Comparing Luhrmann's Romeo And Juliet

The story of Romeo and Juliet has been altered and tweaked over the years in many movies. One of the many versions of the story is in the movie called Romeo and Juliet two stars, which was directed by Baz Luhrmann. Roger Ebert, a famous film critic, gave Luhrmann’s version of Romeo and Juliet two stars because to him it is not a good version of the original story of Romeo and Juliet and that it messed up the story. I completely agree with Ebert's opinion and choice of giving two stars to Luhrmann’s movie because I feel that it was a poorly directed film and that it ruined the story of Romeo and Juliet. Ebert has watched many versions of Romeo and Juliet and after he watched the movie directed by Luhrmann he says he has that he, “never seen anything remotely approaching the mess that the new punk version of Romeo & Juliet makes of Shakespeare's tragedy”. Ebert claims that he has never seen anything as terrible as the punk version of Romeo and Juliet, which I completely agree on. After watching Romeo and Juliet for the first time, I thought that the movie was

He said that, “The desperation with which it tries to “update” the play and make it “relevant” is greatly depressing”. I also feel the same way toward this particular category as Ebert does. In the original movie the Shakespearean dialogue that was spoken seemed to be appropriate to the setting, the old city of Verona, but in Luhrmann’s movie a modernized city was not an appropriate setting to use the Shakespearean dialogue. Another change the director made in what I can assume to an improvement in his thoughts was the replacement of swords by guns, which was referred to as swords in the movie. The use of guns makes sense in a city rather than a sword, but it would not fit in with the story of Romeo and Juliet. In my judgement the use of guns was a factor in which the movie was not good and why it received a bad