Romeo and Juliet (1968)

Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Masterful Movie

Brilliant and touching

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The famous director Franco Zeffirelli,two Oscars and one Golden Globe nominated ,Emmy and BAFTA winner,gave life to the William Shakespeare's tragedy,published in 1597. Considered by many critics The best screening of the classic love story between Romeo and Juliet ,the Zeffirelli's movie won two Oscars for Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design and three Golden Globe for Best English-Language Foreign Film, Most Promising Newcomer - Female(Olivia Hussey) and Most Promising Newcomer - Male(Leonard Whiting). The Zeffirelli's masterpiece transpose the tragedy of Shakespeare on the big screens,in an amazing way,just like the original story.Look what Florin Potra (Romanian) says: Choosing Romeo and Juliet at the age which we find in the book[..]. At the end of the movie,we know that we saw a good one,that transpose amazing the thrilling love story,contoured by love and hate.

"For there was never a story of more woe than this Juliet and her Romeo" Children listen to stories that generally end with "… and they lived happily ever after" but as they grow older, and maybe more deeply involved about the matters of love, the stories that are more likely to find a powerful echo in their hearts would rather have an epilogue like William Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet". It is as if you could only measure the true power of love within its tragic implications, through the tale of two star-crossed lovers, victims of the feud between their families and an unforgettable chain of events where even their passion would play an ironical role, allowing each lover to mourn the loved one's death.There had been stories of forbidden loves all through the ages and the civilizations, as a Moroccan, I can tell you the legends of Ali and Zaina, two lovers from rival Berber tribes who died of sadness together and the spot of their last rendezvous became the confluence of two rivers formed by the flows of their tears, the meaning of each river's name would be fiancé (for each gender). The two rivers exist so that people can remember the story. Now, this is the stuff that the greatest romances are made on, and one could react to "Ali and Zaina" as passionately as for "Romeo and Juliet". But it's a credit to Shakespeare's talent to have written a tale for all seasons, a staple of tragedy that wrapped up all the romantic heritage of past centuries and turned into a universal and timeless tale.Indeed, if there ever is a word that captures the spirit of "Romeo and Juliet", it is timeless. This is a story that time cannot wither, for it's a story of a love that never fades, a love that culminates at the ultimate moment and resists death; in fact, it is a love that ignores death as much as it provokes it. The love between Romeo and Juliet is eternal, because we all love someone but know that time can affect the strongest passions, that even the blooming flower will fade, so we never identify with Romeo and Juliet as much as we admire and venerate the persistence of their feelings till the last breath. Both ignored the obstacles, rejecting their own names as soon as they became burdens, they were careless, they were kids, and since when do kids listen to their parents? And that's one of the forgotten aspects of the play, besides being lovers; Romeo and Juliet were teenagers in old Verona. They were young and they were innocent, and innocence is exactly what conveys the "Romeo and Juliet" of Franco Zifferelli, whose masterstroke was the casting of two unknown faces, two teenagers even by 60's standards, to play the parts of the doomed lovers. Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey were respectively 17 and 15 when the shooting started and their lack of maturity made their romance beautifully fragile and poignant. Three years after Laurence Olivier's infamous black-faced performance as Othello, a director like Zifferelli understood that the time of make-believe was over and the audience didn't need a star-studded cast, but needed to believe, in the case of "Romeo and Juliet", it's not essential, it is vital.And from the juvenile confidence of Romeo and the naive innocence of Juliet, there is just something magical operating, and after the balcony scene, it is impossible not to believe in their passion. Zifferelli's "Romeo and Juliet" was made in 1968, one year after movies like "Bonnie and Clyde" or "The Graduate" broke many grounds in Hollywood, but 1968 had a more traditional line-up with many costume-movies such as "Lion in Winter" or "Oliver!". Still, Zifferelli understood the era and didn't sugarcoat the material for all that; his film is still oddly modern, cleverly using costumes to differentiate between the Capulets and the Montaigues and using sex and violence in risqué ways but never at the expenses of the romance. The fight between Tybalt (Michael York) and Romeo is a heart-pounding action sequence beautifully staged while the infamous bed scene by daring to show the two protagonists naked, prove that Romeo and Juliet weren't just talkers.Yes, they were under the legal age. It even reached the irony that Oliva Hussey couldn't have seen her performance in America. While this aspect had raised some controversy, there's nothing in that moment that feels gratuitous, it is clean because we believe in it and we can see that the chemistry isn't just on an emotional level, but on a physical one too. The movie version can't ignore the play's erotic undertones as it can't ignore that it's about two teenagers and yes, teenagers are attracted to bodies. It is very sad that today, a film like "Romeo and Juliet" couldn't be shown on classes because of a few glimpses of nudity while the students can go home and have daily access on porn images that will totally deconstruct their notion of love. We take that word 'love story" for granted and forget what it means, and Shakespeare's play can give you one notion or two.The film might be overshadowed by the remake starring Leonardo Di Caprio and Claire Danes, but this one has the merit to respect the original material while still making it accessible to young people and teenagers. It captures the spirit of Shakespeare while translating it into cinematic language, with a powerful photography, a perfect leading cast, great supporting performances from Mila O'Shea and Pat Heywood playing Friar Lawrence and Juliet's nursemaid, and a haunting score by Nino Rota. Ziffereli's directing made the rest by finding the perfect compromise between a classical and colorful approach to the play and the changes of society and the tumultuous minds of 1968's mood.

"Romeo and Juliet: Dear Lord have they killed themselves yet?" ☼☼☼☼☼ 1 star In "Romeo and Juliet," two very young lovers find each other in the middle of a big mess. Even though they are destined for doom, they decide to take their chances with fate. You should probably just watch the last ten minutes; it explains that whole point of the story. To start, you don't even see Juliet for the first half hour of the movie... isn't this called Romeo AND Juliet? They finally introduce Juliet to Romeo at a party one night. Okay, it's going good so far. Immediately after the party, Romeo is already sneaking onto Juliet's property and spying on her. He decides to call her name even though it was dark outside and it probably made her scared for her life. They start talking, and five minutes later... BAM... they're in love. On the plus side of this story, they meet two whole times before getting engaged, not to mention the fact that he proposed to her through her nurse. Not even a phone call? Ouch! At least he didn't drag the engagement out for a whole 24 hours. Meet one day, and married three days later is totally normal. Weird? Only a little. Hold up, now Juliet's engaged again? Wait, but I thought... never mind. So wait her parents don't know that she's married? I mean the least she could've done is let them know, maybe invited them to her wedding? What's next? She's dead. There's a plot twist. SIKE, she's only pretending to be dead to get out of her new engagement. To be honest, it makes sense. Someone should tell Romeo that plan. Too late, He's already killed himself. Seriously, did nobody see that coming? Hey look, Juliet's awake! That's coincidentally timed. Oops, I blinked and now she's dead too. Funny how that stuff happens. Wait that was the whole movie? It took you two-and-a-half hours just to tell me that? Overall, this movie is not worth your time or money to see, as I just explained the whole movie. (Sorry if there are spoilers, but let's be real, you already knew they died.) I didn't like this movie because on top of the fact that it made no sense at all, it wasn't even in English. Wait that was English? Please excuse my mistake. However, you may need a 16th century translator in order to understand it, if those are even around anymore. Although I'm pretty sure they went out of business in 1601. Anyways, overall, it is not worth the effort to go and see "Romeo and Juliet."

I'll make this relatively short. Others provide far more detailed reviews, but this has always held special meaning for me, so I finally decided to weigh in with some comments.I saw this when it was originally released in the US, while I was a high school aged teen. It is difficult to describe the depth of its impact on me, mostly because it was such a perfect film. Zeffirelli's genius abounds, in so many different ways, but aside from the genius of the film script (involving more than just him), by far, the primary thing that separates it from the long list of other "attempts" to film this story, was the casting of two actors in their early-to-mid teens (the proper age for the two protagonists), instead of using twenty (or in some film variants, thirty) year old actors in those roles, as had been done in so many previous efforts. Having actors in other films who were sometimes twice the appropriate age for those roles, attempting to pull off those performances, simply never rang true.Second only to the casting, was the absolutely perfect "tone" of the entire film. Filmed in Verona, where the play was obviously set, plus the cinematography, and then the unbelievably perfect score, all facilitated its translation from its original stage-based home, to what is a true film masterpiece.It is the actors' (appropriately) youthful innocence, and that perfect tone, that make this depiction of the tragedy stand out, from other efforts. It is also what makes it so "rewatchable". You can't help falling in love with them again, in each viewing, as you watch them (so innocently) fall in love with each other. And, when that seminal moment plays out against the backdrop of the soulful rendition of "What is Youth", the "hook is set", and despite the inevitable train wreck that is coming, it's just impossible to walk away, because you are (yet again) simply too invested in these two teens' tragic journey.To be fair about the age comment, I should say that I'm not blind to other film interpretations, which have utilized age-appropriate actors, e.g. Luhrmann's take on R&J. But the varied attempts (like his) to take the play, and place it in some bizarrely modern setting, have never really worked for me. It just feels "awkward" (like a square peg in a round hole). The only time that I have been comfortable with some R&J inspired story is when someone simply takes the basic theme, and retools it entirely, e.g. the classic, and equally tragic "West Side Story" being a perfect example.In short, this is simply one of the most moving, and beautiful films that you could ever hope to see, regardless of whether you are, or are not, into Shakespearean classics. And it would be difficult to imagine anyone ever doing a better job of translating this play into film. (For insight into Zeffirelli's scripting choices, I would highly recommend reading film-222's IMDb review. See: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5222822/).