Romeo and Juliet (1936) User Reviews

A Surprise

[AmyLouise · 7/10 · 7 April 2009]

For years, I put off watching this version of Shakespeare's classic love story, knowing that all the main players were about thirty years too old for their roles. Finally, when the film came on late on night, I decided to take a look, because I do admire the work of so many of the players.

Provided you can put aside the problems of the ages of the actors, the result is a very pleasant surprise. The biggest surprise for me was the performance of Norma Shearer - I've always liked her work, but considered her rather lightweight for Shakespeare. Not so - she delivered her lines with a great feel for the style and pace, and was as delightful and open a Juliet as one could wish. Her age became irrelevant; this was a young girl new to love, completely swept off her feet and ready to surrender all - for the first time.

Leslie Howard was also comfortable with the Shakespearean dialogue, if slightly lacking the boyish passion we rightly expect to see. He was more the slightly older suitor, taken by surprise with the fresh appeal of his Juliet, but ready to cast aside previous attachments to pursue and win her. His lovely voice delivered the lines with ease and fluency.

John Barrymore's Mercutio was much more the ageing playboy than the dashing young blade, but his sure touch with the dialogue showed clearly why he was considered the preeminent Shakespearean actor of his day in America. His delivery of the "Queen Mab" speech was a delight. His body was way too old, but his spirit lacked nothing.

Flora Robson came near to stealing most of her scenes, as she so often did, and Basil Rathbone was fully at home in the role of Tybalt; fine performances from these two, as we would expect from their backgrounds.

It was, to my mind, rather over-produced, with the actors in danger of being lost in the expansive sets, but remembering that had these actors been performing on stage, we wouldn't bat an eyelid at their ages, they provide us with an engrossing experience and deliver a play that even the experts couldn't fault.

An English teacher shares her views

[Mistresschaosia · 7/10 · 7 June 2003]

While I was looking for new materials to help teach "Romeo and Juliet," I found the 1936 version of the play and naturally I was intrigued. I'm assuming that most people know the basic plot and have seen other versions of the film, if this is not the case you may want to stop reading and keep the surprise for viewing.

This version is faithful if not to the exact order of all the dialogue then to the acts and scenes written by Shakespeare. For those teachers that are looking for a version that explains how the letter from Friar Lawrence never reaches Romeo and the reaction of the local populace to "Plague," this is the version that does it very well. Not only do we learn why Friar John never gets to Romeo but we also get the death duel between Romeo and Paris, a scene that has been cut out of every other version I've seen. Plus we get the closing moment of peace between the families. However, the death of Lady Montague is omitted.

The movie leaves a little to be desired by modern audiences and the typical class of high school freshman many need some heavy prep work to get them ready to view "black and white" and "old" as something other than "lame." But, I think that segments of the film would be well worth showing to the class and viewed as a treat and not a torture when it's not the whole product being shoved down in one lump.

I recommend checking it out as an additional resource to add a balanced movie perspective to the characters Shakespeare created. The main problem with it is the age of the actors playing the parts of all these young people. Leslie Howard is 40 years old. Norma Shearer must be of a similar age and it shows in some of the scenes. The age of the people supposedly playing teenagers does strain credibility and at times the acting leaves a lot to be desired. They don't convincingly play "passion." You can chalk the overall feeling of muted emotion to the era because at times the emotions do come through brilliantly.

starry night by mgm

[didi-5 · 7/10 · 27 June 2002]

The lavish treatment given to this by MGM and Irving Thalberg (his final production showcasing his wife Norma Shearer as Juliet) does work, as do the mature lovers and their supporting cast (Leslie Howard fitting the part of Romeo perfectly, John Barrymore and Basil Rathbone out-swashing each other as Mercutio and Tybalt), Edna May Oliver as the Nurse, typically loud, and Ralph Forbes as a bizarre Paris (no, I can't see why Juliet would want to marry him either, despite her parents' wishes). The music is lovely, despite being stolen from more classical stuff, the settings are perfectly in tune, the verse is spoken with some feeling and inspiration. Why this version doesn't get seen more often I don't know (not even on video in the UK).

Fine Cast & Lavish Production

[Snow Leopard · 21 November 2005]

The fine cast and production make this adaptation of "Romeo & Juliet" a satisfying one, both as a movie and as a realization of Shakespeare's play. Most of the cast is matched up very well with their characters, and the lavish settings provide a good backdrop for the drama.

Although it's soon clear that Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer are quite a bit older than the original characters were, in other respects they are well cast. Shearer's eager innocence and Howard's refinement fit together well, and although they are clearly not the teenage characters of the original, their romance is believable and convincing in itself.

The other roles include some nice casting. Reginald Denny as the loyal Benvolio, Basil Rathbone as the hard-hearted Tybalt, and Edna May Oliver as Juliet's bustling nurse are all enjoyable to watch. But the highlight of the cast is John Barrymore, who steals every scene as the fun-loving, ill-fated Mercutio, a character who is well-suited to Barrymore's strengths. It's a blessing that at least one of Barrymore's numerous Shakespearean roles was captured in a film for posterity.

The script abridges many of the scenes for cinematic purposes, and it does well in fleshing out the basic story with the duels, festivities, and other events, at times also dramatizing developments that in the original text are only mentioned by the characters. Overall, it is a well-conceived, well-executed, and enjoyable movie version of the famous story.

Sumptuous sets and costumes, good swordplay and only Shakespeare's words make this movie a pleasure for those who know the play.

[Art-22 · 7/10 · 23 November 1998]

This production got glitsy treatment by production head Irving G. Thalberg, who was showcasing his wife, Norma Shearer, playing Juliet: two years of research, a crew sent to Verona to photograph parts of the city; reconstruction of Verona's Church of San Zeno on the back-lot; thousands of extras; beautiful costumes and sets, etc. Although the screenplay was shortened, Thalberg also insisted that only Shakespeare's words were to be used in the dialogue. That would be a pleasure for those who knew the play, but a bane for those who didn't. Shakespeare's spoken dialogue isn't very easy to understand. Like any foreign language you learned a little bit in school, you can translate written material and get the gist of what is going on, but try deciphering normal speech in that language and you will be lost. I had a difficult time understanding some of the speeches (almost nothing that John Barrymore was saying) - they flew by me too fast. (On the other hand, I studied Hamlet and Macbeth in school and relish watching movie versions of those plays.) Still, I enjoyed this film, since I knew the general story, and there were sections that didn't tax my knowledge of Shakespearean English. Some of the lines were beautiful. I never new that the expression "star-crossed lovers" was Shakespeare's. Edna May Oliver's comedy was superbly played and the acting of the rest of the cast was excellent. The title characters were supposed to be teenagers, so that both Leslie Howard (at 54) and Norma Shearer (at 31) were a bit old for their parts, but that was a minor point. My advice to anyone wishing to watch this film: read the play first!

"I will make thee think thy dove a crow"

[Steffi_P · 6/10 · 19 March 2010]

Although there were a number of silent versions of Shakespeare plays, and the first direct screen adaptation of his work was in 1929 with the (incidentally very entertaining) Fairbanks/Pickford Taming of the Shrew, it wasn't until the mid-1930s that Hollywood really set its sights on the Immortal Bard™. The industry had emerged triumphant from the coming of sound, the worst years Depression and the enforcement of the production code, and now was the time to scale new heights.

Now, Shakespeare was great, and 30s Hollywood was also great, but in a very different way. The two were not entirely incompatible, but there was certainly a lot of scope to get things wrong. And one of the worst things to go wrong in this particular example is casting. A year earlier Warner Brothers had thrown decorum to the winds and simply lined up their usual rogues gallery of wisecrackers for a wild and surprisingly effective edition of A Midsummer Night's Dream. MGM however seemed keener to preserve a sense of theatrical propriety and chose actors for their credentials and experience.

Experience comes with age, and that is really the biggest single problem with these two star-crossed lovers. Norma Shearer gives a powerful and emotionally realistic performance, but she has the demeanour of a woman who has seen a bit of life, as opposed to a girl embarking on her first romance. Lesley Howard would actually make quite a good Romeo, he has the right honest bearing and simple handsomeness, but really he would have to be at least ten years younger. One might argue that if their acting is strong enough, surely we can stretch the imagination a little and overlook their years. This can and does work in some pictures (for example Anne Bancroft only being a little older than Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate), but for Romeo and Juliet it essential that we get that impression of flighty, passionate young lovers whose eventual demise is a tragic waste of life.

But there is worse yet than Shearer and Howard. The very acme of bad casting is here represented by John Barrymore as Mercutio. Don't get me wrong, Barrymore is comically eccentric, but Mercutio is supposed to be a sly young rake, not some jolly middle-aged lecher. And remember the character was named after his mercurial temperament (meaning quickly changing mood), yet Barrymore is just incessantly merry. Mercutio's greatest moment – the Queen Mab speech – is reduced to a wittering ramble. Another mistake of the casting couch was Andy Devine as Peter the servant. Devine is funny, and could even have been an asset in a Shakespearean comedy, but he is not right here. There are meant to be a few laughs in Romeo and Juliet, but not from some inept twerp. His inclusion in the opening brawl (the lines he speaks here belong to another character) is ridiculous, and sets absolutely the wrong tone.

This was an Irving Thalberg production, and Thalberg was probably the finest of the old-style producers, having a real knack for putting together the right team and then graciously leaving them to it. It's unlike him to make so many blunders with principle casting, but at least he got a decent crew. George Cukor was a good choice for director, as he was already the best when it came to stage-to-screen adaptations. He fills the earliest scenes with all sorts of bustle and background movement, then makes everything simplified and stripped down as the drama intensifies, focusing everything on the performers. William Daniels's cinematography is stunning, rich in light and shadow, the standout being the dance scene in which Howard is crisply black and Shearer shimmering white, with the background figures a wash of grey. Even on the acting front it's not all bad. Edna May Oliver is spot-on as the nurse, with her almost guttural delivery complementing the character's lewdness. And Basil Rathbone gives a calm, calculated performance, keeping all Tybalt's aggression simmering below the surface.

It was around this time that Laurence Olivier claimed Shakespeare could never work on screen, saying, "The shot is too big for the cannon". Of course, he would soon swallow his words and become the foremost actor, director and producer of Bard movies. His statement was born from the snobbishness of a naïve young theatre devotee, but one can't help thinking that such lukewarm offerings as this Romeo and Juliet only served to back up his opinion.

Leslie and Norma are both too old and too lethargic.

[Bernie4444 · 6/10 · 21 January 2024]

The story has been told many times of two families (Montagues and Capulets) that are at odds with each other a Montague teenybopper Romeo crashes a Capulet party. There he meets a Capulet; Juliet and they fall in love. They are compelled to marry. Only it is in secret because their families would not approve. As with all tragedies, even the innocent must die.

Leslie and Norma are both too old and too lethargic, yet they are still the best part of this movie. Everyone and their dog seem to be in this production, and most are having trouble staring at the teleprompter. The worst is Andy Devine (Peter), servant to Juliet's nurse; the words come out, but the meaning is different.

You can tell that they put a lot of money and time into the project. They did not try to make this just a stage play. There are lush costumes. And they did not cut corners with the dialog or number of people.

It is worth watching to get a different take on the story. Shakespeare was meant to be watched. Some of the intrigued is seeing the interpretation as seen through 1936 eyes.

A good version

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 11 June 2012]

I do love Shakespeare, as I do Romeo and Juliet. Of the other three versions I loved Zeffirelli's but was underwhelmed by Luhrmann's. This version is good and in between the two for me. It boasts handsome costumes and sets, the cinematography is gorgeous and the whole film is beautifully directed by George Cukor. The story is compelling and moving still, and the writing likewise, though one or two speeches could have been delivered a little slower. The music also is charming and wonderfully romantic in places. Of the cast I did get more pleasure of the supporting turns more than the leads. Though the leads certainly weren't bad. Leslie Howard is perhaps too mature and lacks Romeo's boyish passion but he does at least have a grasp of the style. Norma Shearer starts off a little shaky, coming across as too "giddy" on her first appearance(was it an attempt to show some girlish naivety?) but she is very moving from that point on and exudes good chemistry with Howard. John Barrymore also was a point of controversy, true he is a little too insidycratic in places but as Mercutio overall he is delicious and steals his scenes. The best turns though come from Edna May Oliver as a warm and humorous Nurse and the wonderfully oily Tybalt of Basil Rathbone. Ralph Forbes does what he can, though the role of Paris is rather thankless. All in all, a good version. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Top Stars In Lavish, Intelligent Production

[Ron Oliver · 10/10 · 8 July 2002]

ROMEO AND JULIET, the scions of old Verona's two most powerful families, become the playthings of fate & the fools of fortune.

This was a Very Big Film for MGM in 1936. No (reasonable) expenses spared. Not only was the Studio tackling The Bard for the first time in a major way, but the extreme celebrity of the original play guaranteed a great deal of public attention. Several choice roles were available for MGM's brightest stars and the part of Juliet would be the desire of every young actress on the lot.

Almost predictably the role went to Norma Shearer, who, as Irving Thalberg's wife, could almost pick & choose what she (or Irving) wanted. However, it should be stated at once that she is splendid in the role. Sweetly demure, innocent, apprehensive, fiercely protective of her love & recklessly heedless of her fate - she is Shakespeare's heroine.

She is matched by Leslie Howard's Romeo. A bit giddy at first with puppy love, he quickly matures into a tender lover & vengeful killer, finally willing, like Shearer, to forego all of his Catholic teaching and commit self-murder, thus dooming himself to Perdition.

Although decades too old for their roles (Juliet was 12, Miss Shearer 34; Romeo about 16, Mr. Howard was 43) they understand and speak their lines much more beautifully & proficiently than any teenager. Shakespeare's lines are really verse of a high order and demands skill & maturity. Howard & Shearer certainly have no problem there. Nor were they the only members of the cast whose ages were rather past the prime.

In his only feature length Shakespearean film, John Barrymore amply displays his celebrated talent in a bravura performance as an aging, sottish Mercutio. Barrymore understood the character thoroughly and he turns this strange, brilliant man into one of the film's chief treasures. Interestingly, much of his dialogue is rather scatological & gross, but being Shakespeare it seems to have flown under the radar of the Hays Office.

Edna May Oliver steals nearly every scene she's in as Juliet's waspish, eccentric Nurse. Basil Rathbone makes a fiery, insolent Tybalt. Reginald Denny adds a touch of distinction in the throwaway role of Benvolio, while wonderful old Sir C. Aubrey Smith & Violet Kemble Cooper are colorful as Juliet's parents.

At first blush, Andy Devine seems an odd choice for a Shakespearean production, but he is very competent as the Nurse's simpleminded servant.

Somewhat lost in this excellent cast is English actor Ralph Forbes in the rather thankless role of the County Paris. His is a somewhat sad story. Although replete with talent & charm, he still never quite reached the top echelons of stardom. He would have made a great Romeo.

Movie mavens will spot Katherine DeMille as the fair Rosaline (her cousin Agnes de Mille was the film's choreographer) and Ian Wolfe as the impoverished apothecary, both uncredited.

The film has wonderful production values - the sets, costumes and background score (borrowing themes from Tchaikovsky) all of the highest quality. For a small chuckle, watch closely during Juliet's dance at the Capulet ball - one of the dancers behind her steps on her dress hem and nearly trips. It's very fast, but worth catching.

Leads too old

[janowski_steve · 6/10 · 21 September 2008]

The retelling of this Shakespeare classic is fine, and the acting performances solid. But I found the 2 leads a little hard to believe because of their ages. While the "suspension of disbelief" is a necessary element for virtually all film, having the 36 year old Norma Shearer and 43 year old Leslie Howard was too much. Romeo and Juliet are supposed to be teenagers!!! Edna Mae Oliver, on the other hand, is perfect as the nurse. In regards to other film productions of R & J. There is no question the Franco Zefferelli version is the best. With a perfect cast of 2 actual teenagers in the lead roles. I recommend everyone to see this version. As a side note, avoid the 1996 DiCaprio/Danes version at all cost. What a waste of Shakespears amazing words.

Poor casting cannot be ignored

[joclmct · 5/10 · 29 March 2021]

The Adrian (and Messell) costumes are magnificent. The sets & cinematography are beautifully realized & director George Cukor does the best he can with what he has been given but the absurd casting of actors 20 years, or more, too old cannot be ignored. Juliet is supposed to be around 13 & Norma Shearer is in her mid 30s. Romeo is to be approximately 16. Leslie Howard is in his mid 40s. The foolish, romantic & tragic path taken by Romeo & Juliet is because of their youth. With these 2 way too old actors, it makes the characters behave as if they are developmentally challenged. It is not how adults behave. I'm am not a student of Shakespeare but I've read the play. Many necessary cuts were made to the text in order to get it to the screen or it would've ended up being over 4 hours long. I don't complain of these cuts. I don't complain of the line readings by some actors. I respect how the studio & Thalberg put the money & attention to detail into the production. Accomplished Shakespearean acting coaches were brought in to get the best performances from the actors. I believe Norma Shearer worked hard to do her best but oh my. She is not Juliet. Leslie Howard is ok but both wouldve been better cast as Lord and Lady Montague or Lord and Lady Capulet. It is a lush & lavish production. I can admire it as a beautiful elegant bauble. If I don't pay close attention to the actors, I can enjoy the spectacle but I cannot accept Shearer & Howard as the lead characters. It's a distraction I cannot pretend isn't there. That they are too old is a valid reason to critique the movie harshly.

No Tale More Tragically Told

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 4 November 2007]

Despite the fact we have a 47 year old Romeo, a 36 year old Juliet, and a 54 year old Mercutio; George Cukor's production for MGM of Romeo and Juliet manages to entertain and well.

Of course these protagonists are all teenagers, but these players have all played romantic parts in an age when romance was not something to be cynical about and they do fit their roles well. No Romeo was ever more dashing than Leslie Howard or a Juliet as passionate as Norma Shearer.

John Barrymore as Mercutio is a bit of an exception. I look at him and I think of another Shakespearean character who simply doesn't want to grow up and spends his time with the young blades of his day at the tavern. That would be Falstaff in Henry IV in both parts and if you think of Barrymore's Mercutio in that way, his interpretation makes a lot of sense.

My favorite in this film has always been Tybalt and Basil Rathbone plays him with fire and passion. Rathbone got an Academy Award nomination, the first of two, for Best Supporting Actor in the first year Supporting Actor Awards were given out. He lost however to Walter Brennan in Come and Get It. He's just spoiling for a fight with some Montagues and in the end he unfortunately gets one.

Romeo and Juliet is insightful into the Italy of the times. Italy was a geographical expression not a nation. In fact it was ruled mostly by the German entity, the Holy Roman Empire. But inside the empire and out it was a succession of petty states, constantly at war with each other. Sometimes the causes of the wars were long forgotten, but the hostilities took on a life of their own.

Right down to a couple of wealthy families in the small town of Verona where the prince there has his hands full trying to keep the Montague and Capulet feud from spilling over into violence every time some of them meet in his town.

With this background a young prince of Montague just getting over another bad romance and a princess of Capulet whose father has her slated to marry another meet and fall in love. Even when they find out their respective pedigrees, it makes no difference.

In fact the idea that love can bridge all barriers is what I believe makes Romeo and Juliet as popular as it is. It's a lesson people and nations could learn.

Norma Shearer got an Oscar nomination for playing Juliet, but lost to Luise Rainer in The Great Ziegfeld as Best Actress. George Cukor and the film itself also were up, but lost for best director and best picture.

Andy Devine plays the small part of Peter, a Capulet servant and I'm sure you're wondering what Andy Devine was doing in Shakespeare. So did he when he was cast in the part. The story goes that he went to George Cukor and told him he hadn't foggiest idea what he was doing in a classic Shakespeare play, he'd never done anything like this. Cukor supposedly told him, that was to his credit and that he would be the only member of the cast who would not be telling him how to direct the film. Turned out Cukor was right, but the film got made.

And that's definitely for the better.

Superb b/w photography

[hcoursen · 7/10 · 30 January 2006]

This film has to be seen for what it does well. Zeffirelli puts his young actors (Hussey and Whiting) against an opulent renaissance background. And that treatment -- along with Michael York's sneering Tybalt -- is why one would watch that film. Castellani dwarfs his actors (Harvey and Shentall) with the architecture of Verona, but Shentall refuses to be crushed and delivers an endearing performance. Luhrmann places his actors (de Caprio and Danes) in the vivid swirl of Mexico City, a place of fabulous wealth and deepest poverty. The lovers race to their doom in a film that captures the rhythms of the script, for all of the ineptitude of the actors. Cukor's black-and-white photography is superb. Look, for example, at Romeo's approach past a reflecting pool to Juliet's balcony. It is wonderfully realized. So what if Juliet's balcony looks like a crow's nest on a battleship? This is a film to be enjoyed for the wordless sequences that the camera creates for us.

The Age of the Cast Undercuts the Film

[gftbiloxi · 4/10 · 22 April 2005]

This version of Shakespeare's ROMEO AND JULIET was very famous in its day, and a number of critics that I greatly admire continue to praise it even now. But I must sound a dissenting note: although it has its charms, I personally found the film somewhat difficult to sit through due to the age of the cast. On the stage, Shakespeare's star-crossed lovers are usually played by mature actors in full command of both Shakespearean language and their own art, and the physical distance between the stage and the audience allows the cast to create the illusion of youth. But the camera is merciless, particularly in close up, and this film production presents us with the middle-aged Leslie Howard, Norma Shearer, John Barrymore, and Basil Rathbone in roles that would be better served on the screen by much younger players.

To give the cast its due, several of the stars fought tooth and nail against making the film--most notably Leslie Howard, who even went so far as give press interviews stating that he was much too old to play Romeo in a screen production. When forced into the production by contractual obligation, Howard and his counterparts gave it their all, but sad to say the camera did not lie: they were indeed too old. Although some viewers are able to suspend disbelief to accept the stars in such youthful roles, I myself could not. I found it occasionally absurd, but more often embarrassing, with the famous balcony a case in point. All of this might be forgiven if the stars actually generated any sense of passion, but they do not--and it is really here that their ages tell, for instead of the white-hot passions of youth that lead to disaster we have instead a gentle love story with an unhappy ending.

Still, the film really is pretty to look at--it has an engraved quality in its glossy black and white--and if you close your eyes, you can enjoy the 'grand manner' readings, which is a great deal more than one can say for most cinematic Shakespearean interpretations. There is also Edna May Oliver's performance, and she is excellent in the role of Juliet's babbling nurse.

Fans of this film's stars will no doubt wish to add it to their library, and those interested in seeing how Hollywood approached Shakespeare in the 1930s will enjoy seeing it at least once--but I would hesitate to recommend this film to any one outside that circle. Most viewers will be happier with the later Franco Zefferilli version.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Not a fan of Norma

[patrick.hunter · 11 April 2001]

Unlike so many of the other commentators below, I am not a fan of Ms. Shearer. In her opening scene, she gushily keeps herself wide-eyed and smiling--all the time acting innocent, while Olivia Hussey and other screen Juliets don't have to act innocent: they are innocent.

That said, this film has much to offer, despite its lacking the passion of other more recent versions. The verse is spoken well, and Barrymore is brilliant as Mercutio. Yes, he's pure ham---but a succulent one. His Mercutio is, as the character's name implies, mercurial as well as absurdist, ironic, and virile. Rathbone is like a living rapier and gets my vote as the best Tybalt the screen has ever seen. However, don't believe producer Thalberg's ballyhoo that every word spoken in this film is from Shakespeare's play: it isn't, although it's close.

Too Old!!!

[Clairebear325 · 6/10 · 1 September 2004]

The movie is pretty good, but the leads are ridiculous! Leslie Howard was about 44 and Norma Shearer was in her thirties. Why did they cast people who were old enough to be Romeo and Juliet's parents? Although they played the roles well enough, its not enough to distract the viewers from the obvious miscasting of the leads. They didn't even try to capture the sweet innocence of the romance. Its overacted and should just be forgotten (which it apparently has). Next time, watch the 1968 version where Romeo and Juliet are actually played by teenagers. If you are looking for a good version of Romeo and Juliet that is everything that should be in the stage version, look elsewhere.

a cautionary tale

[thespian57 · 6/10 · 28 December 2005]

I found the stars too old for their roles. I suppose this started the trend of over agers playing teenagers (remember Grease? or more to the point, west side story?) The only person I found to look close to the age Shakespeare had in mind was Reginald Denny. The acting was OK. I loved Barrymore's Mercutio. Someone asked why he had not played Romeo given his penchant for playing the Lover. Barrymore replied "for two reasons dear boy...Juliet, and Mercutio". Barrymore was correct in that Juliet is the stronger of the two leads, and Mercutio of course is the most colorful of the supporting players. Basil Rathbone plays himself naturally, a calculating villain of course. Norma Shearer gives the strength to Juliet that Leslie Howard Lacks in Romeo.

Barrymore was by the time of this movie considered to be washed up in Hollywood. He gave one more creditable performance in 1939 in "the great man votes", and one more comdeic performance in "midnight" after Romeo and Juliet. His role in this film is the standout performance. For the ladies, my nod goes to Edna Mae Oliver, the starchy character actress as Juliet's nurse.

the scenery is too gaudy even for Shakespeare's standards. The costumes, however are a delight. This movie, filmed before Irving Thalberg's death was released after he died.

Romeo & Juliet review

[JoeytheBrit · 6/10 · 21 April 2020]

A cautionary tale about the threat posed to young lovers by well-meaning monks. Shakespeare's tale of tragic star-crossed lovers receives a typically lavish treatment from MGM, but while the result is entertaining enough it lacks inspiration and never comes close to capturing the giddy emotions that are supposed to consume the young lovers. Howard and Shearer, boasting a combined age of 79, are too old to play Romeo and Juliet, but Howard at least makes a decent stab at it. At 52, John Barrymore was probably too old to play Mercutio's dad, let alone Mercutio, but he nevertheless gives a stand-out performance as Romeo's clownish friend. Not the definitive version the studio no doubt hoped it would be, Romeo and Juliet has at least taught us one valuable lesson: Andy Devine and Shakespeare is not a good mix.

Not as good as you might imagine

[richard-1787 · 7/10 · 13 June 2018]

This movie had everything going for it. Clearly, visibly a big budget, with some very impressive production numbers. Some very fine actors - John Barrymore may have been drunk much of the time, but he still gives a memorable performance as Mercutio. Edna May Olliver is great as the Nurse. Basil Rathbone is evil as Tybalt.

But for reasons I can't really explain, this movie just didn't hold me. I kept thinking of the Midsummer Night's Dream that Max Rinehardt did for Warner Brothers about the same time, in many ways a magical movie. This movie is often impressive, but, for me, it was never magical.

Some will criticize the casting of Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer as Romeo and Juliet. Yes, they are clearly much too old to be taken as adolescents. But they don't try to be adolescents, so the play becomes the story of two middle-aged people in love, which didn't bother me at all. I find Shearer to be a very mannered actress, good in some things stilted in others. She very much overdoes Juliet, to my eyes, though I could see a teen-age girl acting just the same way.

If you like the play, or even if you don't, watch this movie once. I don't know that I could sit through it again a second time myself.

-------------------------------------------------------

Well, I watched it again tonight on TCM - there was nothing else on that interested me - and I found that, while some parts did not hold me at all, others did, largely because of the way some of the actors delivered Shakespeare's text. I don't know that I could sit through this in a theater, but at home, where I can do other things until they get to the next scene that interests me, this worked well for me. And I found myself reveling in the language of Shakespeare.

A Nice Surprise

[ckemp · 8/10 · 14 December 2005]

I am sick and stayed home from work and TCM was having a Shakespeare festival. Having never heard of the 1936 version of this play, I decided to give it a whirl even though I am not a Leslie Howard fan. Well, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. Even though I knew the actors were too old for their roles (turns out they were even older than I thought!) their delivery was great, which is important when you are delivering the Bard's lines verbatim, for the most part. Even if you couldn't catch the literal meaning of the words, the actors provided plenty of non-verbal context for you to pick things up.

I thought Norma Shearer was going to be awful at first, as one other commentary has mentioned, her first scene makes her look a little too mindlessly sweet and giddy--almost like the look is plastered on her face--but she really came through in the end. When she had to amp up the emotion, she did, especially considering the Hayes Code was now being enforced.

I have to concur that one of the best character acting jobs I have seen in thirties cinema is by the lady who plays Juliet's nurse (her name escapes me). She switches from broad comedy to contemplation effortlessly. Basil Rathbone is appropriately vile, oily and relentless. I would have liked to have seen a little more of him on screen. And I had no idea that Barrymore's turn as Mercurito was so controversial until I read the other comments here. His approach may be an eccentric, idiosyncratic one, but it is absolutely riveting (although I CAN believe he was in his cups when filming it--which somehow makes it work all the more).

I do agree that there may be a whiff of the effeminate running through the major male characters (I had to chuckle when Romeo says his love for Juliet has made him "effeminate"), but that didn't ruin the picture for me at all. The sets are great. Though limited, they are attractive and the shots are well thought out. ****SMALL SPOILERS*** I found the crypt where the final sword fight takes place something right out of a Universal horror movie, and somewhat reminiscent of Fritz Lang, too.

A modern audience may find this version of the play a little deliberate, but I thought the Franco Zeffereti version, once you get past the novelty of its modern approach to sex and passion, dull at its heart, and this is much better than seeing John Luguzamo brandishing a weapon. Check it out.

Parents Just Don't Understand

[wes-connors · 7/10 · 18 December 2007]

Norma Shearer and Leslie Howard play Shakespeare's star-crossed young lovers Juliet Capulet and Romeo Montague. As this version of "Romeo and Juliet" is a relatively faithful adaptation of Shakespeare's original play, the ages of the characters are relevant; thus, Ms. Shearer, Mr. Howard, and others are, obviously, too old for the parts. That being said, this is still an entertaining film, well directed by George Cukor, and expertly photographed by William Daniels. The production, sets, and lighting are extraordinary. Shearer is especially well lighted; and, she performs Juliet in earnest. John Barrymore (as Mercutio) and Basil Rathbone (as Tybalt) are more fun than a barrel of Montagues. You live by the sword, die by the sword.

******* Romeo and Juliet (8/20/36) George Cukor ~ Norma Shearer, Leslie Howard, John Barrymore, Basil Rathbone

Chacun a son gout

[Django6924 · 5/10 · 24 August 2005]

Yes, the actors are all too old (except Dame Edna,) and yes, it's way too stage-bound. But there are pearls here for those who don't trample them underfoot and turn and rend those who cast them. If you are tolerant of a Noh drama Macbeth and a street hood Romeo and Juliet, why trash an equally "unauthentic" treatment just because you have a problem with geriatrics?

The costumes are quite nice--not "authentic" as Zeffirelli's, but a good example of the design geniuses under contract to MGM. Ditto the sets (although their staginess can be distracting.)

William Daniels, who shot Greed for Stroheim and Naked City for Dassin, shows that when it came to absolutely gorgeous, though unrealistic lighting, there was no one better, and why Garbo insisted he shoot all her films. Katherine DeMille's choreography is fun to watch, and with what little I know about dance history, may even be authentic--though I doubt it.

Leslie Howard was a great actor--had he only been 20 years younger he would have been perfect. Rathbone never really got the attention from the director's camera setups he deserved, and almost steals every scene he is in anyway.

Barrymore was almost 30 years too old, but he will always be Mercutio for me. His Mab speech is brilliant--honoring the poetry but not slowing things down, and being consistent with Mercutio's manic character. The blend of comedy and pathos he achieves in his death scene is remarkable. One of the problems with McEnery's performance in the Zeffirelli version is that he is so obviously suffering from mortal wounds after the duel, that Whiting's Romeo appears like a callow dolt. With Barrymore's performance, you too can't believe the wound can be that much. What amazing diction! Too bad his Shakespearean performances form the first quarter of the 20th century were not recorded.

The Best of Cinema's ROMEO AND JULIETs

[EightyProof45 · 10/10 · 5 May 2004]

This is quite simply the best version of Shakespeare's beloved tragic drama that has ever hit the screen. A quintessential problem with the play is that its characters are not at all well-suited to film. The stage allows middle-aged experienced actors to play the parts, for the distance between an audience and actor on the stage can supply all necessary illusion. The intimacy of the camera makes a demand, however: either sacrifice this understanding for youth or sacrifice the youth for understanding. The title characters are supposedly meant to be only in their mid-teens, but to successfully portray them, an experienced mentality is needed, and so it is imperative that the latter sacrifice be made. On film, rarely does the depth the two characters require come forth, instead substituted with this youthful energy. This has allowed plenty of young, age-appropriate actors to deliver perfectly horrible performances as the young lovers. When Franco Zeferelli produced his overrated version of this tale in the 60s, he cast Olivia Hussey and Juliet and Leonard Whitting as Romeo...and the two made Romeo and Juliet teenagers with no sense of real love and instead horny teenage lust. By casting Norma Shearer (around 36) and Leslie Howard (over 40) as the two, M-G-M lost the supreme youth, but gained a near-perfect asset of understanding of the characters. Shearer's delivery is perfect, particularly in the spine-tingling rendition of Juliet's death-contemplation monologue just before she takes the poison. Leslie Howard nearly matches her with his Romeo, throwing some lines at the audience in a totally new, fresh, and unexpected way. Edna May Oliver perfectly captures Shakespeare's Nurse, filling her with both bawdy humor and genuine care for Juliet's well-being. As Tybalt, a role cut down from the original length but nonetheless impressive, Basil Rathbone is astonishing; he earned a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his work here. Also of note is John Barrymore, whom I have read was at times totally ossified while filming his scenes. His age really shows, and he is no longer the leading Baron from Grand Hotel, but his controversial performance is, if not to all minds good, at least totally engrossing. He was at a time the most celebrated of all Shakespearean stage actors, and this film marks his only completely recorded performance in a sound film of the Bard's work; this makes the film further noteworthy. To add to this pedigree cast, M-G-M put their top technical men on the job. Adrian and Cedric Gibbons perfectly capture the look and flavor of the play with their elegant costumes and sets. The art deco, sleek look ingeniously blends modern architecture with what is expected from Shakespeare's day. The camerawork is brilliant also, and Herbert Stothart's blend of Tchaikalvski's haunting Love Theme and original music creates just the perfect musical score. All of these elements combine to create the first truly great Shakespearean film adaptation, and also one of the best films of the era, period. Far superior to Zeferelli's version, and any other one I've seen, George Cukor's Romeo and Juliet is another masterpiece from one of the all-time great directors, who helmed such classic, well-regarded productions as Dinner at Eight, David Copperfield, The Philadelphia Story, and Adam's Rib.

Kind of fun.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 30 June 2009]

It's always interesting to see familiar faces in unfamiliar roles. I saw just enough of this version of Romeo and Juliet to find it an enjoyable curiosity. Where else can you see Sherlock Holmes -- I mean Basil Rathbone -- playing Tybalt, and doing a damned good job of it. At least he sounds as if he'd read the play, and he gets to do the unidimensional mean shtick that was his forte before he became a detective.

Other memorable performances are by C. Aubrey Smith, Reginald Denny, and Edna May Oliver, whose old-fashioned New England is easily transposed into Elizabethan English via fair Verona.

The two leads -- Leslie Howard as Romeo and Norma Shearer as Juliet -- are problematic. For one thing they're too old for the parts. One of the reasons Romeo is not a particularly bright kid is that he's inexperienced. He's still mooning over Rosaline when -- one glance at Juliet and it's love at first sight, at second sight, at ever and ever sight. "He jests at scars, that never felt a wound," broods Romeo, but he hasn't the slightest idea of what wounds lay inevitably ahead for any human being. (Howard delivers the line as a kind of jokey wisecrack, though.) Norma Shearer ought to be a teeny bopper instead of the wife of somebody who's important at the studio. In her close ups, George Cukor seems to have wrapped the lens in silk stockings. And she's less convincing than Leslie Howard, but that may be only because British accents seem so much more fitting.

John Barrymore as Mercutio is WAY too old for the part but is nevertheless in a class by himself. Whether it's a performance "by" John Barrymore or "of" John Barrymore, it seems to work, in its own quietly overwhelming way. The other players seem to stand back when Barrymore has any lines.

The only embarrassment is Andy Devine, who belongs behind six horses.

The set dressing by Cedric Gibbons and wardrobe by Adrian of the Big Shoulders is colorful and evocative. I'm not sure why anybody but Tchaikovsky got credit for the musical score.

The plot of the play is pretty loopy but this presentation is nothing to be ashamed of. I can't comment on the last half, which I wasn't able to watch.

Literal interpretation isn't always for the best

[burgan6203 · 4/10 · 1 July 2005]

There isn't any real new opinion I can share with regards to George Cukor's version of "Romeo and Juliet". It feels overly long, the two leads are both far to old to play the young lovers etc. However I do wish to say that it does provide an interesting insight into adapting Shakespeare's plays to film: Strict adherence isn't always the right route. Cukor's version is a near literal translation of the play, whereas the Zeffirelli and Lurhmann versions cut at least half the text. However, this paradoxically produces the slow pace which is a fault for this film. This is a story of transcendent, evanescent love, and having it be slow and anemic doesn't do it justice IMO.

In short, the 1936 version may be the most literal, but the Zeffirelli and Luhrmann films both are more faithful to the spirit of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet".