Hacker Cinema
Romeo + Juliet
1996 · Film · 120 min
Directed by Baz Luhrmann
In this contemporary take on William Shakespeare's classic tragedy, the Montagues and Capulets have moved their ongoing feud to the sweltering suburb of Verona Beach, where Romeo and Juliet fall in love and secretly wed. Though the film is visually modern, the bard's dialogue remains.
3 positive4 neutralfrom 7 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
7 comments on Hacker News
I haven't read much of Shakespeare, but the lightbulb moment for me personally was the 1996 "Romeo + Juliet" movie with DiCaprio. The modern contextualization makes it so much easier to parse the period dialogue.
I am on the other side. I found the movie was a faithful rendering.
But I was bored.
I wish someone will at some piont make a free adaptation, like romeo+juliet, romeo must die, the 2009 BBC version of Hamlet, etc. were.
Gang wars with Oakland police brutality with climate eco terrorists and Indians in reserve and a mad voodoo cult or something and a mind destroying drug/device à la a scanner darkly that gives people ability to foresee things (edit: told from the perspective of a Irulan the freelance social worker). Or maybe a 16th/17h pirate movie with European powers and full blown mysticism at the foreground. The same story but with a very different spin. I like remixes :).
Great movie, not my taste. Hope they can do part 2 for people who enjoyed it :).
You can guess I rather like the other thing, Foundation the TV show. Wish the they can pull it off and have time and resources to get their vision on screens.
I had a cool english teacher in high school and he let us watch the movie Romeo + Juliet :)
https://imdb.com/title/tt0117509/
> So many video game movie projects are missing the simple question, "why?" So many of these games are inspired by movies in the first place, and their stories are mostly just cliches based on their source material.
I agree.
> It's fine in the context of the game, because the player is doing something, but when you put that into a non-interactive medium, the flaws become obvious.
All forms of art are inspired by other forms of art, this is no basis to write them off. Would you dismiss Michelangelo's work because he was influenced by Giovanni? Or Giovanni because he worked under Donatello? Should we just write off all fantasy novels post Tolkien? What about D&D? Or Warhammer? The Matrix was obviously inspired by the cyberpunk universes created by authors like William Gibson, do we just dismiss it?
There's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from other works and you can successfully create something new and wonderful when doing so.
> If you take Indiana Jones, turn it into a game with a sexy woman as the main character[1], and then try to make a movie out of it, then of course the critical reaction is going to be "Indiana Jones but not as good."
The Nation Treasure movies were pretty well received despite being "Indiana Jones without a whip or Nazis". Apart from Indiana Jones being an archeologist tomb raider, the similarities with the Tomb Raider franchise are minimal. The reason the first Tomb Raider movies were so poorly received is because they just bad 90s action movies skinned with Tomb Raider IP, lipstick on a pig.
Looking at the new Tomb Raider movie's trailer, I'm betting it's going to fail as well. It might actually be a decent movie but fans of the game will hate it for rebooting the story and people who don't play video games will avoid it for being a video game movie.
In my opinion, successful adaptations work when they're loyal to the source material and improve upon it.
The Island of Doctor Moreau is a great example. The book itself is a bit dated with 19th century science about vivisection that is preposterous to even the layman today. The premise though is sound and 1996 movie adaptation remains true to it while updating the science and as a result it is a wonderful adaptation.
The the Marvel Cinematic universe has been so successful despite plots that beat a dead horse, you could even argue that they repeat their own plots in subsequent movies. Despite that they're a resounding success because they're loyal to the source material and improve upon it by bringing the action to life in a way that's impossible in comics.
There are plenty of video games that have interesting characters, stories, or even premises that could be adapted into films, I think the main problem is that Hollywood is uninterested in making a good movie, they just looking to cache in on the IP.
> It's an issue that comes up in most adaptation, whether it be a book, or a comic, or even a song. There needs to be some reason to do it. Some idea that the source material does that hasn't already been done to death in film.
I agree with your sentiment but disagree with your assertion that the innovation must come from the source. The play Romeo and Juliet inspired West Side Story in 1961 and was adapted into at least 10 films since yet the 1996 movie Romeo + Juliet received critical acclaim despite retaining almost all of the dialog from the original play.
> "This game/movie/book is popular" isn't a good enough reason.
Why not? The Harry Potter series seems to have done pretty well for itself despite not really bringing anything really new to the table in terms of story telling or worlds. What makes the series so beloved?
I think there are plenty of video games that could inspire a decent movie. The universe that the Portal and Half-life games exists in has so much potential. I could see a compelling film being made about Barney, Alyx Vance and the City 17 resistance fighters prior to the events of Half-Life 2. Or maybe a story about some aspect of Aperture Science Laboratories as alluded to in Portal 2's various levels.
The movie is called Romeo+Juliet :) And agree it is a great version. I'm pretty sure it is supposed to take place in a fictionalized LA - "Verona Beach" is a clever play on "Venice beach" since it allows the characters to just say "Verona" like in the play.
I think it's more about priority. You might want to see a Romeo & Juliet movie with good characters even if it's not original. Lots of mystery movies have surprise endings and aren't rewatchable. You might feel interested in a super-original movie even if it's not very enjoyable.
The gulf between homage and derivative work is quite wide. Consider a few examples of famous derivative works: Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, Alice in Wonderland, Apocalypse Now, Muppet Christmas Carol. Right now there are no less than 3 different ongoing adaptations of Sherlock Holmes (the movie series, the BBC series, and CBS's Elementary series).
These are works that would be patently illegal if the source material were not in the public domain. This isn't just about "remix culture", it's about being able to adapt and interpret what's out there, fully and without restriction. Clearly there is value to allowing such artistic freedom once a work has grown sufficiently old. However, today that age has grown quite impractically long. A movie such as War of the Worlds (a 110+ year old book) can be made without seeking a licensing agreement, but movies such as The Hobbit (a 75 year old book), King Kong (79 years), The Chronicles of Narnia (62 years), Casino Royale (59 years), or The Dark Knight Rises (73 years) still require licensing.
And the sad part is that even in the next 20 years when, say, the Superman IP will be pushing 100 years old and Mickey Mouse even older it seems likely that such things will still require licensing.
The fact that the current IP laws have not utterly destroyed creativity or the productivity of creative industries is not a ringing endorsement. The fact is that they are stifling and they have been responsible for creating an industry which is too heavily controlled by a small group.