This is the Baz Luhrmann version of R+J, the one with Leo in it.

First of all, I loved this film. It had lots of style to it. But alas, there were nits and a nit by any other name still has to be picked.

The priest repeatedly tries to send letters to Romeo. Only moments later we see him talking on a phone. Does Romeo not have a phone? No wonder he can't get a date!

At one point, when Romeo is sobbing he talks about Juliet's life ending as if it were from a *gun* or something similar. Was that in the original Shakespeare? The Klingon version, perhaps.

Capt. Prince seems to have a great deal of authority. He is a cop, a judge and seemingly an executioner as well. The moral? If you don't like police, don't move to Verona Beach!

Juliet, at the end, decides to shoot herself... in the head... with Romeo's .45... I'm thinking that this would result in a much messier wound. But having Juliet's brains splattered all over Romeo (a la Pulp Fiction) would have ruined the romanticism, wouldn't it?

I saw this film, but I dunno, never really got me. Maybe it was because I had just read the play and seen the '60s version. This just struck me as (1) hopelessly cheesy and "hip", (2) badly acted (except for perhaps John Leguizamo [sp?] as Tybalt), and (3) stylized way too much for the MTV generation.

"As if that name,
Shot from the deadly level of a gun,
Did murder her."

Is that the line you're talking about? It's 100% authentic. They did have guns in 1594...

A query before I start on this movie: does nitpicking include pointing out stuff in the original play that gets cut or altered in the film version?

Lea - I say yes.

And there is so very much. Much licence taken. Uh huh.

But, puritanical Shakespearean scholar-ness aside, I really enjoyed this movie! I disagree that it was badly acted, Mike - both Romeo and Juliet were cast perfectly, and I loved Paul Sorvino as Mr. Capulet.

That morning after scene was so incredibly cute! And the fishtank scene - swoon. Also, the poignancy (despite the lack of official Bard sanction) of the death scene, when Romeo actually realises that Juliet is not, in fact, dead, just before he himself dies...oh, it was so beautiful!

I pretty much think Shakespeare would have approved.

True story: As I was leaving the cinema after seeing this movie, a group of teenage girls were ahead of me, eyes suspiciously moist (as were mine, I confess.) The one wearing Sketchers, or platforms, or something, turned to the others (with the Winnie-the-Pooh backpacks and the Elmo T-Shirts) and said: "That was soooo sad....awww...why did he have to die?"

And they wonder why we weep for the youth of today!

So why did they turn Mercutio into an effeminate Pansy?

Yay! I can point out liberties taken with Shakespeare!

But before we begin -- despite my Shakespeare scholarship and general dislike of Leo DiCaprio, I didn't hate this movie. There were plenty of flaws in it, but it wasn't horrible by any stretch of the imagination...

OK, a few things before I have to run to catch a bus.

Unlike the original, Paris gets to survive this movie. What happens in the full play is that he's going to visit Juliet's grave (well, the Capulets' monument, that is), and sees Romeo hanging around. The two fight, and Paris ends up getting killed...

Speaking of Paris, I believe the text mentions that he's a kinsman of the prince. Funny, they don't look related... :-)

Father Laurence should actually be Friar Laurence. No big problem there, though -- it's not like friars are all that common nowadays.

Juliet's plan to fake her death would be really unfeasible in this day and age, thanks to a wonderful little thing called an autopsy. Ah, the perils of modern-dress Shakespeare... (No, I'm not that much of a purist. I really do like modern-dress Shakespeare. In the Bard's day, it was ALL modern dress!)

The one thing that really gets me about this movie, though, is the fact that a lot of Juliet's best material gets cut -- the scene where she learns Romeo is banished, and her big speech before she drinks the potion. They could have kept SOME of it!

And now I must leave to catch said bus. More later.

I'm picking a few nits up from other places about this movie since I haven't seen it for a long time.

The priest is psychic. He gave Juliet the potion and told her how long it would last. But later on, even though he doesn't know when she took it, he figures out when she's going to wake up!

I just thought of this myself: if he knew when she was going to wake up, why didn't he just go to the church? Romeo would have come in ready to kill himself and the priest could have told him to hang on for a few minutes and reconsider.

When Romeo has the flashback to Tybalt's death, there are no wounds shown when Tybalt falls backwards. (Too gory for the teenaged crowd perhaps?)

At the costume party, the chains on the back of Romeo's outfit switch from being hooked to unhooked several times during the scene.

Romeo fires five shots out of Tybalt's gun even though Abra took all the bullets out except for one just a scene earlier.

Look at the reflection in Juliet's eyes near the end. See a cameraman?

The priest is psychic. He gave Juliet the potion and told her how long it would last. But later on, even though he doesn't know when she took it, he figures out when she's going to wake up!

That one's Shakespeare's fault, I'm afraid... :-)

I just thought of this myself: if he knew when she was going to wake up, why didn't he just go to the church?

Well, he does go to the tomb because he knows Juliet's going to wake up, but he doesn't know that Romeo has heard anything about the whole affair. In the uncut text he says he's going to pick up Juliet and hide her at his cell, then write to Romeo in Mantua and explain everything -- but he doesn't get there fast enough.