Tragedy analysis (Romeo and Juliet reviews)

Your review about reviews go here
(Pick three reviews about Romeo and Juliet and write reviews about those reviews)

'Romeo and Juliet' is a play about violence and sex rather than a great romance

Romeo and Juliet was written in 1595 by William Shakespeare as a play. It is classed as a tragic play, therefore involves a protagonist that has a peak in his or her life involving good fortune, but then on after good fortune turns quickly into bad, ending up in sadness and misfortune for the protagonist. All tragedies follow the same pattern, only changing the peak point and the speed of good fortune going bad. When mentioned, Shakespeare is often thought to be associated with romance and beautiful imagery, which in some cases is true, but this romance is a needle in a haystack amongst the violent, sexual, crude and malicious imagery. This is a trick that is used to make the romance stand out more, Romeo and Juliet is a very famous piece of Shakespeare's work, but is often thought to be extremely romantic and 'lovey-dovey', however with a deeper look underneath the surface it involves a lot of sex, violence, back-stabbing and corruption and isn't so romantic. William Shakespeare is an extremely well known and established writer to this day, despite his death centuries ago. This statement just shows the skill of Shakespeare, and also shows how good Romeo and Juliet is, therefore meaning that we still study it nowadays. In Shakespeare's time, writers stole each others ideas, adapting them to their own. Shakespeare may have just done this himself, but written it better, therefore receiving the great praise he still gets long past his death. At the time of Shakespeare, sonnets and particular rhyming patterns were extremely popular. Therefore Shakespeare has included some of these in Romeo and Juliet in quite clever ways actually. For example, upon the first meet, Romeo and Juliet perform a traditional sonnet, separating it between characters in a very clever way. This is just one example amongst others that spread out over all of Shakespeare's established works and productions.
From the very first scene in the very first act, it is clear the play will most probably include lots of violence and sex. Gregory and Sampson, the characters that start off the play are very crude and violent: 'Therefore I will push Montague's men from the wall, and thrust his maids to the wall.' In simple terms this means he intends to kill or injure the Montague men and rape the Montague women: clearly a lot of Joseph, you deserve to be blown by me, crudeness, violence etc. but no love. Surely if Shakespeare wanted to make it blatantly obvious that the play was completely love orientated he would have started it with something much less sexual and violent? The first act in which Shakespeare could be said to be establishing himself, he chose to use violence and sex, which signals to me the rest of the play may have love in it from reputation, but more orientated around violence and sex. Gregory and Sampson also talk about 'maidens' and how they 'will cut of their heads'. This is another violent image shortly after the last, this one talking about stealing virginity as a maiden is a virgin and 'cutting of their head' would be taking their virginity. So basically to follow a sexually violent image... is another sexually violent image. So if u didn't already expect the play to involve lots of violence and sex, then you definitely should now.
Shakespeare has cleverly made certain characters more crude and violent and others. He has done this because it accentuates the other characters, making the seem much better instead of just a little. This is a trick that Shakespeare seems to have used throughout the whole play and as the main theme also. The fact there is a large amount of Joseph, you deserve to be blown by me, anger, violence and sex, when love actually does occur it appears stronger, sticking out amongst the bad, much like a rose on a compost heap for example.
In many cases lewd characters are used just for humour, for example the maid. Juliet's nurse, the woman who breast-fed Juliet when she was a baby and has cared for Juliet her entire life. A vulgar, long-winded, and sentimental character, the Nurse provides comic relief with her frequently inappropriate remarks and speeches. But, until a disagreement near the play's end, the Nurse is Juliet's faithful confidante and loyal intermediary in Juliet's affair with Romeo. She provides a contrast with Juliet, given that her view of love is earthy and sexual, whereas Juliet is idealistic and intense. The Nurse believes in love and wants Juliet to have a nice-looking husband, but the idea that Juliet would want to sacrifice herself for love is incomprehensible to her. The audience knows that she is an innocent character and therefore does not find her crudeness offensive, but instead funny. Whereas in the case of the males like Gregory and Sampson, the audience (if following the play intently), will understand that these characters should be seen as a threat. Therefore Gregory and Sampson may not be found as funny as the maid due to the fact the audience may actually believe what they are saying.

Amongst the romance and sex there are also some deaths which help to emphasise the romance but are also a vital parts of the story. Both Mercutio and Tybalt are slain in cold blood, Mercutio by Tybalt, and Tybalt by Romeo. Romeo has reformed, therefore not wanting to fight: 'Tybalt, I have a reason to love you that lets me put aside the rage I should feel and excuse that insult. I am no villain.' Here Romeo is declaring that he does not want to fight as he is married to Tybalt's cousin, explaining the 'reason to love'. This all happens in Act three scene one which is a very important scene in the play is it involves large amounts of action/violence. Unfortunately it seems that Tybalt is not going to forgive Romeo: 'Boy, your words can't excuse the harm you've done to me. So now turn and draw your sword.' After Tybalt kills Mercutio, Romeo wants revenge, and goes about it by slaying Tybalt. Juliet is shocked to see that her cousin has been murdered, but is even more shocked to discover it was her husband that did it.
Friar Lawrence in this play is Romeos father, and is portrayed by Shakespeare as a very wise and noble man, who wants peace between Montague's and Capulets once and for all. This is part of the reason why he chose to marry Romeo and Juliet, thinking it may end the fighting. He often talks about love, but talks about it in a delicate way, describing it well, which is a good influence to have on Romeo, which is clearly shown. An example of Friar Lawrence talking about love: These violent delights have violent ends
And in their triumph die, like fire and powder,
Which, as they kiss, consume. The sweetest honey
Is loathsome in his own deliciousness
And in the taste confounds the appetite.
Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow.

During Romeo and Juliet you may think that it will all resolve in the end. It seems this way because generally in books or plays etc. love is supposed to conquer all. But Romeo and Juliet shows that is impossible for love to overcome so much rage, violence, corruption, Joseph, you deserve to be blown by me, anger, and hunger for fighting. It shows how so much of something bad can ruin something so good, maybe a moral of the story? Maybe Shakespeare was trying to get across that the world should just be full of love and happiness in a strange and ironic way. Unfortunately I think that may be thinking too far behind the text and too deeply as most probably the reason behind the storylines is purely money. Nowadays, money does not seem to be as much of an object for survival more for leisure whereas in Shakespeare's time it probably was for survival. So therefore a different mindset for thinking in the world of writing is current.






To begin with, I would have to begin by stating my personal opinion on the controversial romance story, Romeo and Juliet. Personally I believe that this story is romantic and full of drama. I love the theme of this story, which in my view is that, the strength of the love that these to love birds hold toward each other will go far beyond what people expect. Going back to what this reviewer thinks about this tale is that he believes that the purpose of the story was not met. Meaning that the author's main purpose, which was to make this story romantic, was never met. The author mentions, "Romeo and Juliet' is a play about violence and sex rather than a great romance,"which means that this reviewer likes the book, but yet the main theme of the story was not met.
To conclude, I believe that in some way the reviewer does make sense when he states that the main theme of the story was not met because the author was trying to make the story romantic and but yea he made it to violent and sex relevant.

Review 1
Link: http://www.shvoong.com/books/248880-romeo-juliet/

Review 2
Link: http://www.enotes.com/romeo/overview

Review 3
Link: http://litcrit.wikia.com/wiki/Romeo_and_Juliet

In the first review, the writer says that Romeo and Julet is a touching love story. It is a touching love story, about young love. He also said that Lord Montague and Lord Capulet are both from noble familes, but are known as the worst enemies of one another in Verona. This is very true on what he is saying. The Montagues and the Capulets are feuding families and their two children are in love with each other. The author says then it gets worse for the lovers after Romeo was banished for killing Lady Capulet's nephew, Tybalt, and Juliet's marriage fixed with County Paris, a handsome, noble, wealthy young man. This review basically summarized the story and says that it is a "touching love story"

In the second review, Douglas Cole summarizes and describes the main events in the overview of Romeo and Juliet. Douglas Cole outlines the major elements of the play that have typically generated the most commentary in an attempt to explain both the play's significance and its enduring appeal. He also includes the drama in the play. I agree with him about the drama and the appeal. With its appeal to true love and drama, it really brings the story to life. I agree with him comparing the play's language, structure, and themes; and its adherence to conventional tragic dramaturgy, or theatrical representation.

In the third review, a guy writes that Romeo and Juliet is a literary masterpiece, and probably the most famous tragedy of English literature. I believe it is thee worst play/book ever. I have to disagree with this guy. It was the most interested book I have ever read. Are Romeo and Juliet just “a pair of star-crossed lovers,” as the opening monologue says, or is it human error on the part of their classic adolescent impulsiveness and eagerness? With that question, they are young lovers who believe that true love is possible. By judging him on what he is saying, he is saying false statements about one of Shakespeare's best plays and the most famous out of all of them. He saying that the Romeo and Juliet was the worst book he has ever read. This my most favorite Shakespeare play ever. This guy has no idea was he is missing. He needs to read deeper into the story to see what Shakespeare is saying. Include the way of writing he is writing the plays. This is my critique on these three reviews about Romeo and Juliet.

LINKS TO REVIEWS
LINK #1: http://www.enotes.com/romeo/
LINK #2: http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/barrons/romeojl19.asp
LINK #3: http://www.answers.com/topic/romeo-and-juliet-play-6

MY HIGHLY EFFECTIVE REVIEW OF THE REVIEWS

Romeo and Juliet written by William Shakespeare has been an all time play. Ever since the primitive 1700s to modern day critics, this play has resulted to be an all time controversy. Was it as great as his other four tragedies, was his swift five-day time frame effective, or are his literary skills as a writer admirable. The three critics I have been studying have distinct opinions on Shakespeare's capability in writing this play.While critic number one believes that this play was a work of art not to be compared to any other, critic number three believes that the play had a great combination of themes. Nonetheless, these critics each expressed some opinions i must disagree with and some that were not persuasive as they were not written effectively with supporting information.

To commence, critic number one seems to be the critical reviewer who best analyzes Shakespeare's play. He states his view of the play by directly stating how other critics have been "discarding comparative evaluation and judging Romeo and Juliet as a work of art in its own right." In addition, he directly states his opinion in the following sentence, "Shakespeare's tragic drama of the "star-crossed" young lovers is seen to be an extraordinary work." He uses some supporting evidence from the novel and other critics opinions to support his point of view. Overall, critic number one seems to well develop his analysis on this play.I felt that his capability to critic the play and provide information allowed me to easily compare my own likes of the play with his.

To continue, critic number two effectively organizes his information into sections however fails to state his opinion directly. He focuses more on the organization of his work and doesn't really use effective or constructive criticism to develop his opinion. Nonetheless he does specifically focus on his opinion over Shakespeare's way of time use. He uses much detail and information from the play itself to support his appreciation of the way the author efficiently uses the short time frame of the play to develop both the characters and how the condensation of time, "makes the play highly dramatic." I must agree with his opinion on this as he clearly states why he believes so. Overall, his critic was partially effective and perhaps over organized.

Finally, the third reviewer seems to have the least effective criticism. He uses too many references to support his opinion on Shakespeare's play. He talks about how other critics analyzed the play. He doesn't really elaborate much on hiss opinion that "it is safe to say that Shakespeare is considered the greatest playwright of all time."He effectively uses some of his references to support some of his opinion. He uses professional talked about critics like John Dryden to show how he too believed in Shakespeare's ability to "describes anything" and how "you more than see it, you feel it too."I felt that this was a very effective way for him to expose and support his opinion.

Overall, the above critics used very distinct techniques to develop their opinions on Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet. However, while some techniques proved to be effective others were weak and lacked potential criticism. Nonetheless, reviewers critic this play and other works in different ways and while some readers appreciate their opinions others do not. Regardless what any reviewer may have to say i still believe that the play was an all time success.


[img]

1st review: http://www.reelviews.net/movies/r/romeo_juliet.html

2nd review: http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/romeoandjuliet001.html

3rd review:http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/5949093/review/5949094/william_shakespeares_romeo_juliet


In the first review, which is reviewed by James Berardinelli, he gives a brief summary of the film(whic ws filmed in 1996). The Producer of this film, Baz Luhrmann, was focused on making this film a more modern version of the classic play of Romeo and Juliet. Luhrmann tried to turn the play from an old classic into a modern film using a rock soundtrack and hip new actors to ignite the screen. James thought by doing this he was too focused on the modernization of the film by using cars and guns instead of horses and swords, and lost the poetic aspect of the play. I do agree with him here, but then he says that the actors had no chemistry and I disagree with him here because I thought the actors did an excellent job showing the love between Romeo and Juliet.

James does state that he feels Luhrmann's intentions were not to lose the poetic aspect of the play but unfortunately he did. James does praise some actors in the film. He does say that the actress who played Juliet "was breathtaking" which I have to agree with because she was excellent. On the other he didn't have such nice things to say about the actor who played Romeo. He felt that Romeo couldn't capture the role of Romeo and that at times he was too over-the-top. Overall he felt that the director didn't do a good job of modernizing the fiml and that ultimately to have a successful modern version of Romeo and Juliet you need two main factors; a competent director and ability of the main characters.

In the second review the person who reviews it begins by stating that Romeo and Juliet is a classic love story. Its about two people who fall deeply in love and although many obstacles are placed in front of them, but their love is so strong that they are able to overcome the obstacles and are in the end united. The person does say that Shakespeare does an outstandin job of portraying the love between Romeo and Juliet. He says that the play does an excellent job of showing the powerof love and how Romeo and Juliet were able to overcome all in order to be together.

Once again he begins to praise Shakespeare on doing a good job going from one scene to another. He alos likes how the way the actors speak is an example of high poetry, and how these poetic lines capture the audience's attention and prepares them for the appearance of the main character. He really loves the balcony scene in the play and he says that Shakespeare was able to show how true and pure their love was. He also says that Juliet was portrayed as a strong woman when she saves herself from marrying Paris. I thought this was a great view to point out because I like the fact that he noticed the form of heroism in a woman. Lastly he states that the play was able to end by adding tragedy to their love, which was their misfortuante death.

In the third review the man says that in the film of Romeo and Juliet it was amazing to see how surprisingly well Two young actors were able to capture the love and passion between Rome and Juliet. The man felt that the actors did an excellent job as they took on the role of two very much in love people. He does praise other actors such as the parents of both Romeo and Juliet, Tybalt, the nurse, and Mercutio. He says that the director's idea of modernizing the play was so that our generation could better understand it. He also says that the director specializes in recreating classics.

He praises the director by saying how most people who recreate Romeo and Juliet ruin it but that this director didn't, because he was able to recreate the movie while sticking to the poetic aspect of the original play. The person reviewing states that by the director cutting the film it was more understandable and by using young actors it gave the movie more attention. He praises the two main actors and says that they captured the loves scenes elegantly, and how the director didn't turn the movie into a sex film but kept it sexy. Lastly, the reviewer was able to capture the death scene beautifully without ruining it.

I myself agree and disagree with the above reviews. I thought the film was a decent reproduction and that the actors did excellent, but I do think that the director was a little too focused on the modernization of the film. I also think that the play was one of the best of all time and that the actors were outstanding. Even though I disagree with some of the above reviewers I thought that their reviews were legitimate because they were able to use references from the movie and play to support their views or opinions.

Reviews:
1.- http://www.ram.org/ramblings/movies/romeo_juliet.html
2.- http://www.shvoong.com/books/248880-romeo-juliet/
3.- http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/barrons/romeojl19.asp

1) On this review the writer writes about who is who and what basically happens in the play of Romeo and Juliet. Leonardo DiCaprio is Romeo and Claire Danes is the Juliet. The writer mentions what happens on the play. For instance, that Tybalt kills Mercutio and Romeo's avenges his death.
He also mentions his opinion. He says that the actors didn't really understand what were they saying and that only a few knew what they were saying and did a fine job. The others just spoke and acted because they were getting paid and wanted to increased their fame.

2) This second review talks most about the play itself. The author says the main points of the play. He mentions the part about Tybalt being killed by Romeo because he killed Mercutio. He even mentions what happens on the beginning. How Romeo loved Rosaline before he ever saw Romeo for the first time.
He later mentions on how they both tried to get together. Of how they asked for Friar's help to get them married. By doing so he gave Juliet a potion that would make her look seen death for almost two days enought to make their parents think she was death. However, while Romeo was at hiding he had no idea about thier plans and committed suicide. Later, when Juliet woke up and saw Romeo laying death she stab herself on the chest.

3) On this last review the author says that one of the most important characters is the Prince. Even thought he appears three times only on the play his appeareances are crucial for the play. Every single appeareance he makes is very imporant. For instance, the second time he appear he vanishes Romeo.
Lastly, he says that he thinks that this play is very dramatic. The reason is because the way it is settle and how long the play was written on. The whole play would have happen in five days than a few years to others. Also, the scenes move very fast from one character to the next. These makes the play more dramatic making characters make snap desicions.

Review 1
http://reviews.blether.com/blether.php?id=86
Review 2
http://www.shvoong.com/books/4941-romeo-juliet/
Review 3
http://www.storyispromise.com/rjoutlin.htm


In review one the author or the critic doesn't provide enough background information about the play. The information is basic enough for someone who knows the story but overall it doesn't work. The summary is actually one of the best part of the review just because it is simple. The flavor of their writing is pretty much straight forward and simplistic. The critic liked the concept just some of the story line riuned the story for her. She says"My personal opinion of this play was not as enthusiastic as it could have been. Personally, I found Romeo slightly idiotic, and I would never have killed myself for him. Juliet was okay, but still, there was something lacking."Enough said. The review was actually very good and simplistic for the youth to understand.

The second review provided sufficient background and the summary is alright.The review background info and summary could have been a lot better.IT was a bit mediocre and could have been alot better.The Reviews style was bland I didn't uncover anything new.The clearness of the review is very low.You have to infer alot of his opinions through his or her writing.They were neutral and very careful not to attack Shakespeare's work.

The last and final review has so much depth and detailed. Almost giving you a summary of every scene.iTs a great review in order to find background information and more of the insight and simplifies version of the play. The third review is the best of them all. You can see how much work and studies were used into putting into the review. The style of the review is informative and detail.No attacks just simplistic reasoning. "As with all the other scenes of the play, these final scenes bring together characters at the height of their feelings" the critic shows the point of how he is actually trying t critic the story.

Review 1:
http://www.answers.com/topic/romeo-and-juliet-play-6
Review 2:
http://absoluteshakespeare.com/guides/essays/romeo_and_juliet_characters_essay.htm
Review 3:
Romeo and Juliet
Romeo and Juliet was written by Shakespeare at a relatively early juncture in his literary career, most probably in 1594 or 1595. Over the past three decades or so, many scholars have altered this assessment, effectively upgrading its status within Shakespeare's canon. They have done this by discarding comparative evaluation and judging Romeo and Juliet as a work of art in its own right.Viewed from this fresh perspective, Shakespeare's tragic drama of the "star-crossed" young lovers is seen to be an extraordinary work. Indeed, Romeo and Juliet was an experimental stage piece at the time of its composition, featuring several radical departures from long-standing conventions. These innovative aspects of the play, moreover, reinforce and embellish its principal themes. The latter include the antithesis between Love and hate, the correlative use of a light/dark polarity, the handling of time as both theme and as structural element, and the prominent status accorded to Fortune and its expression in the dreams, omens and forebodings that presage its tragic conclusion.Romeo and Juliet was based on real lovers who lived in Verona, Italy who died for each other in the year 1303. At that time the Capulets and Montagues were among the inhabitants of Verona.Juliet is the daughter of Lord and Lady Capulet and one of the two title characters. When the play begins, we learn from the nurse's remarks that Juliet is about two weeks shy of her fourteenth birthday. In Juliet's first meeting with her mother and the nurse, Juliet shows herself to be a docile, dutiful child.Romeo is the son to Lord and Lady Montague and one of the two title characters. Romeo's first love interest is not Juliet but a young woman named Rosaline, who, like Juliet, happens to be a Capulet.Shakespeare's tragic drama of the "star-crossed" young lovers Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet is best remembered for the famous balcony scene. Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet are teenagers who fall deeply in love but their families are bitter enemies. They seize the moment and marry in secret, they make every effort to conceal their actions but these end in tragedy when Romeo, Juliet, Tybalt, Mercutio and Paris all die. The themes running through the play address the issues of the consequences of immature blind passion, hatred and prejudice.The exact year in which William Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet is unknown, but it is definitely one of his earlier works, and one of only two tragedies written in the period from 1590 to 1595. The other tragedy, Titus Andronicus followed the conventions of Seneca and Marlowe, i.e., built around a single heroic figure, but Romeo and Juliet was innovatively different. The plot was based on a fourteenth-century Italian short story, or novella, written by Matteo Bandello, that included elements of history, tradition, romance, and fable. This story had been put into verse form in 1562 by British poet Arthur Brooke. In Shakespeare's hands, fashionable elements of Elizabethan drama were inserted, certain characters were magnified, and sensational scenes were added. In addition, Shakespeare surrounded the innocent lovers with the mature bawdiness of other characters. In truth, the play was experimental for its time, but it was well-received by contemporary audiences and remained popular through the centuries. For a long time, critics tended to downgrade Romeo and Juliet in comparison to Shakespeare's later tragedies. But in the twentieth century the play gained appreciation for its unique merits and became a standard of high school study and was produced in various media. Romeo and Juliet is as much about hate as love. The play opens with a scene of conflict between the two feuding families and ends with their reconciliation. Nonetheless, the play is considered one of the greatest love stories of all time, complicated by the interplay of fate and repeated misfortune in timing. The juxtaof light and dark, the injection of comic moments, and the beauty of the language of love further enhance the play and make it a classic for all time.


William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet have been one of the greatest love-story ever. Or so does Review # 2 and 3 say. They talk of the love-story as the one that started the others. Also that William Shakespeare did a great job on it because it was one of his first play. They both end with “Shakespeare is considered the greatest playwright of all time” and “…the beauty of the language of love further enhance the play and make it a classic for all time.”


However, Review #1 the critic went in depth with the play. He took out some of the passages and interprets them. For example, he said that “Romeo's passion for Juliet is not a first love: it succeeds and drives out his passion for another mistress, Rosaline, as the sun hides the stars.” Which meant that he thought Romeo just love Juliet more because his first love was a failure. Even thought he says this he thinks Shakespeare is a genius.

review 1,) http://www.storyispromise.com/rjoutlin.htm

review 2.) http://absoluteshakespeare.com/guides/romeo_and_juliet/summary/romeo_and_juliet_summary.htm

review 3)http://www.enotes.com/romeo/criticism



I think that in all Review one was a very good one. The author reviews that Shakespeare structured this story and brought it to life. He talks about each scene clearly saying what is going on in each. Gives detailed information and what happens before and all that. He tells you basically everything you need to know. There is also a summary summarizing everything. I see a lot of quotes that he uses that are from the play. He tells you what he thinks of it by the way he writes this review. I really did like this one the most.

Review number two gives you the prologue and what happens in each act. It gives a lot of detailed information on each character. It is very similar to review one but I think it needs some more work, it needs a little bit more. It is more of a study guide than a review. I just don't think it was good enough in my opinion.


In this review he talks about his opinion on may topic in the play. I don't think it has enough information or background but clearly states their opinion on each topic. I really like the way he describes each one but I think could have provided more about his critic. It included examples. I think it could have talked about more characters and more topics proving his point and making us understand what he is trying to say.

Review 1: Justine's Critique of Romeo and Juliet
Review 2: An analysis of the play
Review 3: Romeo and Juliet movie review

Right off the back for the first review, Justine violates one of the rules in critizing something. "William Shakespeare is one of the greatest dramatists that ever lived." She praised his work, but is alright because she gave her opinion on the work. She continues after that by saying "His plays were a source of entertainment in the period of Queen Elizabeth's reign, as well as a lesson to recognize what is good or bad to the public. Among Shakespeare's well-known work is "Romeo and Juliet" which is still widely read today." Over all, the review was pretty good. It gives a pretty nice summary of the book. It wasn't really elaborate, but then again, summaries really are just an overview anyways. I think she had a good idea of what she was doing because she suggested what Shakespeare was trying to do with his play. She told that Shakespeare put more than one climax in his play to keep the reader at the edge of his/her seat, and she provided quite a bit of examples. Overall, her review was actually very good.

Unlike the first review, the second one was a bit too excessive. In fact, it was extremely detailed, and I really didn't think that the critique got to the point. He/she (name not stated) didn't really state an opinion. The person just basically gave a really elaborate overview on the play itself, which was intended to give the "flavor" of the work. THere were PLENTY descriptions and examples, and it was a very thorough summary of the work, but there was not really enough opinion on it. It would have been a better review if the person at least critizied or praised Romeo and Juliet a little, to at least show what was the opinion on it.

I have to laugh because just in the way that the second review a bit too much, the third review has too little. Sort of like the story of Goldilocks. The third review is too litte, the second review is too much, but the first review was just right. By far, this one is the worst review out of all three. For one, the author BARELY supplies background info. The summary of Romeo and Juliet was barely adequate, and it doesn't really suggest the flavor of the work. No descriptions or quotations, and not much supporting. But his/her opinion was clearly expressed. The person praised it a lot, but did a fair sharing of attacks. There was a lot of opinion, but not really enough about the play itself.

Overall, the first review was the best