franbelgar

Unsurprisingly the most general assumption of those commenting on this movie is that it is set in Verona Beach, be it Florida or California. It would be just natural to assume that given the curious enjoyment of some U.S. people to have their own versions of famous cities worldwide (there are at least 22 cities named Paris and 11 named Venice).

Little they know that this version of Romeo and Juliet was filmed almost entirely in Mexico City and Veracruz, Mexico. And the only Verona Beach in the U.S. is in the state of New York.

Beyond the point of the geographical place of the filming locations lets not forget a very basic principle: movies are make-believe. This story is set in "the fair Verona", not in Verona, CA nor even in Verona, Italy. It is set in Romeo and Juliet's Verona where all this dramatic fantasy takes place.

Luhrmann's main achievement with this film was to create his own version of Shakespeare's classic. I don't know what was his or the producer's target market nor if the selection of then hot Leonardo was just to achieve box office success. The bottom line is that he created a new reality for this long-told story without even trying to convince the audience that this could be actually happening in our time. And that to me makes the movie work in a honest and creative way.

Technically a very viewable film "Under a Spell" is the case of what a terrible screenplay can do to an excellent story, notable actors and lovely setting. As an adaptation it reminded me of those online translation services that literally show you the meaning of every word you give them...although the translation doesn't make much sense.

I would suggest Carlos Carrera to stick to direction and leave script writing to professionals.

The longest 130 minutes of my life.

I have seen good movies, mediocre movies and bad movies. I have seen very bad European "arty" movies and very good U.S. ones despite being a little bit of a mass market product. But Air Force One is a movie that breaks all records of low quality and standards.

What really puzzles me is why on earth respectable, decent actors agree to play such idiotic characters in unbelievable stupid and over-budgeted productions. Of course I didn't expect to find an award-winning movie with such a gringo topic, but I did expect to have good acting with a fairly decent story, nothing fantastic but at least worthy of spending two hours watching. This was not the case.

Ok, most of Hollywood movies go somewhere along these lines: democracy defenders and Beacons of the World (i.e. The U.S.)suffer some kind of attack by some crazy, fanatic, and perverted representative of the forces of Evil (i.e. anyone but the U.S.); although the good ones are outnumbered, outwitted and cornered by the evil ones, they always find a way to overcome the crisis and win. In summary any of George Bush's pot dreams. But, aside from the inherent comedy involved in such ideas, why spend valuable resources such as production money and top actor's salary if just a simple action hero and (good) digital special effects would do?

Poor story, poor acting, non-existent continuity or factual veracity in a single movie cannot be accidental. There must be a hidden significance, a conspiracy. Bring in Mulder and Scully, fast!

The only thing that made me happy after watching this piece of truly American chedar was that I didn't pay to watch it at the cinema, but only spent the equivalent of less than USD2.00 for the second-hand VCD, though I still think I spent too much. Can I have a refund?