Ghoulumbe Better than most people think

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Beulah Bram A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

leethomas-11621 Queen Mab scene is missing! I missed any real feeling of happiness between the young lovers before the real tragedy begins. Some stage-like acting means story is viewed from a distance. But the costuming is stunning and the settings real. I wished Juliet hadn't been played so demurely. The actress seems to always have her gaze averted. I enjoyed Mervyn Johns' Friar Lawrence. We had to wait another 14 years for Zefferelli's definitive version.

bkoganbing This version of Romeo&Juliet might have worked better had Marlon Brando and Pier Angeli done the leads as originally intended. Brando had certainly proved himself able to deal with the Bard in Julius Caesar. Laurence Harvey and the unknown Susan Shentall who stayed unknown after playing Juliet were adequate and nothing more.Possibly the mix of Italian and English players might have had something to do with it. Such key roles as Mercutio and Tybalt were given short shrift here and they are integral to the story. Especially Tybalt. One thing I absolutely did not like was the dueling scenes between first Tybalt and Mercutio and then Romeo and Tybalt. This is always to me the high point of Romeo and Juliet where matters come to a head between the two feuding families, Montagues and Capulets. Here it's almost tossed off matter of factly. Really ruins the story. A pair of secondary characters in the play are who you notice. Flora Robson as the nurse and confidante of Juliet and Lord Capulet played with passion by Sebastian Cabot stand out. Especially Cabot. In this version he tells his daughter off in no uncertain terms he's picked out a nice husband for her with this Paris kid and she's marrying him or else. I never saw any other actor get so much out of that scene as Cabot did.The film is shot in Italy for authenticity and the cinematography is nice, as nice as Franco Zeffirelli's version. The acting for the most part is not as good as that over the hill gang version that MGM did with Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer.

harry-76 This film version created by Renato Castellani is a beauty to behold. In the picturesque settings of Siena, Padova, Verona and Venice, this romantic tale unfolds in glorious color.While the character interpretations may appeal to a select number, I appreciate the total concept and the carrying out of that objective."Romeo" takes on a stylistic life of its own through Castellani, and for those willing to go on his journey, the rewards are great.Mr. Harvey is interesting to see in an early role. As always, his work is very well thought out, and the aloofness which made him so right for callous young men in later modern roles, is intriguing here. Romeo now has a tinge of egotism and even femininity. Well, why not? As there are dozens of ways to read a line, so there are many approaches to a character. There's nothing inherently sacrosanct in the role of Romeo, and Harvey interprets the way he (and Castellani) sees him, rather than according to some staid traditional model. It's hard to believe this lovely production has not yet been transferred to video. Surely one day some enterprising company will take on this project and help preserve a very beautiful production for future generations to enjoy.

fjoffily Castellani presents his neo-realistic view of WS's tragedy. Never have the personalities of the two lovers been so intensely portrayed in the screen. Susan Shentall conveys all the fire of the first love and the impending tragedy that will follow it. Laurence Harvey, though not the ideal match (as far as age is concerned) for Shentall's Juliet, manages to pass Romeo's brash, passioned nature. The great Robert Krasker's photography is the work of a consummated master: each picture frame reflects a Renaisssance painting, as well as the sets (all original ones in Venice, Padova, Verona and Siena), costumes and the décor. The best names then available in those fields in Europe were recruited to recreate what Romeo and Juliet's Verona should have been. The result is a joy to watch and is worth the movie. The ball scene alone could receive all the prizes this film was awarded in the 1954 Venice Film Festival. Roman Vlad's use of an Italian medieval gagliarda as the film's dominating musical comment is a lesson in itself. When compared to Castellani's masterpiece, all other versions seem like pale, unfocused, poor readings of WS's immortal tragedy. Hope this film will soon be available on DVD.The Blu-Ray version of the Castellani "Romeo and Juliet": this is one of the greatest movies of all time. Castellani was surely not a Visconti nor a Rosselini, but his "Romeo and Juliet" is absolute perfection. However, this Blu-Ray incarnation is a disaster. The glorious cinematography (Robert Krasker) is disgraced by a white-washed remastering. The ball scene is completely distorted. The colours that were once a magnificent succession of Renaissance paintings now appear irritatingly blurred. And - alas ! - there is more: subtitles are frequently a gross distortion of the original text - e.g.: in the DVD version the master of ceremonies at the Capulet's ball announces that "... the musicians of Saint Jerome will now play..." In the Blu-ray captions read ..."the musicians of CENTER ROME will now play...". Ghastly. Also, many dialogues are not transcribed, and one frequently bumps into an "a" or a "the" in capital letters in the middle of a sentence. The whole transcription is absolutely amateurish. Therefore, keep your precious DVD of this masterwork and forget this third-rate Blu-Ray.