Romeo & Juliet

Mercutio is unfortunately too hetero and they modernized some parts in an awkward way, like some of Friar Laurence’s dialogues or Tybalt saying “come settle with me, boy?” , just…..no. Nevertheless is still a solid adaptation, everything looks very pretty

A great adaptation that remains largely faithful to the text. Much better than that dancy-prancy version that got so much unwarranted attention. Great performances - Damian Lewis is especially notable and the two leads are good enough not to be ruined by being so ludicrously pretty, but the real surprise is Christian Cooke, who demonstrates that he has the ability both to do Shakespeare and look superb it tight duds. EJ40, IF40

The chemistry between Romeo and Juliet is significantly better than in 1996's adaptation, the cast is impressive, the setting is well done, but doesn't feel high-budget. The language is somewhat simplified, which turns out ok. Nevertheless it feels cheap at times and doesn't really suck you in.

Started strong but drifted.

This movie is incredibly boring and bad....Waste of my time. 21/100 (and I don't even know why I rank it this high...)

If I were still teaching Romeo and Juliet to ninth-graders, I might show this film after a thorough study of the play, as I suspect today's teens might find it less foreign than the other adaptations I've mentioned; plus, it would be interesting to hear their thoughts on the script's deviations. It's not a very good movie, but it doesn't totally suck. No, 'tis not so deep as a well nor so wide as a church-door, but 'tis enough, 'twill serve.

I'd have to say I wasn't really feeling this version. There was just something very mechanical, going-through-the-motions about it. Steinfeld - who, mind you, was pretty rad in True Grit - delivers some of the most famous lines of dialogue ever scripted ("Parting is such sweet sorrow") with dull passionlessness. However, showing this movie does give a high school English teacher a good way to take two days off.

Their isn't a movie filled with more woe, than that of Juliet and her Romeo. I'm a little offended by this film. I think they did a lot of things wrong. The casting was not that bad, just a lot of other things were. I've performed in this play and was shocked at some of their choices. Like throwing away the balcony scene like it didn't consist of some of Shakespeare's most famous lines...

Are warnings against strife and suicide clearly perceived in this proscenium-like portrayal ... or something completely opposite? How does the unbridled passion of love-at-first-sight fit into our modern experience? With parental involvement, these questions can be rich with thought. Without it, some lessons learned may be more dangerous than even the Bard intended (pluggedin.com)

Paul Giamatti makes a great Friar Lawrence. Damien Lewis is a convincing Lord Capulet. Heck, most of the cast are solid. The story's as solid as it ever was; the slight dialogue changes have no real negative effect. And yet this is still a massive disappointment, tedious and bloated. The second hour is watchable, at least, but the first drags on for eons; neither makes you feel as if this new take on the story has much reason to exist.

2013's Romeo & Juliet fails in many ways. It changes the original dialogue written by William Shakespeare, it gets poor performances out of its two leading actors, and it looks far cheaper than it should. It moves at a good clip, if only because the play's plot wasn't significantly altered, and the supporting cast is fine, but that can't overcome all of the film's issues. The 1968 version is perfect. Go watch it instead.