It was the only point that seemed worth engaging with, since it raised the one good exception, and I'd already addressed it.

Was it an accurate telling when Shakespeare himself was involved in the production? When the actors were exclusively pasty English men?

16th century English theater and modern film are wildly different things. When you have basically unlimited access to actors of every physical description, there's no excuse not to be accurate.

Do the actors need to actually be 16 and 13? Or can maybe young looking adults be used?

I specifically noted looking the part.

Should we go back to the original Italian spelling of their names or is anglicisation in this case ok?

What? It was written by an English playwright, and what difference is there anyway? It's Italian, not Chinese. It's the same alphabet.

Why does your suspension of disbelief only stop when the skin color changes?

I never said that it did. I'd be equally annoyed by other obvious anachronisms and inaccuracies

What even does an Italian look like? Rome was a commercial hub for centuries that saw settlers from all over the known world. Are they not Italian?

Like people with deep northern Mediterranean ancestry. Sure, there were plenty of immigrants of varied ethnicities, but they probably didn't have names like Montague and Capulet.

Otherwise, bro, it's a movie, everything about it is a lie.

But when it's a movie with a specific setting and characters, deviations from the characteristics of that setting are immersion breaking. When I'm watching a movie, I don't want to be reminded that it's just a movie. I want to buy into it. I can't do that when Genghis Khan is being played by John Wayne.

Again, if you want to reimagine a basic story in a new setting, sure that's fine. Change the characters to your heart's content, so long as they're consistent with the new setting.