User Reviews

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. Exquisite 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 was 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.

Other versions about this know story are the following ones : the vintage classic, Romeo and Juliet (36)by George Cukor with Norma Shearer and Leslie Howard ; a dancing 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 versión (1996) by Baz Luhrmann with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes .

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.

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.

Renato Castellani's ROMEO AND JULIET has somehow fallen into a hole in film history. Despite a handsome production with some worthy performances, it is overshadowed by Franco Zefferelli's 1966 film and even the 1936 MGM movie with Norma Shearer, Leslie Howard, Basil Rathbone, and John Barrymore. One has to wonder why - it was the first version of the movie to be shot (or partially shot) on locale in Italy in color. While the leads are not the proper juveniles that appeared in the 1966 version, Lawrence Harvey and Susan Shentell were closer to the ages of the characters than Howard and Shearer were.

My guess is that it's very reliance on Italian movie production may have been a drawback to the audiences who (unfortunately) counted the most: English - speaking ones. The leads were all English and the basic play (despite the Italian setting) was in English by the greatest writer of the English language. If it had been filmed in England I suspect it would have had more acceptance. But this is a guess. There could have been other factors: bad timing due to more overpowering productions. Orson Welles' had completed and released OTHELLO in 1952 (where it, like this ROMEO AND JULIET, won a prize at the Venice Film Festival). The following year Lawrence Olivier's masterly RICHARD III was released. The failure of the Castellani movie remains striking and puzzling.

Today Zefferelli's version is considered the best one by most viewers, because of his making his hero and heroine what they are: growing teenagers. But one should not sneer at Harvey's attempts at Romeo opposite Shentell's Juliet. They do generate a soft glow between them that gradually picks up heat. I might add that I found Shentell's final suicide rather stark and complete as it should be. Whether due to her acting or the director's direction she gave Juliet's passing a type of dignity I have rarely seen.

As for the performers in the cast, Sebastian Cabot's Capulet is the picture of an Italian Renaissance merchant prince type, corpulent and ruthless towards his family's foes. It's funny thinking of Cabot today as a villain in his roles, but in fact (prior to his going into CHECKMATE on television - where he was the wise spy master of the heroes) most of his film parts were villainous, or (as in THE TIME MACHINE) ridiculously self-important. His belated affability appeared only when he lucked out and became "Mr. French" in FAMILY AFFAIR. So here, a 1954 audience in the know, would have had no problem about his rattlesnake - eyed timing in planning the demise of Montagues. Look at his scene at the ball he is throwing when Tybalt (Enzo Fiormonte) wants to kill Romeo, but Cabot restrains him - adding that it can be done later.

Also note Mervyn Johns as Friar Lawrence, who manages to show the all-to-human side of the good man, which enables so many bad things to occur because of his trusting the wrong people (one messenger is locked up because he is stuck in a quarantined house), or his instructions were not clear enough. Johns was a gifted actor in his own way. Most people remember him as gentle, loving Bob Crachit opposite crusty, nasty Scrooge (Alistair Sim). But he was also the bedeviled and doomed architect in DEAD OF NIGHT, and the equally doomed partner of the ruthless Spencer Tracy in EDWARD MY SON. Johns was a fine character role player, and was lucky to pass on his skills to his daughter Glynnis.

A friend of mine lent this film to me, because I'm doing research before directing the play. I've now seen about 9 different productions, and while the production is handsome and offers some interesting scenes to try and move the plot along, it features costumes woefully wrong for the period. The interpretation of the text is probably as good as it can be, but huge chunks of dialogue, including the Queen Mab Speech are cut, and Mercutio, always a vivid character, has been reduced to a few lines and an unimportant character. Sebastian Cabot is marvelous as Capulet, and Flora Robson offers some fine moments as the Nurse. Susan Shentall's Juliet is not bad, but except for occasional scenes, Laurence Harvey is phoning it in. I don't completely hate this one -- that would be the Baz Lurhmann disaster, but in comparison, while I've always loved the 1968 Zefferelli version, I'm seeing it from different eyes now, and as I watch the 1936 MGM production, I'm liking the interpretation of the text in that far better than the 1968. This film is an interesting artifact, but it's not especially inspirational. Enjoy it for what it's worth.

Even though the colour and the impressive location scenarios work really well here, the rest of it rather falls between two stools. It lacks the intensity of a stage play and the acting talent assembled - Flora Robson and the underused John Gielgud notwithstanding - is really quite underwhelming. You'll recall the story of the feuding Montagues and Capulets that sees true love emerge from centuries of slaughter and mayhem. It's "Romeo" (Laurence Harvey) who falls for "Juliet" (Susan Shentall) and they must keep their burgeoning romance under wraps for fear of all hell breaking loose. That's becoming harder and harder but as the story unfolds it also becomes much less engaging to watch. Harvey never was a particularly versatile actor and there's virtually no chemistry on display between him and the almost as wooden though maybe a bit more suitably virtuous Shentall. It's very much a lacklustre ensemble effort with few of the originally quirky and notable characters standing up to much scrutiny and somehow Renato Castellani has striven to create something here that belies it's credentials as one of literature's greatest and most enduring love stories. At times, it is almost little better than a very well choreographed and photographed soap. Every now and again these re-imaginings of Shakespeare's works come along, but this one is unlikely to be one anyone remembers too fondly.

There are certain indispensable elements for a great Romeo and Juliet: youthful, energetic lovers; a brilliant Mercutio and irrepressible Nurse; and crisp pacing. Castellani's version fails on all counts. Take pacing. This is a tragedy of timing; the story unfolds over 4 days of desperate urgency. Yet Castellani's screenplay DRRRAAGGSS, interrupting key scenes with tedious stage business. Take the opening brawl: instead of escalating rapidly, it *stops* while the Capulets lug home the body of a servant, women wail, etc. Who cares about the servant? When do we get to the real action? Similarly, when Romeo opens the tomb, Castellani has him stop, walk all the way back outside, find an appropriate tool, and then start over. What a waste of screen time! It's dismaying that these unnecessary scenes are added at the expense of some of the play's best material. A high point in most productions is Mercutio's Queen Mab speech yet Castellani omits it! All directors make cuts, but why this key speech? Castellani seems to think little of Shakespeare's language, preferring his own dialogue. That's right; he cuts Queen Mab but adds vapid filler for Rosaline and other minor characters. Did he really think no one would notice? As for the actors, Susan Shentall sleep-walks through most of her scenes, but after two hours of Lawrence Harvey's plodding monotone, I can't blame her. These actors can't even summon the energy for a proper swordfight; Tybalt merely stabs Mercutio, while a bored looking Romeo bashes Paris over the head. Where's Basil Rathbone when you need him?

This production is often praised for its lush costumes, picturesque Italian locations and cinematography reminiscent of Italian paintings. It's pretty as a picture, but equally lifeless.

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.

Highly praised by critic Pauline Kael, and absurdly over-rated by most other critics, this is undoubtedly one of the worst English-language, talking film versions of Shakespeare ever made. It makes the ridiculous casting of Dick Powell in the 1935 "Midsummer Night's Dream" seem absolutely inspired.

It isn't that the actual casting is bad, just that a lot of the acting is.With all due respect to gay people everywhere, I can safely say that Laurence Harvey, normally an excellent actor who can make even badly written roles seem memorable (such as his Col.Travis in John Wayne's "The Alamo"), is by far the swishiest Romeo imaginable, making you wonder what Juliet sees in him. He makes Leslie Howard in the 1936 "Romeo" look like Clark Gable as Rhett Butler carrying Scarlett up that staircase. He has a moony-eyed smile on his face during the balcony scene which makes you want to say,"Snap out of it!"

Susan Shentall is a beautiful but bland Juliet, Flora Robson is just OK as the nurse, especially in comparison with Pat Heywood in Zeffirelli's 1968 version. Worst of all, director Renato Castellani has made an awesomely stupid decision in cutting the roles of Mercutio and Tybalt to shreds and casting two unknown, barely competent Italian actors with dubbed English-speaking voices as these colorful characters.

The very minor role of Benvolio is beefed up for Bill Travers. The brawls and duels are miserably done (there is actually no duel in this version between Romeo and Tybalt; Romeo simply rushes up to him and stabs him!), especially in comparison to both the MGM 1936 version and the Franco Zeffirelli 1968 film. Only Sebastian Cabot (better known as Mr. French in TV's "Family Affair") comes out unscathed---he is a brilliant Lord Capulet. The movie is the first "Romeo" in color, and filmed in Italy, but no match for Zeffirelli's version.

Renato Castellani's rendering of this tragedy is my all-time favorite version. Using on-location settings and magnificent costumes and art direction, this presentation is without peer.

Laurence Harvey is perfect as the young Romeo. He brings genuine love and pathos to his character that is heart-rending.

Susan Shentall's gives the most intelligent and moving execution of this challenging role I've ever witnessed. She, like Harvey, overcome minor matters of age to make these characters their own.

Who could be a better nurse than the great Flora Robson, or Norman Wooland a finer Paris?

Roman Vlad's original score is wonderful, and he's composed a Gallilard that becomes a haunting motif as it's reprised throughout in different variations.

If only a digitalized restoration could be done on this great work, that would make everything complete.

The only thing remotely interesting is the landscape.

The lighting is appalling, the play is shredded up with important and beautiful lines being cut and useless lines kept while other lines were just changed outright to have more obvious meanings.

The language is spoken tediously and full of pauses and lacks almost any sound of poetry at all which drags and drags.

It seems the focus was so much on the religion of the play it lacked any passion whatsoever.

Utterly unwatchable.

There was a superior version filmed in 1936 and 1996 looks glowing by comparison.

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.

Romeo and Juliet is undoubtedly one of the greatest stories of love and loss ever told a true classic and has been depicted on film and on TV many times since as early as 1908 but there are only a handful of Romeo and Juliet adaptations that are worth watching but sadly this isn't one of them.

Firstly This adaptation is missing key scenes and dialogue from the original play and book such as Romeo and Juliets first kiss together which is a key moment that sparks the flames of love between them the nurse meeting with Romeo with a message from Juliet to arrange marriage between them at Friar Laurence cell there are no scene's of Romeo with Mercutio and Benvolio and the torch bearers as they go to the Capulet mansion no queen Mab speech from Mercutio also no dialogue between them or other scenes until the duel between Mercutio and Tybalt which is only two minutes long and when Mercutio dies there is no emotion in the scene because we never see them as friends enough to take such vengeance on Tybalt making the scene forgettable and unemotional.

The Dialogue is either changed or is missing altogether throughout the movie which is frustrating to see in a movie where the script is already written for them all they have to do is quote it and they fail at even that.

Romeo is played by (Laurence Harvey) and Juliet by (Susan Shentall) they are both bland and lack even the most basic human emotions in every scene they are in together and apart no real smiles or energy is put into there performances both are miserable pale and have about as much on screen chemistry as R2D2 and C3P0.

If your a fan of Shakespeare like myself and wish to see a more faithful and entertaining adaptation of this classic story I recommend watching the 1968 movie starring Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey as the star crossed lovers there performance is unforgettable and they bring Romeo and Juliet to life on the big screen.

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.

A poorly edited screenplay; terrible transitions; mistaken lead casting; stilted, leaden direction - oh let me count the ways this director let down his good supporting characters with a film that's well dressed and no date to show at the ball. The worst presentation of Shakespeare I've seen in a decade of so many films with poor respect for film (the 50's.....) and a preoccupation with imperial propaganda.

Admittedly, the performances are not perfect, but I actually like Susan Shentall in the role of Juliet. Her acting is subtle and refined, which is more than I can say for many other actresses who have taken on the role. Why is it that so many actresses playing Juliet feel the necessity to shout their lines? Olivia Hussey does this. So does Megan Follows.

I will agree that Laurence Harvey is awful as Romeo. I find his delivery a bit too mannered for my taste even if his true age is more appropriate than Leslie Howard's. (Although, truth be told, Howard's Romeo seems ageless to me.) His costumes aren't much better than his acting. In the scene where he marries Juliet and the subsequent duel, he is wearing a blue and yellow ensemble that makes him look like a demented superhero.

I'm still waiting for a film version of Shakespeare's wonderful play with an actor who truly seems to understand the character of Romeo. Sumptuous, sumptuous cinematography and music though, and well worth a look if only for that.

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.

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

Forgotten gem, overshadowed by the 1936, 1968 and 1996 film versions. This movie may jettison much of Shakespeare's text especially the characters of Mercutio, Tybalt and the Nurse but director Castellini was bringing the story more in line with the original 1530 Italian version of the story by Luigi Da Porto in which these characters don't feature as much. The movie is sumptuously shot on location in Venice, Verona and Siena; and the visuals, costumes and set design are beautifully based on Renaissance paintings. The Capulet Ball is elegant and stunning. The movie is a treat for the eyes. Laurence Harvey is a poetic Romeo and Susan Shentall is an ethereal dreamy Juliet. Sebastian Cabot is an excellent Lord Capulet , Mervyn John is a radiant silly old Friar Laurence, the even wonderful Flora Robson is a delightful Nurse and Bill Travers is a dishy Benvolio. It may not be considered the best or most popular film of Romeo and Juliet by the popular masses but it's certainly not the worst .

Handsome, leisurely-paced, ineptly cut, often badly acted (especially by Laurence Harvey as Romeo, surprisingly) version of Shakespeare's most playful and youthful tragedy. Much of the film's charm lies in the creation of sumptuous tableaux in the tradition of Italian Renaissance painting, and the portrayal of Capulet is a marvelously acted stereotype of the fat, crude nouveau riche Italian patriarch; but Harvey (despite a few promising moments early on) is far too effusive and unctuous, creepily reminiscent of John Dall in Rope; Susan Shentall displays admirable coyness and gusto in the "overture" of the dance and courtship scenes, but stiffens and is stifled by the death of a thousand cuts toward the end (although almost nothing is cut from the first act). Still, aside from some ghastly, somnambulistic line readings, the film often dazzles with its feeling for the music of Shakespeare's text; the Nurse's folkloric shanty is highlighted with musical settings (shadings)-- Flora Robson is delightful in the role; the vaguely rappish banter of Benvolio and Romeo's first scene is gracefully and intelligently played. The presentation of the episode of losing the letter due to the Plague is a brilliant use of cinema to bring out embedded narrative in Shakespeare. The near-interchangeability of the actors who play Benvolio, Tybalt and Paris is regrettable.