Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

sharky_55 It begins and ends with Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey, who are the star-crossed lovers through and through. Juliet is thirteen in the play and Romeo barely older, and the fresh-faced pair descend to that level in their words and actions. Most stage productions use adults, with good reason; they understand the stress and the meaning behind each line, the sly wordplay and the literary allusions, while teenagers are still groaning in English class. Yet Franco Zeffirelli knew that a film's fidelity to the original did not have to be complete. He cuts some brilliant lines (generations of young Romeos have compared Juliet's eyes to the stars in the sky) and some superfluous ones, but what remains is the pair's boundless and foolish passion for one another. Watch them come together again in the church to be married, some mere hours after their last meeting, yet they fling themselves at each other and kiss like two ravenous birds, and have to be pried apart by Friar Lawrence. Observe the breathless delivery of their dialogue, always rushing to get to the next line, the next kissing segment. They have no eyes for rhyme or verse, only for each other. The more traditional of the students of Shakespeare may find this blasphemous, but then there are countless dramatic interpretations of the full text for them to savour. What Zeffirelli's film finds is what can't be captured in shabby costume and flat backdrops, of a living, breathing Verona awash in sweat and dust and colour. The cinematography of Pasqualino De Santis captures a city drenched in heat and the fiery passions of two feuding families, with foreheads shimmering in the sunlight with sweat and sharp shadows so alive they almost seem to kick at the dust themselves. Danilo Donati's costumes likewise punctuate the frame with a vividness that matches the brash personalities - Tybalt is all crimson and bright orange to go with his bronzed skin and piercing blue eyes (a missed opportunity here for Mercutio, however). And Nino Rota's famous theme flares up with the same intensity as that of the young lovers, climaxing in a scene at the party so lush and terribly romantic it almost renders the first exchange of rhyming quatrains unnecessary. Romeo is the link between violence and sensuality, between the dusty, earthy day and the serenity of night, although the latter lacks the visual imagination of the former. Shakespeare's antithesis of light and dark makes up many of the crucial images of the play: the flash and sparkle of a lover's eye, the sun and moon as beauty and terror, the seductive and morbid blackness of the wedding bed and then the tomb. Zeffirelli may have taken care to shoot on location as much as possible, and yet the balcony scene reeks of studio lighting, and a dull darkness. In one moment Juliet tightly grasps Romeo's hand and swears her love, and De Santis frames a tiny sliver of moonlight so that it hits only her gleaming eye, full of wonder and hope and adoration. This is offset by the constant top light which illuminates the entire frame in a way that removes much of the allure of the situation. Zeffirelli compensates in other ways; Romeo may be waxing lyrical about Juliet's eyes, which shine brighter than all the stars in all the heavens, but what is also in centre frame? Her porcelain skin, and the hint of cleavage accentuated by the plunging neckline of her bodice. The physicality of the attraction is underlined, and the burgeoning youth of the performers is once again made crucial. This physicality is mirrored in the masculine feuds out on the sun-baked streets of Verona, where the Montagues and Capulets swipe at each other until a blow turns deadly. It is here that Zeffirelli perfects the comedic swagger and flamboyance of Tybalt, Mercutio and their hordes, and how to channel that playful energy into wrath. The camera is perched right in the very midst of their quarrels, spinning dizzyingly as if on a carousel, and then suddenly a blade is bloodied, and a frantic, Peckinpah-esque zoom draws attention to the story's breaking point. Beforehand there is the same dizzying zeal in the boys' bawdy exchanges with the nurse, who scolds Romeo's company but can't help but grin at his wordplay all the same (she's of a lower class, speaking mainly in prose). She's portrayed by Pat Heywood with springs in her feet, bouncing and beaming from scene to scene, providing the comedic flourishes that Shakespeare wields to further drive the inevitable tragedy. The nurse exemplifies the swelling exuberance of the entire film, as do Mercutio and Tybalt, and Romeo and Juliet, who must bear the mantle of the greatest love story of all time. We are all familiar with their demise, although we often forget that they were merely teenagers. But Zeffirelli remembers.

Gordon Chi This version of Romeo and Juliet is actually more realistic and has a better impression of how the events would have played out if it was actually in the 17th century. The 1996 movie was utter crap, it was cringy, and it leaves you with that feeling of "Wth did I just watch" This movie is GREATT

stjohn1253 In homage to youthful impetuousness, this author will be brief.Ziffirelli brings to life a classical painting of young love and aggression with his interpretation of ROMEO AND JULIET. To see this film is to enter an art museum that magically animates into 16th century Verona.Few parts of this film flag. For example, consider the authenticity of the fight scenes. Typically, camera cuts fail to hide the "acting" of the combatants, but here you aren't distracted by thoughts of "Well, it IS only a movie." The editor knows when to have you look away; you can enjoy the action with no suspension of disbelief.Casting is virtually flawless. All characters fit their roles, especially the titular leads, Whiting (Romeo) and Hussey (Juliet). So also McEnery (Mercutio); York (Tybalt); and O'Shea (Friar Laurence). The rest are merely fantastic.This review isn't all praise, however, as the nude scene could easily have been cut. Some things are best left to the imagination.In conclusion, today's films don't rise to this level. Ziffirelli took a century's old story, set it in period, and absolutely absorbed the audience's attention with the touch of an artist. How the bar lowered to the CGI baseness now accepted as the norm in the film industry boggles the mind.Can it be that things really were better in the "good old days"?

rsd_anon I haven't seen this movie for 40 years. I had always remembered it as a great movie. I had been waiting for a Blu-ray version, but I finally gave up and decided to see the DVD version.The movie was a mixed bag for me. I still love the sets and most of the acting. The audio, however, was so bad that it seriously distracted from the movie. If the audio was equal to the sets and acting, I would raise my rating to a 9. As it is, I can only give it a 6.There were three things that were particularly bad. First the speaking parts seemed to have all the bad quality of a dubbed movie. It appears that the actors were all speaking in English, but the soundtrack sounded as if it was all dubbed. All of the speaking parts reminded me of "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". The second problem (for me) was the overly emotive sobbing of Juliet throughout many of her scenes. Again, it was if the scenes were filmed and then the parts were spoken later in a recording studio. Maybe this is the way all movies are made, but it was bad enough to make me cringe each time Juliet started the sobbing. The third problem was the use of orchestra music in the background of many scenes. This may just be the norm for 1968-era movies, but it now sounds wrong.