leethomas-11621 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.

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

moviesaregreat 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.

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.