Reader Reviews
Romeo and Juliet (Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford-Upon-Avon)
Back to Show Details| Score | Comment | Date |
 | Pacy, straightforward production. Perhaps lacking a little in chemistry between R&J. So traditional that it's almost revolutionary - but this seems to add a freshness to the production. Sian Brooke is the very epitome of a Juliet. More solid than insightful - but that is part of its charm. EW - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.252.192.13) | 17 Sep 04 |
| I was very disapointed with the production. The actors looked like they were almost sick of doing it and were simply going though the motions. There was absolutaly no chemistry whatsoever between Matthew Rhy's Romeo and Sian Brooke's Juliet - and it didn't look like the actors cared too much about this either. Rhys's Romeo looked like he'd just stepped out of Oxford University wearing a completely unecessary scalf throughout and moaning like there was no tomorrow - if anything you just want to give him a slap and tell him to shut up. Sian Brooke did try and bring a childlike innoce to Juliet but because of bad direction, and so forth ,her character looked just as bland as the rest of them. Also Emily Raymonds portrayel of Lady Capulet was absolutaly terrible! She couldn't seem to decide what she wanted the character to be and in the end just came off being totally non-descript. There were a few good bits - namely June Watsons nurse who at least looked like she had some idea about what she was doing and actually seemed to enjoy playing her part. Also special mention must go to Matt Cross's peter who practically stole the whole show with his little part - he truely was hilarious at some points and really looked like he was having a whale of time. Overall, for the price, I wouldn't recomend it - your money could be better well spent. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.207.242) | 28 Aug 04 |
| "R&J" is not one of my favourite Shakespeare plays but I thoroughly enjoyed this production - visually gorgeous and well-acted (on the whole...some younger members of the cast display problems with verse-speaking and diction which seem not to have been addressed during the generous rehearsal period). I saw this production with a 14 year old cousin and she was transfixed from beginning to end. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.92.168.169) | 05 Aug 04 |
| I'm studying 'Romeo and Juliet' for GCSE English and Drama and I was very disappointed with this production. I felt there was no chemistry between Romeo and Juliet and the actors weren't atall convincing. The lines weren't delivered naturally and I was unmoved by the ending. I found Juliet very unconvincing - she attempted to seem young but only seemed like an inexperienced actor trying too hard. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (81.153.19.1) | 15 May 04 |
| An enjoyable, lively production. Sian Brooke's is a beautiful and intelligent Juliet and an actress that looks bound for bigger things, as does Matthew Rhys. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.252.192.10) | 25 Apr 04 |
| Given the much publicised length of the cast's preparation for this season, this was a dissapointing production. That is not to say the production is bad, but it simply fails to provide new illumination or magic. The set was uninspired, and the lighting worse. Leo Wringer's Escalus appeared to need eye contact with each member of the audience for his soliliquies providing the image of one of those nodding dogs in the back of cars which was distracting. Gideon Turner's Mercutio gave nothing of the combination of humour and insight that the part requires and this, as much as anything, left a gap in the production's impact. Matthew Rhys's Romeo is portrayed as fidgety - almost as if he is suffering from ADD (while in contrast John Normington's fine Friar Laurence stands stock still while talking with him) - which is an interesting insight to explain his switch in attention from Rosaline to Juliet, but it failed to capture any sense of romance or infactuation in the relationship, while the beautiful Sian Brooke, while looking every inch a Juliet, lacked any chemistry with Rhys. She appears stronger when he is not on stage which is hardly testament to her enfactuation with him. That said, the production is well spoken and efficient, and in David Hargreaves (Capulet) and June Watson (Nurse) there are two performances that have seldom been bettered. The magic when either of these two were on the stage ensured that the evening is enjoyable. It is ironic though that in a play about young love, that the play is carried by the older cast members. It was a brave move to begin the new era with such well known and loved plays, but in order to make this work to positive effect, the demands on the director and cast are so high that these need to be exceptional. This isn't - it is just solid. As part of the "tradgedy" series, it is perhaps the tradgedy that this play misses the wild, all encompassing enfatuation (or some might argue love, but lets not forget that R&J are in their early teens). Without this, the play simply does not carry any power. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.252.0.6) | 14 Apr 04 |
| This performance was assigned our A level theatre studies exam text and therefore i had my fingers crossed that this production would give me lots to write about. Unfortunately what i got was a very ordinary, boring and lifeless Romeo and Juliet. Not recommended I'm afraid to say ... my whole drama group agreed but i'm sure others will fight its corner - USER: Whatsonstage.com (217.44.29.139) | 13 Apr 04 |
