Good concept ruined by talentless leads

Rating: 4/10 (26 July 1999)

This film has the makings of greatness, but falls so short after the first scene. The vibrant visual style and art direction is brilliant and the director handles the updating of the classic 16th century love story almost seamlessly. On top of that, the supporting cast, especially Postlethwaite, Sorvino and Leguizamo are well suited to the roles.
It all falls apart, however, when we are introduced to our leads. Leonardo Dicaprio has proved himself to be a talented actor in such films as "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" and "This Boy's Life," but his just isn't him at his best. He tries hard, but he's inexperienced with Shakespeare and can't get himself around the unnatural language and rhythm. Those lines he doesn't mangle he shouts unintelligibly.
Clare Danes gave us a good performance in "The Rainmaker," but is totally uninspired in this role. Her style is flat, and she delivers the lines with as much talent as the average highschooler would in a school production.
The director had what could have been a very powerful and entertaining movie, but undermines it with the casting of two singularly unsuited actors in the title roles for the sake of drawing more of the MTV teenage crowd to the box office.
For a better rendition of Juliet, I suggest Olivia Hussey in the 1968 Zeffirelli version. For a better Romeo, try Gwyneth Paltrow's transgender performance in "Shakespeare in Love."