“Romeo and Juliet” may look as flowery and lyrical as the text upon which it’s based, but it is a shallow and painfully faithful adaptation that drowns the semi-decent actors in extravagant costumes and settings.
Directed by Carlo Carlei (“Fluke”), “Romeo and Juliet” tells the story of the doomed teenage lovers in Renaissance-era Verona, where they struggle to their families’ decades-long rivalry.
The movie is frustratingly by-the-book. Ordinarily that would not seem like such a crime, except for the fact that everyone and their mother knows the story of “Romeo and Juliet.” The movie is so eager to stay true to its source material that it comes across as a poorly-produced school play, but with better set design.
The settings and costumes are rich and vivid, and are true to the setting of “Romeo and Juliet.” But that is probably the only upside to this film.
While all the actors look perfectly coiffed and dressed, they look rather lost when it comes to their roles in the plot. Some of them try valiantly, but most of them seem to resort to pantomime and grand hand gestures to show their emotions.
Most disappointing is past Oscar nominee Hailee Steinfeld. None of the bright fervor that she brought to her role in “True Grit” was in her portrayal of Juliet. She was young and sweet, but came across as so wide-eyed and innocent that her affair with the much older-looking Romeo (Douglas Booth, “LOL”) came across as more creepy than romantic. Booth too was incredibly lifeless in his role, resorting often to pouting and posing to fill up the time.
The young supporting actors weren’t much better. Most of the cast were essentially cardboard cutouts of usually colorful characters, with only Paul Giamatti (“Cosmopolis”) and Damian Lewis (“The Sweeney”) seeming to give some life to their characters of Friar Laurence and Lord Capulet, respectively. Lewis was especially impressive in what is essentially a throwaway role, concealing an intimidating gravitas beneath his somewhat comic exterior.
The film is tedious, but worse, it’s not original. Many complain about the surge of sequels and remakes that studios bring to the theaters, but none offend so much as this adaptation of “Romeo and Juliet.”
It makes no attempt to bring any originality or a new spin to the story. All the sappy lines are said with a straight face, all of archaic behaviors are accepted without fuss. The main roles are handed off to not-so-talented actors, who are given little room or direction to take the role beyond the pages. And the times they try are few and far between.
Essentially, the movie makes no attempt to entertain an audience who has seen this story a thousand times before.
“Romeo and Juliet” is so steadfast in its faithfulness to the original play that it forgets it is a movie. The film lacks imagination, it lacks the ambition a film needs to truly bring the magic of the story to life.
