Romeo & Juliet (B- or 2.5/4 stars)
Romeo & Juliet. I've seen the blah 1954 version with Laurence Harvey. I've seen the definitive (and classic) 1968 version by Franco Zeffirelli. I've seen Baz Luhrmann's eclectic, modernized 1996 version with Leo DiCaprio & Claire Danes. And now ... another version; this time, directed by Italian Carlo Carlei. For me, it's 3rd in line of those 4. It's pleasant, good-looking, entertaining to a degree ... but suffers from an ordinary execution. Also, and I hate to say this, but Hailee Steinfeld is miscast as Juliet Capulet. She was SO good as the feisty young heroine in 2010's True Grit. But none of that energy translates, here. She recites her lines of dialogue with hesitancy. That's befuddling because there was NO hesitancy in her line deliveries in True Grit -- they were rapid fire & assured.
Maybe the Elizabethan dialogue threw her off. But she speaks those lines too hurriedly (she comes across as mumble-mouthed; couldn't always understand her). Furthermore, Steinfeld misses the headstrong passion of the character of Juliet. As Romeo, newcomer Douglas Booth fares better & is more skilled, both in the delivery & cadence of Shakespearean dialogue, as well as conveying some passion through his face & eyes. Booth has to work hard to create 'something' with Steinfeld - not just because he's 5 yrs. older than her in real life, & not just because she struggles with the language/passion ... but also because he is just so classically handsome. Booth has the requisite chiseled face, brooding eyes, pillowy lips, & windblown hair that just SCREAMS Romeo Montague.
Steinfeld, while lovely & adorned in all the right outfits, does not match up with Booth's beauty & that's a bit of an issue. As the film builds, we see more chemistry btwn. the lovers, but too many of the romantic scenes fail to burst through the screen with sparks of unbridled passion. I saw lots of flared nostrils & heaving breasts, but it should have felt more ... erotic? Another problem with this film is that the older actors impress more than the 2 stars ... and that just can't happen when we're talkin' Romeo & Juliet. Paul Giamatti steals the movie as the world-weary, but helpful Friar Laurence. Giamatti delivers his lines with clarity, compassion, wit, & wisdom; enlivening this character who wants to aid the lovers, despite their feuding families. Any time he entered a scene, I perked up.
I also mightily enjoyed Lesley Manville as Juliet's bumbling nurse. She & Giamatti share many scenes together & are delightful. Natascha McElhone has some nice moments as Lady Capulet. I liked Kodi Smit-McPhee (of Hugo) as young Benvolio. And Damian Lewis (of Homeland) is dynamic as Lord Capulet, a man who loves his family, but foams with rage when they don't obey him. The script was adapted by Downton Abbey's superb creator Julian Fellowes. What he does - for better or worse - is condense the source material & make changes so as to keep the movie under 2 hours in length. I appreciate that. That said, lots of back story & character depth was rushed-through or left on the cutting room floor; which should aggravate R&J purists. Fellowes is a great writer (Oscar-winner for the wonderful Gosford Park). You can't "mess up" this story. And yet, the script here doesn't bring anything fresh to the tale of tragic star-crossed teen lovers.
Some might even call the movie "tepid". I wouldn't, but I could see it falling short for audiences. What Fellowes & director Carlei get it right is to return the tale to its Verona setting. Shot in Verona & Mantua, we get to see some absolutely GORGEOUS Italian scenery & production designs -- those castles! Those visuals, along with Carl Poggioli's elegant costumes, sturdy camerawork, & Abel Korzeniowski's sweepingly operatic musical score all lend to the storybook proceedings. The movie is not bad. It's sufficiently entertaining. I liked parts of it more than the whole. I could even see it being played in classrooms years from now. But it is flawed, most of all by the aforementioned miscast Steinfeld. And it needed to be juicier. It needed more fire.
Maybe the Elizabethan dialogue threw her off. But she speaks those lines too hurriedly (she comes across as mumble-mouthed; couldn't always understand her). Furthermore, Steinfeld misses the headstrong passion of the character of Juliet. As Romeo, newcomer Douglas Booth fares better & is more skilled, both in the delivery & cadence of Shakespearean dialogue, as well as conveying some passion through his face & eyes. Booth has to work hard to create 'something' with Steinfeld - not just because he's 5 yrs. older than her in real life, & not just because she struggles with the language/passion ... but also because he is just so classically handsome. Booth has the requisite chiseled face, brooding eyes, pillowy lips, & windblown hair that just SCREAMS Romeo Montague.
Steinfeld, while lovely & adorned in all the right outfits, does not match up with Booth's beauty & that's a bit of an issue. As the film builds, we see more chemistry btwn. the lovers, but too many of the romantic scenes fail to burst through the screen with sparks of unbridled passion. I saw lots of flared nostrils & heaving breasts, but it should have felt more ... erotic? Another problem with this film is that the older actors impress more than the 2 stars ... and that just can't happen when we're talkin' Romeo & Juliet. Paul Giamatti steals the movie as the world-weary, but helpful Friar Laurence. Giamatti delivers his lines with clarity, compassion, wit, & wisdom; enlivening this character who wants to aid the lovers, despite their feuding families. Any time he entered a scene, I perked up.
I also mightily enjoyed Lesley Manville as Juliet's bumbling nurse. She & Giamatti share many scenes together & are delightful. Natascha McElhone has some nice moments as Lady Capulet. I liked Kodi Smit-McPhee (of Hugo) as young Benvolio. And Damian Lewis (of Homeland) is dynamic as Lord Capulet, a man who loves his family, but foams with rage when they don't obey him. The script was adapted by Downton Abbey's superb creator Julian Fellowes. What he does - for better or worse - is condense the source material & make changes so as to keep the movie under 2 hours in length. I appreciate that. That said, lots of back story & character depth was rushed-through or left on the cutting room floor; which should aggravate R&J purists. Fellowes is a great writer (Oscar-winner for the wonderful Gosford Park). You can't "mess up" this story. And yet, the script here doesn't bring anything fresh to the tale of tragic star-crossed teen lovers.
Some might even call the movie "tepid". I wouldn't, but I could see it falling short for audiences. What Fellowes & director Carlei get it right is to return the tale to its Verona setting. Shot in Verona & Mantua, we get to see some absolutely GORGEOUS Italian scenery & production designs -- those castles! Those visuals, along with Carl Poggioli's elegant costumes, sturdy camerawork, & Abel Korzeniowski's sweepingly operatic musical score all lend to the storybook proceedings. The movie is not bad. It's sufficiently entertaining. I liked parts of it more than the whole. I could even see it being played in classrooms years from now. But it is flawed, most of all by the aforementioned miscast Steinfeld. And it needed to be juicier. It needed more fire.