some liberties, but it was well acted and, in the end, a very sweet tale.

I am not sure why it has gotten such negative reviews. No...it is not your typical "gay" movie...which is why it works. THe movie is dependent on the Shakeperean text which may have turned some off.

The actors are all believable, and if not the best acting I have seen, it is much better than a lot of cheesy movies of the genre. The two leads, Seth Numrich and Matt Doyle play their angst and conflict quite well, drawing the viewer in to their plight.

If you go into this film with no expectations you should enjoy it. I think if you are looking for a "gay" film or a masterful adaptation of Shakespeare you will be disappointed. Take it for what it is and enjoy it.

Just watched Private Romeo and I gotta say I was disappointed after all the positive comments & reviews.

I understood that the story was a modern take on the Romeo & Juliet story set in a boys' military academy. For me it just didn't work.

I tried to get behind the "gender blind" casting, a variation on "color blind" casting in which the audience pretends NOT to notice a the actors race and just goes with the character as written. For me this didn't work because the characters adhered so loosely to the characters as written.

The story is all about how two factions are brought to grief when a member of each faction kills themselves after becoming a couple.

In this version, I couldn't tell the factions apart or even if there really were any. There were no parental arranged marriages, no killing of cousins in duels, and even bigger departures from the story... but that would be telling!

I'm a big fan of restaging Shakespeare in other scenarios. West Side Story and Ran are great examples where "bending the Bard" actually added new and interesting aspects to an already classic tale, but this one added nothing and detracted a LOT. I saw all of my favorite speeches of the play marred and made less by this staging.

Also the production values were glaringly deficient in spots. Why stage a military drill scene without bothering to ensure uniform uniforms, and with so small a number of "cadets?"

This felt much less organic throughout than that Woody Allen movie where he took an already released Japanese movie and substituted his own dialogue.

The boys were pretty and there were moments where the actors managed to get my interest & empathy DESPITE the total lack of any help from the vehicle they were performing in.

It may well be me. There are a number of very positive reviews of this film by critics from The NY Times and The Village Voice et. al. but after seeing this I'm if some form of payola wasn't involved...

I loved and was entranced by this very beautiful, and beautifully done, movie. At first I was worried that the use of Shakespeare's original language was going to feel gimmicky or distracting (as it often has been in other projects...such as, in my opinion, in the Baz Luhrmann "Romeo+Juliet" film, which had other charms, to be sure, and I liked it a lot, but regarding the Shakespearean spoken dialog, I had felt that neither Leonardo DiCaprio nor Clare Danes, who are certainly otherwise good actors, had the slightest idea what they were actually saying), but instead, this film illuminated Shakespeare's language and I feel that I had rarely heard those words spoken with such beauty, clarity, and understanding. The actors completely inhabited those lines and from the powerfully projective strength of their voices, it was obvious to me that these were very talented and even classically-trained actors.

They all had the physical good looks that makes you think they could have been cast on looks, alone, and yet to see the actual TALENT they all had, was rather amazing. A little investigation later revealed that many, if not all, of them were far more interested in the New York and London theater scenes than they were in "Hollywood", and this film is probably not a "Hollywood" film, anyway.

For typical Hollywood film audiences, this film might have been narratively confusing in several different ways. For example, the director made the decision to retain the feminine gender pronouns in the dialog, and yet, despite the fact that this movie was set in an all-boys military academy, I didn't feel that these words were meant to be used insultingly or as put-downs, even when spoken to or about those in "enemy" camps. Nor was their use meant to take on a "drag queen" type of persona, like "say girl", and "she" this and that. No. These men were always clearly masculine, and especially so throughout all their wooing and love-making, and let's underscore that they were young WARRIORS, so no asking "who is the man and who is the woman in the relationship", they are both (as were all of them) MEN, okay?

For me, at any rate, it was almost automatic to either ignore the specificity of the gender pronouns (understanding that the original Shakespeare was being used without alteration or distortion), or, perhaps better, to transcend the sexual implications of gender into their spiritual qualities. For, in truth, it is only those with the least developed masculinity who are afraid to express love, to be tender and physically affectionate toward other men, to be caring and sheltering, for the fear that those qualities will "compromise" their masculinity (instead of what actually happens, it enhances it). And if sex, and marriage comes along with it, well, they're sovereign adults who know their own hearts.

I admit that were some aspects that I didn't quite get, such as why were these two "camps" enemies? They weren't from rival schools, they were in the same classrooms and shower rooms, but maybe they were on rival athletic teams within the school, and, being quite competitive naturally, any alliance across teams was frowned upon. But I never really quite got where that conflict came from. (Perhaps oversimplifying it, I can best think of this in "Harry Potter" terms, different "houses", that in this film the "Capulet" and "Montague" were equivalent to "Gryffendor" and "Slitherin".)

I did not pick up on any homophobia; it might have been there or alluded to or assumed, but I did not think that it specifically was the love between the two boys, AS two boys, that was, itself, a problem, and if I am right, then this unquestioned acceptance of that added quite a bit to the dream-like quality or maybe idealized atmosphere of the film. For then in the film's "dreamtime," then, they are beyond that issue (as it is way high time for it to be in our everyday world).

I am willing to accept that my various problems in understanding certain things indicates my imperceptions rather than failings in the construction of the film. A subsequent watching (which I am eager to do) may very well clear up every question.

But, instead of getting lost in the minutia of plot points and evaluating the correlation of the meaning between the original Shakespearean love story and a modern-day version set in an all-boys military school, I think it was much better to merely swim in the dreamy artistry and beauty of the project as a whole, to enjoy it as the work of art it is instead of merely as a narrative story.

The two boys, "Romeo" and "Juliet" were fantastic together while swirling in and speaking to one another Shakespeare's gorgeous words. It was enough to bring tears to my eyes. I think that Shakespeare, himself, would have loved this film, and from reading his "Sonnets", I especially think so! I am also reminded of another of his plays that I love, "As You Like It", where, in my view, love transcends "gender" (or, at least, the temporary appearance of gender).

All in all, despite a few minor flaws, this was a very worthwhile film to see and if you like Shakespeare at all, I think this film will increase your appreciation of his work (and to see how well it continues to universally apply), and if you hadn't known the director and the performers previously, the film introduces you to some seriously talented professionals whose careers are very much to be kept abreast of.

Updated Shakespeare is all the rage since the days of doing Hamlet in modern dress, or the nude version. We have seen and enjoyed everything from Richard III to Coriolanus in updated fashion.

A few years back we offered a course in Updated Shakespeare to English majors, and we found a growing army of updated tales on film, whether it was Much Ado about Nothing or A Midsummer Night's Dream.

We even loved Leonardo DiCaprio's Romeo and Juliet, and we came with some trepidation to something called Private Romeo.

The premise seemed a mite strained. A few cadets at a military academy are left alone at the campus, fending for themselves while the officers and other cadets are off on maneuvers. In one class the stranded and bereft young cadets are studying Shakespeare's romantic tragedy, and they seem to begin to live it.

The idea is not so far-fetched, as the original play deals with young hothead teenage gang members in rival factions. There is a secret love story interwoven among the hostilities and budding male adolescent angst.

So it is in Private Romeo. The shock of the rival gangs over Romeo's love may be more palatable because the forbidden affair is with another cadet. We found the Shakespearean dialog most apt to cover the situation.

The idea of first-love being misguided and overly passionate may befit a gay tale of coming out among cadets.

We can forgive a small budget movie stretching its wings, and we can even forgive a half dozen cadets looking like the Glee Club, not future ROTC members. Apart from that, the story picks up steam under director Alan Brown.

Scenes from R&J are cleverly woven into conversations about Romeo's unorthodox military affair. Action plays out on basketball court and chemistry lab. Like Elizabethan times, male actors play female roles like Nurse and Juliet's mother, this time in the guise of young cadets. The actors handle multiple roles and dialog is lifted from Shakespeare to meet the situation.

This brave effort features Matt Doyle as Cadet Mangan and his alter ego Juliet. Doyle is soft and vulnerable, but hardly feminine or in drag. Seth Numrich plays Cadet Singleton and Romeo. They are commendable.

If all male casts disturb you, you would not have been able to appreciate Shakespeare's work played by all male casts in the writer's lifetime.