Romeo + Juliet Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
My only love sprung from my only hate.
The Classic Love Story Set in Our Time.
The greatest love story the world has ever known.
Hope & Despair. Tragedy & Love. Romeo & Juliet.
From Age to Age One Classic Story is as Timeless as Love Itself
Shakespeare's famous play is updated to the hip modern suburb of Verona still retaining its original dialogue. The gun-toting members of the families wage a vicious war on the streets as the star-crossed lovers, their tragic destiny.
| Leonardo DiCaprio | Romeo |
| Claire Danes | Juliet |
| John Leguizamo | Tybalt |
| Harold Perrineau | Mercutio |
| Pete Postlethwaite | Father Laurence |
| Paul Sorvino | Fulgencio Capulet |
| Brian Dennehy | Ted Montague |
| Paul Rudd | Dave Paris |
| Vondie Curtis-Hall | Captain Prince |
| Miriam Margolyes | The Nurse |
| Jesse Bradford | Balthasar |
| M. Emmet Walsh | Apothecary |
| Zak Orth | Gregory |
| Jamie Kennedy | Sampson |
| Dash Mihok | Benvolio |
| Baz Luhrmann |
6.80 out of 10 (33660 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Mockering Shakespeare
posted on 15 Aug 2009I saw this film very long time ago, but I still remember this time. It was Monday, as far I can remember, I had a plenty of problems and felt terribly and thought that such a romantic film can improve my mood a bit. I like W. Shakespeare very much, read R+J before, so I was completely astounded by what the director made of this perfect tragedy. He moved the action from Verona to nowadays America and much of the original texts lost their sense. Many of the personage are cartoons of their selves. Only Leguizamo was trying to act, the others were telling their words without any passion. I like C.Danes and DiCaprio but they don't come up to each other. She is not such beautiful, in my opinion, as real Juliet should be.
This is NOT what Shakepeare had in mind
posted on 09 Aug 2009You know, I get a little tired of this recent surge of movies trying to update, modernize and stylize William Shakespeare's greatest work. I saw it recently in Romeo Must Die and but that film can be forgiven, it wasn't a direct telling of the tale. William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet is quite simply, a mess. It is a music video, a cola commercial, a teen prime-time soap opera and a new-age photoplay. What it is not, is comprehensable to those of us moved by the greatest love story ever told.Romeo and Juliet is the story of two people so desperatly in love that they are willing to die for one another. This movie never allows us to realize that because it's hyperkinetic energy never slows down long enough for us to generate much interest in the story.Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes are two talented, beautiful people but they never get a moment when they can look into one another's eyes and convince us that they are in love for any reason other then the story requires it.Most of that stems from the facts that none of the actors ever really listen to the dialogue. When they aren't mumbling they are shouting, when they aren't shouting they are at the mercy of an editor and a camera man who can't stand to linger on an image for longer than the lastest music video would require.Now, I've seen Shakespeare updated to modern times recently and in some cases it works ("Richard III" and Branaugh's "Hamlet" come to mind). The key to Romeo and Juliet is simplicity. Love and heartbreak is a simple acts, not a hyperventilating-surround sound-rock-rap music videoRomeo and Juliet should touch your heart, not punch you in the head.Rating ** (of four)
the most ridiculous version I have ever seen
posted on 13 Jul 2009This is the worst, albeit most hilarious version of any Shakespearean play I have ever seen. It was simply ridiculous, and although it was intended to be a tragedy, this movie is not. Unless you consider bad movies "tradgedies".Leonardo DiCaprio was mediocre as Romeo, although Claire Danes was good in the role of Juliet. There were several points in which it moved from tragic and poignant to stupid and absurd. One such time was when Romeo is driving down the street before he kills Tybalt, he is screaming as if possessed. This was a bit over-done. There are others, such as the over-dramatized and misinterpreted scene towards the end, where Romeo is about to drink the poison. Juliet opens her eyes and reaches her hand up towards him, while he continues talking, completely oblivious!!! Where, may I ask, is that in the original play?! I guess I am just another traditionalist, and I acknowledge that Baz Luhrmann has a right to his own interpretation, and that there are those that truly enjoyed this movie. However, I honestly believe that Shakespeare would be appalled at how his brilliant and incredible works have been adapted to the silver screen.
my favorite movie
posted on 13 Jun 2009this movie is so beautiful. I first watched it when I was 10 years old, and I was so moved, I cried. I am now older and because I understand it more,I find it even better. It is truly a masterpiece, just like Baz's other wonders in the series.Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio are some of the best actors in my opinion, and at such young ages (Leo was 21, Claire was 17, AS FAR AS I KNOW!) it's terrific. They did such a wonderful job, and still to this day I believe they made such an in love couple. I consider them one of the best on screen couples I have ever seen in any movie, in my life.They belong together. I still feel so much love for them every time I see this film, and every time wish and wish they had not died in such a way!But I always cheer myself up by thinking "at least it was together, like they belonged"...
Wow...
posted on 10 Jun 2009this movie was terrible. It's the play that has been around for decades, and could quite possibly be one of the most recognized love stories in the history of man. Having said that, it could also possibly be one of the most Boring films ever made… and then, they go and make a modernized version of the film?? I don't know weather they meant for this to be a smash hit, or if their intent was to just bore the audience to death. h'm… Let's discuss the plot. The film starts off with a street brawl between the two feuding families Capulet, and Montague. The prince soon breaks this up and declares that "lives will pay the forfeit of the piece". The film continues on until Romeo meets Juliet at the Capulet ball. After the two lovers meet, and fall in love they decide to plan a secret marriage. But it's not long before their plans are skewed after Romeo is banished from Verona for killing Tybalt, who killed Mercutio – a close friend of Romeos'. The secret affairs and family conflicts in both films eventually lead to tragedy. In the 1968 film of Romeo and Juliet directed by Franco Zeffirelli, the character of romeo and Juliet are played by Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey along with John McEnery as Mercutio, Michael York as Tybalt and Bruce Robinson as Benvolio. The acting in this film is terrible to say the least. Both Romeo and Juliet seemed superficial and immature, and the acting was always either overdone or underdone. I realize that it is a very dramatic style, but it was just excruciating to watch. I found it hard to respect a Juliet that would hide behind the nurse like a toddler, while lord Capulet yelled at her. While some people enjoy this type of acting (pause, look at James) I found that the drama was overdone to the point where it was unwatchable. Despite the fact that I also despise the modernized film, I would certainly recommend the newer film over this one. I don't think the film worked at all.the end :)
I loved it-and not because of Leonardo!
posted on 07 Jun 2009A lot of people did not like this update, but it was not for everyone. You either loved it or hated it. I loved it for the fact that the dialogue was exactly the same as the play, and the performers delivered it perfectly. Danes and Dicaprio are perfect together! They deserve credit for memorizing those lines. The movie moves fast and never stalls. Of course we all know how it ends, but we still watch anyway. This one deserves credit and recognition, and the best part about it is the romance-not Leo.
Great direction/Horrid acting
posted on 07 Jun 2009After being wowed by Moulin Rouge, I rented Mr. Lurhmann's version of this classic play because I had missed it years ago in the theater.Well, Baz doesn't disappoint here. It is a well thought out, modern adaptation of the play that makes sense and actually enhances some of the secenes. The visual style is stunning and the direction fluid and exciting. There's no doubt about Luhrmann's directorial prowess.Where this movie ultimately fails is in the casting. There are some really miserable performances here. My God, did they ever think of getting a dialogue coach. So much of it is shouted or mumbled into an incongruous jumble. Part of Romeo and Juliet's fame as a play is the poetry of the lines. Most of the actors in this version didn't have a clue.Leonardo DiCaprio looks all right but many of his lines are unintelligible and delivered in an annoying whine. Claire Danes gives a horridly flat performance and she appears not to know what the words mean. Both of them suffer from a continual bad hair day which ultimately distracts from the romance and fantasy. The final scene is the best that either of them achieve, but that's due to Luhrmann's brilliant stage timing.Paul Sorvino is so ridiculously over the top as a mafioso Capulet that it is almost laughable. And why does Mrs. Capulet have a southern accent??? John Leguziamo as Tybalt is also hard to understand and too one dimensional in his villainy. Brian Denehey looks bored with the whole project. And the guy plaing the Prince (a sort of police chief) just shouts all the time; an unfortunate, unintended parody of perceived African-American social baldness.The best performances in the movie are Pete Postelwaite's sensative Friar and the young Paul Rudd as Paris who proves that teenage actors CAN articulate the Shakespearean language.Frankly Luhrmann chose these actors to sell tickets to teenie boppers and for that, I guess (since it probably lured masses of teens to a Shakespeare play)we should thank him. It's just too bad that it ruined his movie.Could he have done better? Certainly! Robert Sean Leonard looks as good as DiCaprio and would have made the words meaningful. And any number of seasoned Shakespearean actors (young and old) could have done these roles within Luhrmann's concept and made more sense of the text.So a really interesting attempt ruined by incompetent casting. I'll stick with Moulin Rouge; there the casting is superb!
Captures the true spirit of Shakespeare's play
posted on 07 Jun 2009Anyone who truly knows Shakespeare and his works knows that it's all in the tempo, and mood of the performance that makes it great. His plays were made to be fun and entertaining even if you couldn't understand any of the puns, twists or important plot points that Shakespeare is so clever in placing. Those things were in to please the upper-class and the "critics". But the Globe had a pit. Where the poor filed in for a good show. While Zeffirelli's version is how the events would have played out in real life, Luhrmann's adaptation is true to how the drama would have been played out on the stage. There's really nothing like hearing the meter of Shakespeare's writing come out in the fast paced dialogs that fills this film. The speech conveys such meaning and is beautifully strung as you would have read it in the original text.
great movie
posted on 01 Jun 2009This movie does an excellent job of combining Shakespearian dialogue withmodern imagery. Admittedly, I first watched this movie when it came outbecause of Leo; eight years later (and seven years after middle school ended), I realize just how well-done this film actually is. Luhrmann did an excellent job of making the movie believable while using the quaint language. This moviebrings new life into the words of Shakespeare, and even if you know the playalmost by heart it is refreshing to hear the words in an entirely new context, and one which makes sense. This version of Romeo and Juliet actually does addsomething to the extensive history of the play. The soundtrack is excellent, the acting is appropriate (Danes and DiCaprio do a wonderful job of portraying the young lovers), and the scenery is fabulous. This film jump-started the trend of modern-day Shakespeare remakes, and I think it's the best one.
Romeo+Juliet 1996
posted on 29 May 2009I thought this was such an amazing film, I was blown away with the mise-en-scene, the quality and soundtrack. DiCaprio plays a great role of Romeo and the cast are brilliantly chosen.I'd recommend this film to anyone who loves a bit of tragic drama in their lives.
This movie is really interesting
posted on 11 May 2009My English class was discussing this movie after having read the play. I love the movie because of the way Baz Lurhman uses modern imagery and contrasts it with the original lines of the play. Though he does use modern imagery like guns, if you look at the guns it says "9 mm Sword..." (Lurhman). I found that very ironic and humorous. There was one thing in the movie I didn't like and that was that Baz Lurhman made Mercutio Gay and totally threw off the actual basis of the play. Shakespeare makes it evident in the play that there is something "more" between Romeo and Mercutio but I think Lurhman emphasized it just a little to much. Another idea of the movie that I find intriguing about the movie is how at the beginning Lurhman switches the lines of the Capulets and the Montagues. This I believe that Lurhman was trying to manipulate the lines of Act1:Sc1 to direct the audiences into his interpretation of the families. As I said before the movie was awesome, To Lurhman " try to do another of Shakespeare's play the way you did Romeo and Juliet I would go and see it." If another one is made like this I go and see it (last few words directed towards Baz Lurhman).Geni12591
Baz Luhrmann is the Master of Interpretation
posted on 29 Apr 2009Prior to watching "Romeo and Juliet", I had seen "Moulin Rouge" a few times and loved it. Luhrmann took an opera by Puccini ("La Boheme") and made a great tale of it, with music and visuals that will blow your mind. ("Rent" is also based on "La Boheme", but is trite and caters to an audience I am not a part of.) My expectations for "Romeo and Juliet" were fairly high, given my admiration of Luhrmann.As you can guess by my 9 out of 10 rating, I was not disappointed. Luhrmann took the classic Shakespeare and super-imposed it over modern day Verona Beach. Like "Moulin Rouge" where he took modern rock songs and placed them in 1900 France, here he takes the language of Shakespeare and places it in the contemporary. Rather than simply changing the dialog to modern usage, he gave the text its due.This works incredibly well, and makes the film so much better than regular language would. The story seems richer, more epic and most importantly timeless. And the story is the story of love, which is just that: rich, epic and timeless.And the visuals were stunning! The colors set a mood (such as the darkness after Mercutio's death) and there was such vibrancy in the clothing. The water theme resonated well, with great effects of seeing a lover for the first time through a fish tank, the rain falling at key moments, and the film focusing on both a beach and near a swimming pool.Luhrmann knows how to direct John Leguizamo, and I would say this is one of his two best roles (the other being "Moulin Rouge"). Harold Perrineau (Mercutio) shows great range, much more so than in other roles he's had since ("The Matrix" or TV's "Lost"). And this is probably the most un-funny Jamie Kennedy you'll ever see, which I mean in the most positive way.Claire Danes is a delightful Juliet, giving a memorable performance (easily the peak of her career). She is physically perfect for the role, young and beautiful without being overly vulnerable or sexed-up. The only other actress I can picture capable of this kind of role is Julia Stiles, but I can't see her being as much of a fit and she would likely over-act... her Shakespeare style and Luhrmann's are not in synchronicity.The role of Romeo, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, was perfect. Nobody could have been better. This isn't the young Leo from before or the rough and rugged Leo that appears in films later on. This is the Leo on the verge of adulthood, but still remaining tender enough to have the youthful idealism of a Romeo. As my co-viewer phrased it, he's a "babe" (in more ways than she meant). I know of no other actor who has the acting abilities of Leo, at least not in his age range. He has a long career ahead of him if he can keep up the intensity he has here (as well as in "The Departed" and "Gangs of New York"... though not as much in "The Beach").A slight note on the music: As much as I love the Cardigans, I almost think "Lovefool" was a poor choice for this film... too poppy. But everything else was great: Butthole Surfers, Everclear, and especially One Inch Punch with the inspired "Pretty Piece of Flesh". And Garbage, a vastly under-appreciated band, with one of their better tunes, "#1 Crush". A great album for a great film.If you haven't seen this film, your life is not complete. I went eleven years avoiding Romeo and Juliet, but having now broken my vow, I am glad I did. This film doesn't just impress, it inspires.
Altogether an odd film
posted on 23 Apr 2009A quite disturbing, but central, theme is the excruciating juxtaposition of Shakespeare's language with a set that itself is dynamic, regularly alienating the viewer by injecting continually new and intra-anachronistic points-of-reference, set in the archetypal image of 1950s' USA, so much so that it achieves a high level of self-parody. The discomfort sits so heavily that it deafens out the theme of joyous-blighted young love that the film is supposed to be about. The film is played without love.Our Juliet (Claire Danes) is often inaudible. This is unfortunate, as there is no frisson in the body languages between her and her Romeo (Leonardo DiCaprio): there is no passion evident in the affair. In both the "bedroom" scenes (night and morning after), grossly unsubtle heavy-handedness ensured that the audience was not to be presented with the full panoply of Juliet's breasts. Is this a cinematic retro respective to the 1950s? We think not: it is, rather, a successful attempt to ensure that the youth-DiCaprio market would not be prevented from seeing the film by a rating higher than PG-13. Oh, this film was made in 1996. The "other" Romeo & Juliet was made (in sumptuous velvachrome à la Franco Zeffireli) - my maths tells me - twenty-eight years earlier in 1968. It is a truism that the '96 will be compared with the '68 - a truism because it already has been. In 1968, the audience was bravely offered a glimpse of Olivia Hussey. Appropriate, certainly. Coy, yes. In love with Romeo? Absolutely!I make a meal of the issue as I see it as an indication, in the '96, of an aura of repression in cinema, and as a reflection of a society as a whole (as well as the whiff of profit), in the director's distinct lack of sex in the "sex" scenes. It might be self-censorship, but it is predicated on societal censorship. Is society pulling back from the freedoms won by the 1960s?The quality of acting varies wildly throughout. The younger actors struggled with the text. The older actors took their parts brilliantly.I've blasted it, perhaps, but would I recommend it? Yes. It is a coherent film and does offer a significant interpretation of the play. As I say, altogether an odd film.
Truly great movie
posted on 17 Apr 2009This is a terrific adaptation of the classic love story. I love the that the director was willing to face the wrath of all the people that take themselves too seriously to 'go wild' and really make something unusual and unique. This was an *adaptation*. It was meant to be different than the original. It has been modernized. I can't think of a better way to modernize this classic and at the same time keep it's Elizabethan heritage intact. The symbolism was meant to be a little satirical, but I don't think most people got the jokes. All in all, the acting was superb and the cinematography was phenomenal. I recommend this movie highly.
An excellent modern version of Shakespeare
posted on 05 Apr 2009At first I thought that this might be just another reason for William Shakespeare to roll over in his grave, but after seeing it I totally think the opposite. This movie proves that a good modern version of an actual Shakespeare play can be made.
Horrendous!!
posted on 24 Mar 2009Firstly, the story of Romeo and Juliet has been done too many times, and contains no real substance. Second, this modern angle makes it worse than ever before. DiCaprio is a terrible actor, they should have cast someone who can show emotion and speak properly. Danes annoys me because she is always emotionless and appears to be high. The soundtrack had nothing to do with the movie, and was irritating. The only amusing part was when Mercutio dressed up as a transvestite. Bad movie, poorly made, overrated, and painful to watch. Did I mention that the story is insulting to women? If you're looking for a good Shakespearean romance flick, check out "Shakespeare In Love", instead.
it's not a terrible movie, it's just..... huh?
posted on 21 Mar 2009I remember seeing Romeo + Juliet in a high school English class... or at least I'd like to pretend I did. If anything, I probably remember reading the actual play more, or maybe when they tried to do the comparison with Zeferelli's far superior 1968 version. Bored one day (very bored, though sadly not with the wherewithal to pick up a book like a more sane person), I saw Romeo + Juliet was on cable and stayed tuned to watch it. It's not as bad I've heard from some, which is that it's one of the worst films ever made. It's somehow weirdly watchable in some instances and shots and moments. Baz Lurhmann isn't a hack, that much is completely certain, he's got too much verve and POP in his style to be easily ignored. This is in fact what made Moulin Rouge, for better or worse, the significant achievement it was. But all the technical razzle dazzle in this case can't cover up the biggest problem of all: casting.And I don't mean that in the sense of "oh, casting these hot young people of the 90s like Di Caprio and Claire Danes and, uh, John Leguizamo I guess", that notion is a given. Watching the film today, after years of knowing Romeo & Juliet and Shakespeare work in general, the actors with one or two exceptions can't pull off the performances. Lurhmann leaves these kids and other character players like Harold Pirenneau and even a strange walk-on like Paul Sorvino to fend for themselves. And as for the two stars, Di Caprio and Danes, they are pretty to look at, but the performances clearly don't have a kind of focus that's required with the material. Perhaps this is more than anything not so much a fault of the director's in that "oh, I'll cast them for this look and that", but of simple things like rehearsal. I can imagine Lurhmann taking so much time to prepare how to make Verona the Verona-on-speed of his world, the Capulets and Montagues in their power games and battles, all super-designed and made out in super 90s sheek with some 80s leftover.So in short, there is a vision here, but its squandered when the human elements are left beside. Some bits are worthwhile, like Pete Posthlethwaie (sic) s the priest, but really the main attraction is to try and lure in mall kids who wouldn't go near the Bard with a ten foot pair of designer jeans under normal circumstances. It's shiny and goes fast and crazy, but there's not a lot of substance much... at all. That being said, it's fun to re-live some of the 90s music, as cheesy as it can get.
*1/2 out of ****
posted on 09 Mar 2009What a mess. This film would have been greatly improved if these modern characters didn't speak in the tongue of Shakespearian time. It just didn't make any sense. I thought they were just mocking the way they spoke, but then they just kept talking the same way and I got confused. It doesn't work. I lost interest completely, and the sudden speeding-up of the film didn't help at all. This film was a complete mess that made me sick.
thou shall not fall to sleep
posted on 30 Aug 2009Falling asleep, going, going, gone. That's what i was expecting to happen when i watched Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet. However to my surprise, i enjoyed it. With voice overs, flashes of the city and all those boys with wide open shirts all in the first scene. I was already on the end of my seat. Cars, explosions, guns.....and this is Shakespeare. A classic has beenbrought alive to a new generation, making people really understand and respect Shakespeare's writing. Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes give excellent performances as the star crossed lovers. Its a film that everyone can enjoy, truly amazing. Baz Luhrmann has done a spectacular job, I think Shakespeare would be envious of this himself.