There isn't any real new opinion I can share with regards to George Cukor's version of "Romeo and Juliet". It feels overly long, the two leads are both far to old to play the young lovers etc. However I do wish to say that it does provide an interesting insight into adapting Shakespeare's plays to film: Strict adherence isn't always the right route. Cukor's version is a near literal translation of the play, whereas the Zeffirelli and Lurhmann versions cut at least half the text. However, this paradoxically produces the slow pace which is a fault for this film. This is a story of transcendent, evanescent love, and having it be slow and anemic doesn't do it justice IMO.
In short, the 1936 version may be the most literal, but the Zeffirelli and Luhrmann films both are more faithful to the spirit of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet".
In short, the 1936 version may be the most literal, but the Zeffirelli and Luhrmann films both are more faithful to the spirit of Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet".