A cold and drowsy humour

I'm reminded of the days when I used to screen films for a festival. This is like so many entries we received: well meaning, ill written, overacted, and barely directed at all. Somehow the filmmakers always managed to attach a few B-list and/or has-been actors (like, say, Paul Sorvino, Lainie Kazan, Dick Van Patten, Connie Stevens, and Abe Vigoda) and maybe one youngster at the start of what will be a real career (see below). But what the filmmakers fail to grasp is the slightest notion how to make a film entertaining, smart, engaging, or meaningful.

The Verona project, part XVI, Love Is All There Is

Who (how old), when, how long? Nathaniel Marston (20) and Angelina Jolie (20, and saddled with a world-class bad Tuscan accent), 1996, 1¾hrs, which was the most pleasant surprise about the film, which was listed as an even 2.

What sort of R&J? Second- and first-generation, respectively, immigrant (his family coarse Sicilians, hers pretentious Florentines).

Seriocomic scale for first scene? No analog.

"Wherefore": do the filmmakers know what it means? No.

Carrion flies? No, but oddly, Rosario (who has just played Romeo opposite his Gina) paraphrases the lines just before about more cuddly animals.

Body count? No one dies, though it's touch and go for a dove at one point.

What (else) is missing? See above.

What (else) is changed? See above.

What (else) is odd? It's odd that so many filmmakers so ineptly riff on material that would seem so fecund.

End-of-the-play exposition? Actually, yeah, there is, though less than in the play.

It's a sad commentary to have to admit that Underworld was the highlight of this weekend's Verona triple. (Oh, and by the way: three from Netflix again because they gave me that one-disc bonus for the third time.)