The Worst Film Ever

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

It's good that Romeo and Juliet is a play that keeps getting redone so that new generations can appreciate it. The language is truly beautiful and the story eternally compelling and addictive. However, in spite of some good actors, sets, and scenery, this one is quite disappointing. I agree with other reviewers who mention that much of the original text has been either cut or rewritten to no good purpose. There is time for lots of kissing but that means sacrificing some of the best poetry in the world. And yes, I agree it is a problem when Romeo is more beautiful than Juliet. But my biggest complaint is that Hailee Steinfeld just is not up to the task of Juliet. I already knew her lines or I would not have followed most of them. Steinfeld swallows words, rushes words, mumbles words. Poetry is spoken too fast or thrown away as if the actress doesn't fully understand what she is saying. I rate it 4 stars instead of 3 because Paul Giamatti, Lesley Manville, Natasha McElhone and Damian Lewis handle the language with aplomb and perform well. Douglas Booth as Romeo is not exceptional but handles the language better than poor Miss Steinfeld does. Also I rate it 4 because visually, the film is quite beautiful.

William Shakespeare is rolling in his grave. I didn't mind that they changed some of the dialogue to make it easier for today's audience to understand (because we know that today's audience members are too busy texting to actually learn anything about the original play) - what I do mind is the fact that this movie is a farce. Jousting for the beginning scene? Really? Romeo and Julie meet at a ball and just walk away and start making out? Really? I could go on - you get my drift. The movie sucks. P.S. A zillion actresses in the world and Hailey S. is cast as Juliet. Really?

Romeo and Juliet: the story of an impossible love and an incredible passion that made generations dream for centuries. The plot is well known by everyone: an ancient grudge divides two families of Verona, the Montagues and the Capulets. Young Romeo, heir of the Montagues, falls for the beautiful Juliet, daughter of the rival family. They marry in secret but the murder of Juliet's cousin Tybald by the hand of Romeo, leads to a series of events which will result in the tragic death of the two lovers, putting an end to the conflict between the two families.The question now is: was there really the need of another version of the Shakespearean love drama? The answer is, probably no.Whereas the most traditional version of Romeo and Juliet, namely Zeffirelli's, captures the real magic of two young, impatient lovers and the tragedy of their story, Carlei's version hardly seems to be achieving the same. Although Carlei obviously had Zeffirelli's version in mind, which is noticeable from the setting and on-shot locations, he lacks the power to make this film work properly.In my opinion the main issue concerns the casting of the two lovers: Romeo, interpreted by Douglas Booth, seems directly taken from an Abercrombie campaign. Juliet's role was given to Hailee Stainfeld, who looks like a cute but ordinary teenage girl and fails to convey the passion she feels for Romeo. The lack of chemistry and erotic energy between the two protagonists makes us focus our attention on other characters such as Friar Lawrence (Paul Giamatti) and the Nurse (Lesley Manville), whose good acting makes us sigh with relief. I also found the music quite distracting at times – as in the balcony scene, where it cuts through the lines (which are not well delivered in the first place). Were they trying to hide the bad acting? Had they kept the original dialogue, they wouldn't have needed such an intruding soundtrack, since Shakespeare's lines are poetic and musical in themselves.Moreover, the language chosen seems, to me, inadequate. Even though some of the original dialogue has been kept, it is often intertwined with bits and pieces of modern expressions. The result is a weird and indefinable language that sounds old but lacks poetry and musicality. Lines are shortened, dialogues are compressed; even the balcony scene, the most famous of the whole play, was not kept like the original. Instead the director added new and unnecessary scenes. We even see Rosaline at the party acting almost as if she were jealous of Romeo's interest for Juliet, which is a bit too close to a soap opera. Nevertheless, this oversimplification can be helpful for students who are not native speakers and who want to start approaching the play in a facilitated manner. In this case, the film can act as a stepping-stone, but is certainly not enough to appreciate the true Romeo and Juliet. The magic of Shakespeare's words is lost in this adaptation. Moreover, the umpteenth adaptation of Romeo and Juliet would need a new, innovative turn that would justify the spending of over 20 million dollars for something so predictable. After Zeffirelli's "classic" version of the drama, Luhrman did well and gave a new interpretation of Romeo and Juliet, changing the setting and incorporating modern elements, making us look at the story from a different perspective. Carlei on the other hand only produced a 21st century remake of Zeffirelli's film. Even though the costuming is impeccable and the locations breathtaking, there is no Romeo and Juliet without actors who succeed in conveying the passion, love and desire of the two protagonists.In conclusion, Carlei's adaptation becomes ineffective since it doesn't bring anything original to the story, limiting itself to a successful reconstruction of the scenography. The product is a film that could have worked if the director had given a personal imprint to the drama. Ultimately, unlike other versions such as Luhrman's (which can be appreciated or not), it lacks a soul. We waited 16 years for a new Romeo and Juliet to appear on screen, and I would have been happy to wait a little longer to see a different, fresh adaptation of the most famous love story of all times.

When i saw that Douglas Booth played Romeo i thought, wow he's gonna be perfect for this roll! I'm not even a huge fan of him, i just had a feeling he would really suit the roll. Boy was i wrong. I didn't realise how weird his physical appearance would look in that sort of time and setting. He looks like a very modern man. I highly doubt that young men looked like that back then. But anyways, his Romeo felt very...boring. No personality really. Just a blank paper.I wasn't sure how i would feel about Hailee Steinfeld. I had watched the old Romeo and Juliet from the 60's only a few days earlier, so i actually liked that Hailee looked very similar to Olivia with the long dark hair going on (i'm not a fan of Claire Dane's' Juliet). Though once again, i felt like Hailee has a face that feels very modern. Olivia Hussey had a timeless look, but Hailee looks like a typical young high school girl. But she was still okay.My favourite character was actually Benvolio, whom i didn't even notice existed in the older movies. Kodi Smit-McPhee stole every scene he was in. Ed Westwick was a surprise as well. Not sure how i felt about the acting, but he looked intimidating just like the old Tybalt in the 60's version. The story was as usual, not really anything to comment about except that i liked that it was set in the right age. To sum it up, an alright movie. Not too bad but not amazing.