Reading these other reviews brought me to the point where I almost screamed at the inanity of the repetitive commentary about the ages of Howard, Shearer and Barrymore in particular, and a few others in general. Yes, the leads are all supposed to be teenagers, but I can assure these complainers that when this movie was made in 1936 - that's 82 years ago - only a devout Shakespearean would have realized that or given much consequence to it. The movie audiences of 1936 - and probably most of the movie audiences of today - almost certainly did not know that the leads were supposed to be about 16 and 14 respectively. In fact, the ages are not mentioned anywhere in the play, so even those two numbers are somewhat questionable facts. And I imagine that, even with Shakespeare, there would have been some complaints about showing a 14-year-old girl having sex with a 16-year-old-boy back then, and theaters might have been raided if they used actors of that age to play the roles. (Remember that as late as in 1962, they had to add about four years to the age of Lolita to even get LOLITA made, and they had to hire an actress who was 16 rather than 12 or they might have all been arrested!). One simply accepted the leads as the youngest members of their warring families, but not necessarily as teenagers. THAT'S A FACT! Yes, the stage lends distance to our acceptance of such characters' ages, and if you think Barrymore at 54 was old for Mercutio, please be advised that in 2016, that character was played on the London stage by Derek Jacobi, 78 at the time! Even Olivier was far too old (and actually looked it, even with blond hair) to play Hamlet in 1948, and he won the Academy Award for it. So, please, let's stop all this nonsense about age. If you'd prefer Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey, fine, but don't take it out on Howard and Shearer. As for those two, I've always loved Howard but feel that this is one of the least impressive film performances he ever gave, whereas I think Juliet may be Shearer's best film performance - and I think she looks a lot younger than her 34 years here anyway. She certainly acts it, which cannot be said for Howard. Barrymore, who was past his 40th birthday when he first did his famous Hamlet on the stage, is properly hammy here, but I couldn't understand much of him in his set speeches (like the Queen Mab one), and I always love Edna May Oliver, but also couldn't understand much of her dialogue. The actor I thought most natural of all, and who is hardly mentioned anywhere in these reviews, was Reginald Denny as Benvolio. Anyway, I find it a delightful film throughout but do wish they could have granted my dearest wish and had Claude Rains dub Andy Devine!

A beautifully filmed and costumed version of the Shakespeare tale of star-crossed lovers.Director George Cukor has made the story thoroughly accessible while retaining the sparkle of the original language, although, clearly, much dialog has been cut.While Norma Shearer and Leslie Howard do well in the central roles, they were far too old -- about 36 and 43, respectively -- to have been cast as teenagers. One is constantly aware that Juliet and her mother appear to be contemporaries! This version of the love-and-hate saga drives home the timeless themes at work in this Renaissance story -- that, try as one might to follow one's dream and be true to oneself, one can be thwarted by the ridiculous vagaries of fate at any moment. In other words, "the best laid plans of mice and men..." We see here a world in which parents profess to love their children but never really listen to them. It is their goals, and not their children's, that count in the end. We also witness the terrible consequences of living in a world in which one person's behavior is rigidly dictated by another's. (Had Romeo not killed Tybalt, how might this have all turned out?) One is left pondering whether times have really changed that much since the days of the Plague. Speaking of which, Cukor injects the disease into this film in the most dramatic of ways, trapping the messenger/monk in a house of pestilent death. An exquisitely heart-rending detail! I'm very glad I saw this. It renews my awe at the talent of the Bard.

anything with LH and I am happy. First leading man I had a crush on.Does anyone know the name of the music that Juliet makes her entrance. Not the dance or the love theme. the one the troupe of little boys sing. In my head and making me nuts.Anyway, it was a big movie. Not that fond on NS but she does well. How do you fit WS in a hour and a half? Worth watching. Besides until the FZ film R & J were never played by youths. Felt a mere youth could not find the emotional range. bla bla bla Love them both and plan on buying the black and white version.enjoyHollywood did not make great films about great plays very often. caydj

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.