Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

I had to watch this movie in class along with reading the play. I've got nothing against William Shakespeare, but this story doesn't really hold up. Yes, it is beautifully written, but the title characters are shallow and overdramatic. This story is really a waste of his (William's) talent. As of watching this movie/reading the play/writing this review I haven't read anything else of his, but I've got to say that the writing itself is good. The story is not. If my classmates hadn't been raving about this movie in front of me, I'd assume all the high ratings for this movie came from trolls. Basically the reason for this long intro is that I want anyone who might be a fan of this movie to read what I have to say before immediately voting it as being unhelpful just because you like the movie and saw that I gave it a low score. I'm not rating it low because I was forced to watch it, I'm not rating it low just because its an old movie, and I'm not rating it low because I don't like Shakespeare. I'm rating it low because it is a bad movie, and here is why. Actors - The only person who is really into their role in this movie is the guy playing Mercurio. Everyone else just looks bored. If you watch the people who are about to speak, they are clearly just waiting for their cue to talk. None of the conversations seem natural, and not just because everyone is speaking in poem. None of these actors have good chemistry. The actors playing Romeo and Juliet are both clearly uncomfortable with each other. Most of their kissing is implied. Its actually kinda funny. The problem is that the only reason these two are in love is because they find the other attractive but in the movie the actors clearly don't like each other. Overall the acting in this movie is very poor and unconvincing. Cinematography - I feel bad for whoever was working the camera. They were clearly trying to make this movie as visually interesting as possible. There are lots of creative angles and semi-interesting shots. Too bad its accompanied by terrible audio cuts, a lack of a continuity department, and everything else being horrible. There are also a lot of random shots that are slightly sped up for some reason, which was a bit odd. Its not even full shots - just parts of the shots. Sound Design - I have problems hearing, so I usually pay more attention to the audio more than the average person so I can understand what is being said. The audio in this movie is terrible. The music changes are very abrupt. The audio quality changes slightly between every change in camera angle. It is next to impossible to understand what is being said because the audio quality is so bad. There is also a lot of random dubbing. I know this is an old movie, but that excuse doesn't somehow make it better.Costumes/Sets - Most of the costumes are laughably bad. The sets look ok, but I think that this movie may have been filmed on location somewhere. This movie is very cheap. Yes its old and movies used to have much lower budgets, but that doesn't somehow make it good, and I don't know why people use this excuse when talking about old movies so often. "Its an old movie" doesn't somehow magically make the movie higher quality. "Its made for kids" doesn't somehow make the movie higher quality. Action - There are a few poorly choreographed sword fights in this movie. Plot - Let's be honest, you probably already know the plot. If you don't, you can just look at the synopsis. Or Google it. The story is shallow and dumb. I don't understand why it receives so much praise. Overall I did not like this movie. There are some bits that are marginally enjoyable, and there are a few people who put in some effort, but I would not recommend this movie to anyone. Its very bad and I don't know why its receiving so much praise.

I couldn't quite give it an 8 because Romeo isn't very manly in this. He's more of a guy in the remake. The one and only part I couldn't stand is when he learns of his banishment; he lies on his side on the floor, facing up against the wall to shut the world out...and blubbers...and blubbers...and blubbers...until eventually Father Laurence snaps at him, telling him to get up, and explains where to go from here. When he did that, I thought, "Seriously. Get up out of your fetal position and be a man. How can a beautiful girl be in love with that? I understand being devastated but my word..." A POSITIVE note that I have is that the Love At First Sight sequence, from beginning to end (when they finally part ways from the Capulet backyard after exchanging vows) was even better than the remake. It went slower and had a lot more feeling/vibe to it. It sunk deeper into a given person in the audience; it was FELT more.

Having watched this film about sixty times (as an addendum for my Shakespeare students), I'm glad the kids got to see a play by the Bard. It is very visual, very colorful, with a modern twist and a beautiful Nino Rita soundtrack. The two kids who play the leads are decent actors and they give us the basics. But it is barely Shakespeare because most of the poetry is left out. It also leaves out significant plot elements that are critical to the play. This is about character development and the building suspense and angst that gets us to the conclusion. Too little and too fast. Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed this movie, but don't mix it up with a real presentation of Shakespeare. There is cutting and then there is cutting.

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"?