Between the movie in 1996 and the real play, which is more interesting and appropriate? Please defend your answer.

I cannot stand the Baz Luhrmann 1996 adaptation of
William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet.   He should have called it
MTV's R + J.  It's a music video, not a movie.  And certainly not a
play.

First of all, Luhrmann modernizes the setting and
characters but retains the Elizabethan dialogue.  Why?  It's silly.  Why would gang
bangers talk like this?  Why do they say they have "swords" and wave around 9mmers?
 Preposterous!

Recent adaptations of O
(Othello) and Hamlet (2000, starring Ethan
Hawke) have modernized both the setting and language, which makes much more
sense.

Secondly, the actors (except for Friar Lawrence and
the Nurse) have very little acting experience, let alone Shakespearean voice training.
 Instead, they shout all their lines while music blares in the background.
 Shakespearean plays are meant to be heard; their iambic pentameter is like a song.  It
takes years of training and experience.  The couple in Franco Zefirelli's 1968 version
were much better trained.