User Reviews

This is one of the strangest versions of "Romeo And Juliet" I've come across, mostly because of its setting. I'm fairly certain there have been more films based on "Romeo And Juliet" than "Hamlet". This version is set in modern times, but it doesn't feature two characters from warring families. It actually features two boys in the military who have a gay romance. Their love is forbidden because this was a time where we questioned whether or not gays should be in the military. Now, this movie does have a really good moral to it. Don't judge gays, obviously.

The thing that weighs this down is how the execution is really off. It actually features the boys reciting the actual "Romeo And Juliet" play while in this romance. It's pretty awkward to watch. I can see why most people think this movie is just okay. The atmosphere isn't that good. I'll still give this movie credit for putting a new spin on such a classic tale. Since this movie was made, gays have been given complete rights in the United States and that's something I'm always glad to be behind. **1/2

Just watched Private Romeo and I gotta say I was disappointed after all the positive comments & reviews.

I understood that the story was a modern take on the Romeo & Juliet story set in a boys' military academy. For me it just didn't work.

I tried to get behind the "gender blind" casting, a variation on "color blind" casting in which the audience pretends NOT to notice a the actors race and just goes with the character as written. For me this didn't work because the characters adhered so loosely to the characters as written.

The story is all about how two factions are brought to grief when a member of each faction kills themselves after becoming a couple.

In this version, I couldn't tell the factions apart or even if there really were any. There were no parental arranged marriages, no killing of cousins in duels, and even bigger departures from the story... but that would be telling!

I'm a big fan of restaging Shakespeare in other scenarios. West Side Story and Ran are great examples where "bending the Bard" actually added new and interesting aspects to an already classic tale, but this one added nothing and detracted a LOT. I saw all of my favorite speeches of the play marred and made less by this staging.

Also the production values were glaringly deficient in spots. Why stage a military drill scene without bothering to ensure uniform uniforms, and with so small a number of "cadets?"

This felt much less organic throughout than that Woody Allen movie where he took an already released Japanese movie and substituted his own dialogue.

The boys were pretty and there were moments where the actors managed to get my interest & empathy DESPITE the total lack of any help from the vehicle they were performing in.

It may well be me. There are a number of very positive reviews of this film by critics from The NY Times and The Village Voice et. al. but after seeing this I'm if some form of payola wasn't involved...

I LOVE this movie. I loved it the first time I watched it, and I've loved it even more each of the three times I've watched it since then; it continues to astonish me.

The adaptation of Romeo and Juliet to an all-boys' military academy is very effective, and Seth Numrich (Sam/Romeo) and Matt Doyle (Glenn/Juliet) have the most electrifyingly romantic scenes I've seen in a long time - maybe ever. Hale Appleman (Josh/Mercutio) is riveting, the best actor in a very gifted cast (all of whom are young New York theatre actors who had prior experience with Shakespeare on stage).

Familiarity with Romeo and Juliet will help a lot in following the fast-moving and sometimes chaotic story, and multiple viewings are well worth the time and effort.

Many people who don't like Private Romeo just don't like Shakespeare, which is understandable in a generation raised on reality TV and crap like Avatar and the superhero/action movie that gets remade under a different title several times every year.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, serious devotees of Shakespeare may have a problem with the liberties taken, not only in the male Juliet but in the slightly changed ending; but they cannot fault the amazing spirit of this movie - Shakespeare would be writing an even more glowing review if he were here. For people who love Shakespeare but are okay with free adaptations and low budgets, this is about as good as it gets. Even intelligent straight people may like it.

The "balcony" scene is especially glorious, the most perfect mating of language and feeling I have ever seen; but all four or five of their love scenes are revelations. I wish I had a hundred stars to lavish on this most excellent little movie.

(People who see elements of the defunct "don't ask - don't tell" policy of the US military are projecting their own issues onto the movie, which contains not even the slightest hint of homophobia. The fact that both the lovers are male is in no way the cause of any conflict in Private Romeo. Somewhat as in Shakespeare, it's a rivalry between cliques in the school and has nothing whatsoever to do with the sex of the lovers.)

This was really a nice adaptation of "R&J'...Yes it took some liberties, but it was well acted and, in the end, a very sweet tale.

I am not sure why it has gotten such negative reviews. No...it is not your typical "gay" movie...which is why it works. THe movie is dependent on the Shakeperean text which may have turned some off.

The actors are all believable, and if not the best acting I have seen, it is much better than a lot of cheesy movies of the genre. The two leads, Seth Numrich and Matt Doyle play their angst and conflict quite well, drawing the viewer in to their plight.

If you go into this film with no expectations you should enjoy it. I think if you are looking for a "gay" film or a masterful adaptation of Shakespeare you will be disappointed. Take it for what it is and enjoy it.

I loved and was entranced by this very beautiful, and beautifully done, movie. At first I was worried that the use of Shakespeare's original language was going to feel gimmicky or distracting (as it often has been in other projects...such as, in my opinion, in the Baz Luhrmann "Romeo+Juliet" film, which had other charms, to be sure, and I liked it a lot, but regarding the Shakespearean spoken dialog, I had felt that neither Leonardo DiCaprio nor Clare Danes, who are certainly otherwise good actors, had the slightest idea what they were actually saying), but instead, this film illuminated Shakespeare's language and I feel that I had rarely heard those words spoken with such beauty, clarity, and understanding. The actors completely inhabited those lines and from the powerfully projective strength of their voices, it was obvious to me that these were very talented and even classically-trained actors.

They all had the physical good looks that makes you think they could have been cast on looks, alone, and yet to see the actual TALENT they all had, was rather amazing. A little investigation later revealed that many, if not all, of them were far more interested in the New York and London theater scenes than they were in "Hollywood", and this film is probably not a "Hollywood" film, anyway.

For typical Hollywood film audiences, this film might have been narratively confusing in several different ways. For example, the director made the decision to retain the feminine gender pronouns in the dialog, and yet, despite the fact that this movie was set in an all-boys military academy, I didn't feel that these words were meant to be used insultingly or as put-downs, even when spoken to or about those in "enemy" camps. Nor was their use meant to take on a "drag queen" type of persona, like "say girl", and "she" this and that. No. These men were always clearly masculine, and especially so throughout all their wooing and love-making, and let's underscore that they were young WARRIORS, so no asking "who is the man and who is the woman in the relationship", they are both (as were all of them) MEN, okay?

For me, at any rate, it was almost automatic to either ignore the specificity of the gender pronouns (understanding that the original Shakespeare was being used without alteration or distortion), or, perhaps better, to transcend the sexual implications of gender into their spiritual qualities. For, in truth, it is only those with the least developed masculinity who are afraid to express love, to be tender and physically affectionate toward other men, to be caring and sheltering, for the fear that those qualities will "compromise" their masculinity (instead of what actually happens, it enhances it). And if sex, and marriage comes along with it, well, they're sovereign adults who know their own hearts.

I admit that were some aspects that I didn't quite get, such as why were these two "camps" enemies? They weren't from rival schools, they were in the same classrooms and shower rooms, but maybe they were on rival athletic teams within the school, and, being quite competitive naturally, any alliance across teams was frowned upon. But I never really quite got where that conflict came from. (Perhaps oversimplifying it, I can best think of this in "Harry Potter" terms, different "houses", that in this film the "Capulet" and "Montague" were equivalent to "Gryffendor" and "Slitherin".)

I did not pick up on any homophobia; it might have been there or alluded to or assumed, but I did not think that it specifically was the love between the two boys, AS two boys, that was, itself, a problem, and if I am right, then this unquestioned acceptance of that added quite a bit to the dream-like quality or maybe idealized atmosphere of the film. For then in the film's "dreamtime," then, they are beyond that issue (as it is way high time for it to be in our everyday world).

I am willing to accept that my various problems in understanding certain things indicates my imperceptions rather than failings in the construction of the film. A subsequent watching (which I am eager to do) may very well clear up every question.

But, instead of getting lost in the minutia of plot points and evaluating the correlation of the meaning between the original Shakespearean love story and a modern-day version set in an all-boys military school, I think it was much better to merely swim in the dreamy artistry and beauty of the project as a whole, to enjoy it as the work of art it is instead of merely as a narrative story.

The two boys, "Romeo" and "Juliet" were fantastic together while swirling in and speaking to one another Shakespeare's gorgeous words. It was enough to bring tears to my eyes. I think that Shakespeare, himself, would have loved this film, and from reading his "Sonnets", I especially think so! I am also reminded of another of his plays that I love, "As You Like It", where, in my view, love transcends "gender" (or, at least, the temporary appearance of gender).

All in all, despite a few minor flaws, this was a very worthwhile film to see and if you like Shakespeare at all, I think this film will increase your appreciation of his work (and to see how well it continues to universally apply), and if you hadn't known the director and the performers previously, the film introduces you to some seriously talented professionals whose careers are very much to be kept abreast of.

This is quite a creative reimagining of the "Romeo & Juliet" story that shifts the setting from Verona to an American military academy. Therein, are eight cadets who essentially adopt the roles of the Montagues and Capulets - but with a difference. All are male. Using an hybrid of Shakespeare's own language and a modern day soundtrack along with an overtly militaristic scenario, the love story unfolds. Creator Alan Brown has done quite well here. Clearly the budget was pretty minimal, but he uses light and shadow, pulls focus, includes dance and sport - all to create, effectively enough, a modern-day appreciation of affection, bigotry and intolerance. It's not that it swipes at the US military's approach to being gay, per se, it highlights it - and it also demonstrates that regardless of the overarching "policy", it is down to individual people to implement lasting change and improvements. The cast work well together and the film, though it does require concentration, flows along well. Maybe a bit too long, and the sound mix isn't always the best - but it's an interesting watch this.

I was recently able to watch this movie at a cinema in NY on my travels and I must take my hat off to Alen Brown for making an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet so perfectly without getting carried away with trying to make it something it is not.

I have heard so many people say that it makes no sense calling a male by a female name but I believe that is what makes it so brilliant. The film is able to show a gay Romeo and Juliet story without getting caught up in the titles that we believe everything should fit into.

The boys are Romeo and Juliet they have a love that is pure and as clear as day but have to overcome the blindness of others. To be as talented as Shakespeare was at writhing plays you have to be able to create something that touches everyone in a different way this film shows just that. Sadly in order for you to fully understand the brilliance of this film you have to leave all your judgments behind.

I believe that Shakespeare would have been proud of how his masterpiece on unbiased love holds true in this film!

Truly ground-breaking!

Brotherhood and Love....and not about the bashing....and not about the hate....and not about the struggle. Because...I think we need more films like that....I think we need more things saying that Love is Universal....and it is beautiful, no matter what. And I'm really proud to be a part of this project."

(( These words are the heartfelt expressions of Matty Doyle (Glenn / Juliet), in preparing to give an encore rendition of "You Made Me Love You", at the following YouTube address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25_D9qvxJ0c ))

Bringing life and passion to a 400+ year old play is a gutsy, yet potentially tricky endeavor. In doing so, Director Alan Brown had a "Nice" idea (he's had them before). BUT...will raw Shakespeare (let alone with a cast not-trained-in-Shakespeare) pull in everyday Gay viewers around the world? Time and return on expenses will tell. Though I personally hunger for the success of this film work, that "BUT" remains a potential killer for his efforts.

Still and all, if anything can keep this film work alive...and long remembered...it will the touching, yet sizzling, Love Story given us by Seth Numrich (Sam / Romeo) and Matt Doyle (Glenn / Juliet). They hold absolutely nothing back in both their emotional and physical lovemaking. Their scenes together are oh-so-easy for this reviewer to play, and replay again.

BUT, now I must be honest...and say that about the basics of this Story---the basics of Shakespeare---I am ill-equipped to give you more. Yet, there is someone....someone from the several existing reviews of this film, whose deeply descriptive and perceptive words say it all. And those words belong to Rachel Schweissinger, and can be found in her May 19, 2012 review at Amazon.com, entitled: "Outstanding, Heartbreaking, Haunting, Beautiful". Do yourself a favor and read them.

PS--Thank you, Matt Doyle, for giving us a today's-rendition of "You Made Me Love You." It's right up there with another favorite---Harry Nilsson's 1973** track of that same song. And perhaps you'll consider another visit to "Feinsteins" and give us your go at R & J's true Signature Song: "Always" (the perfect lyrics for J. to sing to R.). Oh, and Harry needs the competition.

**Audio CD/MP3---"A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night"

There is something great about Romeo & Juliet being adapted into a story of love between two men. But there was something that seemed confusing in the tale of why exactly the love was being denied or opposed. In the original R&J it was clear of the opposing families and we now look at such things & question why this would be the reality. Of course there are still many who get pressured to marry someone other than who they love. Maybe I was slow in figuring it out, but I could not grasp who was opposing the arrangement & why. And in this day & age the R&J story kind of does not hold up. Would you be willing to die if you can not marry the one you love? If you think this way, then you need help. Nothing should come before your own wellbeing.

I recently rented this film after having discovered it entirely by accident. I admit that I am a Romeo and Juliet Junkie, but I am always open to new settings and the like. The more I delved into the film, the more attached I got to these characters. These guys were outstanding in their own way, how they played the characters, how they conveyed the poetry and making it seem completely natural. Seth Numrich and Matt Doyle perfectly conveyed the romance of Seth/Romeo and Glenn/Juliet. While some people may easily be bothered by a gay interpretation of Romeo and Juliet, I had no issues/problems with it at all. The chemistry between those two was so sweet and innocent, I could not help but be drawn into the story. For me, even if I was bothered, the poetry and the story are all that matters! Doyle in particular makes a very strong Juliet, standing up to the bullying Hale Appleman's Lord Capulet/Mercutio (also outstanding). The film is beautifully shot, with close-ups on the lover's hands as they hold and touch one another. There are plenty of other tender moments throughout. The setting is also very sparse, with the empty hallways and courtyards, like the stage is waiting for the tragedy to unfold. I won't say anything about the ending, other than I was oddly satisfied. Somehow it works. And this movie does too. I cannot wait to add it to my Shakespeare collection.

I loved the modern adaptation of Romeo+Juliet by Baz Luhrmann with Leorando Di Caprio. I thought it would be interesting to push it a step further with a gay relationship. Except that it doesn't work.

It doesn't work to call a guy "Juliet", to call him Madame. Maybe it would work with a film about transgender.

It doesn't work for a unified class to be split along two opposite camps (the Capulets & the Montagues). Maybe it would have make sense with a small group of special forces corp confronting a small group of terrorists.

It doesn't work for a small budget film with only a dozen actors to take place in a huge military school.

Last but not least, I did not like the way the camera was handled. Many times, the image is blur, and I'm even not sure this is done on purpose.

A group of failed gay porn stars trying to do a Reader's Digest condensed very of Shakespeare. I say failed because, yes, they may have good bodies, but they are all quite ugly. The 'acting' is all strictly bad high school amateur quality. And to add insult to injury, they tack on a happy ending (no one is killed and the lovers both survive and are happy together). What I wish someone would do is the original version, which did have an all-male, with boys playing the female roles. Of course they would have to find young boys who could actual act and I doubt they have many in Canada. I guess the setting was chosen was the cheapest available...as were the actors and director. Oh, and if you thought this might be in some way 'erotic', you would be wrong. There is no sex, except for a couple of kisses, and no nudity, except from the waist up. It would probably get a PG rating if it weren't 'gay'. Probably the worst Shakespeare film ever made.

Updated Shakespeare is all the rage since the days of doing Hamlet in modern dress, or the nude version. We have seen and enjoyed everything from Richard III to Coriolanus in updated fashion.

A few years back we offered a course in Updated Shakespeare to English majors, and we found a growing army of updated tales on film, whether it was Much Ado about Nothing or A Midsummer Night's Dream.

We even loved Leonardo DiCaprio's Romeo and Juliet, and we came with some trepidation to something called Private Romeo.

The premise seemed a mite strained. A few cadets at a military academy are left alone at the campus, fending for themselves while the officers and other cadets are off on maneuvers. In one class the stranded and bereft young cadets are studying Shakespeare's romantic tragedy, and they seem to begin to live it.

The idea is not so far-fetched, as the original play deals with young hothead teenage gang members in rival factions. There is a secret love story interwoven among the hostilities and budding male adolescent angst.

So it is in Private Romeo. The shock of the rival gangs over Romeo's love may be more palatable because the forbidden affair is with another cadet. We found the Shakespearean dialog most apt to cover the situation.

The idea of first-love being misguided and overly passionate may befit a gay tale of coming out among cadets.

We can forgive a small budget movie stretching its wings, and we can even forgive a half dozen cadets looking like the Glee Club, not future ROTC members. Apart from that, the story picks up steam under director Alan Brown.

Scenes from R&J are cleverly woven into conversations about Romeo's unorthodox military affair. Action plays out on basketball court and chemistry lab. Like Elizabethan times, male actors play female roles like Nurse and Juliet's mother, this time in the guise of young cadets. The actors handle multiple roles and dialog is lifted from Shakespeare to meet the situation.

This brave effort features Matt Doyle as Cadet Mangan and his alter ego Juliet. Doyle is soft and vulnerable, but hardly feminine or in drag. Seth Numrich plays Cadet Singleton and Romeo. They are commendable.

If all male casts disturb you, you would not have been able to appreciate Shakespeare's work played by all male casts in the writer's lifetime.

I saw the film at Outfest at the Ford. We were a trapped audience due to the stacked parking in the lot. Otherwise, I believe many would have left early. Lots of grumbles as we were walking out. No one understood the movie. It was a warped idea of a modern Romeo & Juliet that just didn't work. The script was forced to format. The actors were good and surprisingly got an award from Outfest for their acting. It also had moments of music video stuff out of the blue thrown into the middle of the movie that didn't have anything to do with the plot. No one I talked to liked the movie accept the distributor who picked it up over all the other great movies that played at the festival.

The problem with Shakespeare and any adaptations like this one is that the modern viewer fails to become emotionally connected because the language used is so "unusual" and at times difficult to make sense of. If the language and dialogue used is NOT like REAL language that everyday people use, then NONE of the drama seems REAL enough to feel any real emotions. It's too obvious that the whole piece is STAGED and therefore UNREAL. An effective drama should seem real - like it's really happening or could have really happened just as it is depicted. This is why melodrama is NOT effective. Melodrama is overacting....effected speech and mannerisms. It's NOT REAL....and therefore the audience cannot become emotionally engaged. Having made this point....the actors were all good, young and cute and I would love to have seen them in a really good true to life romantic gay drama. But I absolutely loved the closing song, "You made me love you", a Judy Garland tribute to Clark Gable back in the 1930s.

Last night I discovered this little gem of a film ... a homoerotic take on the classic play "Romeo and Juliet" with some great acting and some handsome infectious chemistry between "Romeo" and "Juliet" ... I strongly recommend this!!

The weirdest movie I've ever watch. Not only because I can't enjoy it, moreover it's so boring to follow. I don't even know what they're talking about. I believe there's another way to make this movie much better, btw i like the artist tho, they're good at acting.