well . where do i start . say that this version of shakespeare classic be too hollywood be insulting hollywood . in fact and when i come to think what director in film history blow more literary classic and the name of george cukor immediately come to mind . not that he be a bad director and he make very good movie such a the philadelphia story and but any time he touch a classic book and the result bit the big one . we can blame david oselznick for the inclusion of 34 year old norma shearer a shakespeare 13 year old juliet ( and so and leslie howard a an equally olde romeo ) and but we have to blame mr. cukor for have her act with a level of vomitive cuteness not reach even in the bad high school production of the play . come on and what it with the introductory bambi scene . not even disney would have do this to the bard . this kind of cutesy cute camp seem to be a cukor trademark represent any time i think of elizabeth allan a clara copperfield wave to freddie bartholomew a he leave in barkis cart in the year before david copperfield and i feel sick . another of georgie trademark i can not stomach be the inevitable add of corny and unfunny comic relief . in this case and edna may oliver a the nurse and and specially andy devine and turn peter into a retard ( a be mr. dick in the mentioned copperfield ) . that not the kind of witty humor that be present in some moment of the bard tragedy . and speaking of that and and let me apologize if someone find this homophobic and nothing far to my intention and but cukor have a tendence to recreate sissy character . i know he be gay and but that doesn not mean that he authorize to turn what maybe the play most interesting supporting character and mercutio and into rupaul . john barrymore act be terrible in this one . in fact and there only an example of good acting here and and that the always solid basil rathbone a tybalt . leslie howard be a good actor and but all wrong for the part and and all the others rank from unmemorable to awful . and the sissiness go on represent all the film look like a wigstock celebration and with wicked gay touch and a make rosaline ( the girl romeo rave about before meeting juliet ) an extremately plain look woman with not much attractive . this gay approach make the film more of a travesty and independently from the theory about the bard homosexuality . however and people seem to like the film because it respect the text of the play almost verbatim . but i wouldn not care if they change or cut thing out and if they respect the spirit of the classic represent it about teen angst and people . read the book . you can have the full text and but i think the subtext be even more important . and there no subtext in this version and at least not the one shakespeare intend . my question be represent have this play ever be accurately adapt to the big or small screen . it much more than a pompous love story .