Reviews - Major Releases


Film Review: Romeo & Juliet

There are ever more ways to bowdlerize the Bard, as this misbegotten, “Why did they bother?” version sadly proves.

Oct 10, 2013

-By David Noh


filmjournal/photos/stylus/1386898-Romeo_Juliet_Md.jpg

For movie details, please click here.

Carlo Carlei's new version of Romeo and Juliet is faithfully set in the Renaissance and populated by actors who seem even younger and prettier than those in Franco Zeffirelli's famously groundbreaking 1968 version. The settings and costumes are handsome, filmed on location, as it were, in Verona and Genoa, and everything seems pretty right.

And then the performers open their mouths.

What you hear onscreen is a strange, bewildering mash-up of Shakespeare's verse and newer, "adapted" and decidedly lesser language, in what one can only guess is an attempt at making the Bard more accessible to a new generation's ears. When Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks made their 1929 talkie of The Taming of the Shrew, the risible screen credit that became famous was "Additional dialogue by Sam Taylor," but this was as nothing compared to what screenwriter Julian Fellowes has done here. Has perhaps his “Downton Abbey” success gone so much to his head that he feels himself the literary equal of old Will himself? The intellectually insulting palaver he has added and substituted for the original language has a flat, bogus "period" ring to it, more suited to any assembly-line, big-studio period action epic, and is completely devoid of lustrous lyricism. You just sit there and think, "The bloody nerve!"

Carlei's direction feels more like that of a traffic cop, desperately keeping things moving at a frantic pace to engage young ADD-challenged, cellphone-staring audiences. At best, his movie occupies a blandly uninvolving middle ground between George Cukor's 1936 MGM classical approach and Baz Luhrmann's lurid, frantically updated 1996 edition. (Say what you will about the earlier version, which has become fashionable to excoriate with its 35+ age actors essaying teenage roles, etc., the performances, as well as the production, were utterly gorgeous.) Heavy, heavy-handed emphasis is placed on the laddish carousing of Romeo and his frustratingly interchangeable pals Mercutio (Christian Cooke) and Benvolio (Kodi Smit-McPhee), and of course the fight scenes with Tybalt (Ed Westwick) and other enemy Montague hotheads. Amidst all the exhausting fuss and fury, romance flies straight out the window.

As Romeo, Douglas Booth, with his pouting male-model mien, looks as if he'd stepped right out of a fashion layout and breathlessly sprints about the sets to convey convincingly Italianate ardor. The pie-faced Steinfeld rather suffers in comparison, looks-wise, and like Booth reads her difficult lines with care, so much so that any real human feeling—not to mention poetry—is forestalled. Like Orlando Bloom (officially billed as "a romantic action hero for our time!") and Condola Rashad, concurrently making a cluelessly modernized hash of this play on Broadway, these two are fatally lacking in the one essential quality: chemistry.

The older actors fare somewhat better: Damian Lewis (“Homeland”) has a fit, aristocratic flair as Lord Capulet, while Natasha McElhone has little to do but looks spectacularly elegant and right as his wife. Paul Giamatti, who has officially replaced Paul Rudd as the screen's most employed actor, might have been the perfect Friar Laurence and does indeed invest him with puckish humor, but one's inescapable memory of what his character should be saying rather than what he actually is saying here—in Fellowes’ tragically diminished wording—keeps getting in the way of your enjoyment of his performance. With her famous, bawdy lines as the Nurse haplessly truncated and bowdlerized, Lesley Manville weirdly makes very little impression at all.


Film Review: Romeo & Juliet

There are ever more ways to bowdlerize the Bard, as this misbegotten, “Why did they bother?” version sadly proves.

Oct 10, 2013

-By David Noh


filmjournal/photos/stylus/1386898-Romeo_Juliet_Md.jpg

For movie details, please click here.

Carlo Carlei's new version of Romeo and Juliet is faithfully set in the Renaissance and populated by actors who seem even younger and prettier than those in Franco Zeffirelli's famously groundbreaking 1968 version. The settings and costumes are handsome, filmed on location, as it were, in Verona and Genoa, and everything seems pretty right.

And then the performers open their mouths.

What you hear onscreen is a strange, bewildering mash-up of Shakespeare's verse and newer, "adapted" and decidedly lesser language, in what one can only guess is an attempt at making the Bard more accessible to a new generation's ears. When Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks made their 1929 talkie of The Taming of the Shrew, the risible screen credit that became famous was "Additional dialogue by Sam Taylor," but this was as nothing compared to what screenwriter Julian Fellowes has done here. Has perhaps his “Downton Abbey” success gone so much to his head that he feels himself the literary equal of old Will himself? The intellectually insulting palaver he has added and substituted for the original language has a flat, bogus "period" ring to it, more suited to any assembly-line, big-studio period action epic, and is completely devoid of lustrous lyricism. You just sit there and think, "The bloody nerve!"

Carlei's direction feels more like that of a traffic cop, desperately keeping things moving at a frantic pace to engage young ADD-challenged, cellphone-staring audiences. At best, his movie occupies a blandly uninvolving middle ground between George Cukor's 1936 MGM classical approach and Baz Luhrmann's lurid, frantically updated 1996 edition. (Say what you will about the earlier version, which has become fashionable to excoriate with its 35+ age actors essaying teenage roles, etc., the performances, as well as the production, were utterly gorgeous.) Heavy, heavy-handed emphasis is placed on the laddish carousing of Romeo and his frustratingly interchangeable pals Mercutio (Christian Cooke) and Benvolio (Kodi Smit-McPhee), and of course the fight scenes with Tybalt (Ed Westwick) and other enemy Montague hotheads. Amidst all the exhausting fuss and fury, romance flies straight out the window.

As Romeo, Douglas Booth, with his pouting male-model mien, looks as if he'd stepped right out of a fashion layout and breathlessly sprints about the sets to convey convincingly Italianate ardor. The pie-faced Steinfeld rather suffers in comparison, looks-wise, and like Booth reads her difficult lines with care, so much so that any real human feeling—not to mention poetry—is forestalled. Like Orlando Bloom (officially billed as "a romantic action hero for our time!") and Condola Rashad, concurrently making a cluelessly modernized hash of this play on Broadway, these two are fatally lacking in the one essential quality: chemistry.

The older actors fare somewhat better: Damian Lewis (“Homeland”) has a fit, aristocratic flair as Lord Capulet, while Natasha McElhone has little to do but looks spectacularly elegant and right as his wife. Paul Giamatti, who has officially replaced Paul Rudd as the screen's most employed actor, might have been the perfect Friar Laurence and does indeed invest him with puckish humor, but one's inescapable memory of what his character should be saying rather than what he actually is saying here—in Fellowes’ tragically diminished wording—keeps getting in the way of your enjoyment of his performance. With her famous, bawdy lines as the Nurse haplessly truncated and bowdlerized, Lesley Manville weirdly makes very little impression at all.
Post a Comment
Asterisk (*) is a required field.
* Author: 
Rate This Article: (1=Bad, 5=Perfect)

*Comment:
 

More Major Releases

Into the Woods
Film Review: Into the Woods

Over-scaled, too dark and only intermittently charming Sondheim musical adaptation does a disservice to a great cast and is often so noisy you can't even appreciate the music. More »

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb
Film Review: Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb

Latest rollicking entry in the sturdy series (installments one and two together hit a billion dollars in grosses) again has natural and historic wonders come alive at night to wreak havoc. But it’s largely kids’ stuff. More »

The Interview
Film Review: The Interview

If you’re curious, the movie that has North Korea so upset is genuinely amusing, if flawed in the length department. More »

Annie review
Film Review: Annie

Here’s an updated Annie for today’s entitled, tech-savvy and racially diverse generation of tweens who can easily relate to the new Annie’s love of luxurious toys. Their parents and other adults may miss the sweet innocence of the original, but they won’t be entirely bored by this frenetic new version of her classic story. More »

ADVERTISEMENT



REVIEWS

Into the Woods
Film Review: Into the Woods

Over-scaled, too dark and only intermittently charming Sondheim musical adaptation does a disservice to a great cast and is often so noisy you can't even appreciate the music. More »

The H obbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Film Review: The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

After rewriting the rules for modern fantasy cinema, for the better and worse, Peter Jackson’s six-film Tolkien saga slams, bangs and shudders to a long-overdue conclusion. More »

Player for the Film Journal International website.


ADVERTISEMENT



INDUSTRY GUIDES

» Blue Sheets
FJI's guide to upcoming movie releases, including films in production and development. Check back weekly for the latest additions.

» Distribution Guide
» Equipment Guide
» Exhibition Guide

ORDER A PRINT SUBSCRIPTION

Film Journal International

Subscribe to the monthly print edition of Film Journal International and get the full visual impact of this valuable resource for the cinema business.

» Click Here

SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

Learn how to promote your company at the Film Expo Group events: ShowEast, CineEurope, and CineAsia.

» Click Here