Romeo and Juliet (1968)

Ebert calls Zeffirelli’s film the most exciting Shakespeare adaptation on screen for its immediate passion, violence, and poetry. He singles out the young leads Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey for bringing authentic first-love intensity to the balcony and tomb scenes.

Zeffirelli’s 1968 adaptation is a testament to the power of straight-faced Shakespeare and has aged far better than Baz Luhrmann’s version. Stunning location shooting, an iconic score and an earnest performance from Olivia Hussey make this a top-notch adaptation.

Zeffirelli’s 1968 film is back on re-release and remains high-minded and lively despite some old-fashioned elements. It has elegance, vigour and charm thanks to its real outdoor locations and young cast close in age to the characters.

The review praises the film as a lovely, sensitive popularization that captures youthful energy and period Italy while highlighting the strong staging of the ball and duels. It notes that the prose occasionally feels too modern and that some classic speeches suffer from diction issues.

Zeffirelli’s 1968 adaptation stands out for its naturalistic approach, with actual teenagers in the leads, location shooting in Italy, and handheld camerawork that emphasizes emotional urgency over strict fidelity to the text. The Criterion 4K restoration makes the film look far better than prior home video versions, highlighting vibrant colors and fine details, though extras are limited.

Zeffirelli’s traditional retelling is aimed at Shakespeare completists, capturing a high-school vibe and starlit melodrama in its opulent sets and naturalistic-free dialogue. The swordplay and tragedy shift into pantomime after the initial blood is drawn.

Zeffirelli's adaptation succeeds with its handling of hot-headed youth and street brawls but falters with sentimental parents, friar and nurse, and the tragic ending. It remains enjoyable for its colour, visual flair and breathtaking costumes.

The review calls the film a disappointment despite its visual splendor and up-to-date feel, noting that the young leads lack understanding of the verse and that dramatic highlights feel stilted. It praises the color, movement, and fight sequences but faults the flat delivery of the poetry.

Kael finds the film a bowdlerized, visually flashy version that replaces Shakespeare’s language with cinematic effects and teen appeal, resulting in flat readings and ordinary young lovers. She notes some exciting duel sequences and operatic emotionalism but criticizes the overall lack of poetic music and coherent realism.