TheLittleSongbird The best one for me is the 1968 Zeffirelli film, while I liked the 1936 Cukor film(though it was less than perfect) but didn't care for the 1996 Luhrmann version. Castellani's does have some clumsily choreographed scenes, the stabbing of Mercutio and Romeo bashing Paris around the head were the worst offenders, a Mercutio that has no feeling for Shakespeare, a Paris that doesn't do anything with his already bland role and a Tybalt that is nowhere near smooth or nasty enough. But of the four versions I put it second to Zeffirelli's. It is notable for its classically elegant settings, dreamy cinematography and beautiful score. And generally the script is witty and full of poetry,though the omission of Mercutio's Queen Mab is regrettable, and generally the actors do have a feel for it. It is intelligently if leisurely directed by Castellani, while the story is still as emotionally resonant as it ever was. The banter between Romeo and Benvolio is very intelligently done too. The performances, apart from Mercutio, Paris and Tybalt, are great. I personally liked Laurence Harvey as Romeo, much preferring him to Leslie Howard in Cukor's. Occasionally he is too monotone in delivery but he is very soulful and poetic on the whole. Susan Shentell brings a lovely gentle quality to Juliet and looks ravishing. Flora Robson is simply delicious as the Nurse, while Mervyn Johns is a noble Friar Lawrence and Sebastian Cabot is a brilliant Lord Capulet. John Gielgud's narration is wonderfully understated. Overall, this version is problematic but on its own it is a visually beautiful and more than decent film. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

ma-cortes This lavish British-Italian production about ill-fated and star-crossed lovers deals about the Montagues and Capulets, two feuding families whose young sons Romeo(Laurence Harvey) and Juliet(Susan Shentall) meet and fall in love and whose passion for one another is irresistible. But Juliet's father(Sebastian Cabot) wants marry her to a rich suitor(Norman Wooland)and keep apart Romeo.There are many obstacles on the way and they have to hide their love from the world because both know which their parents will not allow them to be together.The prince of Verona has prohibited duels and fights, but Tybaldo Capulet(Enzo Fiermonte) kills Mercutio and Romeo Montague as revenge murders Tybaldo. The priest friend(Mervyn Johns) prepares a potion for Juliet to simulate her death. Then Romeo is banished to Mantua when he receives the news that Juliet has dead, and happen their tragic destiny.This is one of the best filmed and most pleasant adaptations of Shakespeare's play. Lush production and well-performed, though is handicapped because the two protagonists are too old for the roles, but at the play they were fifteen and fourteen years old respectively.This sumptuously version has the virtue of good and appealing casting, Laurence Harvey, Flora Robson, Mervyn Johns,Bill Travers and a brief introduction by John Gielgud. Exquisitely cinematography by Robert Krasker, a cameraman usual of costumer and historical super-productions(Alexandre the Great,Cid, Fall of the Roman Empire).Hauntingly wonderful musical score by Roman Vlad.The picture is professionally directed by Renato Castenalli, made in Pinewood Studios and Italian location. Anyone interested in tragic love tales and timeless stories will want to watch this cinematic version on Shakespeare tragedy.Another versions about this know story are the following : the vintage classic, Romeo and Juliet(36)by George Cukor with Norma Shearer and Leslie Howard; a dance adaptation(1966)by Paul Czinner with Rudolf Nureyev and Margot Fonteyn; famous rendition(1968) by Franco Zeffirelli with Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey; and modern version(1996) by Baz Luhrmann with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes.

sue-vansanden I saw this film as a child of 10 or ll. I loved it. I was able to see it again a few years ago, thinking that maybe it would not have the same appeal as when I was a child, but I loved it again, only more appreciatively so. The casting was brilliant and modern versions of this film bear no comparison. I do wish I could obtain it on DVD so my grandchildren could watch it. Apart from anything else, it featured the wonderful actors and actresses of that era who deserved to be remembered. It made an impression on a young child and encouraged further interest and research into the works of Shakespeare. This version of the film is, in my opinion the best interpretation of the author's original play.

patrick.hunter Yes, this film has been overpraised by Pauline Kael and others. For its time it was revolutionary, because no previous Shakespeare film had used so many outdoor, realistic locations. Unlike the previous MGM version (which all in all is superior), this version did not use middle-aged actors and made splendid use of technicolor. Black and white cinematography may suit MACBETH, HAMLET, KING LEAR, and other Shakespeare trajedies--but not this one. Since 1954, however, it has been remade in more cinematic and dynamic versions.Nonetheless, it's a very worthwhile movie, especially for Shakespeare fans. I personally think Laurence Harvey is a terrific Romeo. Yes, he's a bit of a simp, but that's the character. In fact, Harvey is the screen's best Romeo; he's a lot more passionate than Leslie Howard in the MGM version, and he speaks the verse better than either DiCaprio or Leonard Whitting in the two subsequent versions. The locations, better than any version, remind us of just how thin the streets were in Verona during the time of the play, and the high, thick, stone walls serve as a symbol of the intransigence of the families.Yes, it does have shortcomings, but don't dismiss its virtues, which are many, especially to those of us who want more than the MTV-type Shakespeare that the DiCaprio version offers.