MovieChat Forums > Romeo & Juliet Discussion > Romeo is always so....

Romeo is always so....

posted 11 years ago by CoraJack
4 replies | jump to latest

hot!!!! Why is Juliet always cast as some plain girl, which ruins the belief of the pull of passion to begin with? Leo and Claire were the same....so miscast with Claire. Here we go again. Shakespeare never said that Juliet had to be a plain Jane with no physical attraction at all. He said they were both beautiful...but Romeo always has to shine.

I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all but....give me a break.

Sorry just watched the trailer and wanted to barf again over all this remake mess.

[–] gibsonj338-3 11 years ago

I am watching the 1996 version for the xth time right now and I think that Leo and Clare were perfect for the role of Romeo and Juliet. Out of all the Romeo and Juliet movie adaptations, this one is my favorite. I just found out about this vision via this website and am sort of excited about wanting to see this movie in the movie theatre but I have to give it more thought before I decide for sure if I want to spend $8.50.

[–] teenymaureeny 11 years ago

I think they've been appropriately cast. I think for that particular time period, beauty was different in comparison to today's idea of beauty. Juliet has to possess innocence, inner beauty, playful youth, and of course physical beauty. Females with those qualities were scarce back then. With that, I believe more in the love between Romeo and Juliet.

2 cute 2 listen!

[–] MydnightRose 10 years ago

I agree, Claire was rather unattractive especially compared to Leonardo. Hailey is cute enough but next to Douglas anyone woukd have to be a 10 to compete. Olivia was arguably the most beautiful Juliet and the only one who wasn't outshined by her male lead.

Brian Kinney & Justin Taylor

[–] rc1990 8 years ago

Claire had the perfect innocent look all over her face. She had the acting skills too.