Rating: 
Summary: JULIA ROBERTS IN AN ANACRHONISTIC "DEAD POETS SOCIETY"
Review: A movie that aspires to be about the perils of conformity. Quite ironically then, the performances range from conventional (Roberts) to dreadful, and the script is as shallow as your latest Aguilera number. Our heroine is Kate Watson, from California -- where else?! -- who arrives in 1953 at Wellsley college to teach art history. Soon she collides with a conservative institution that's mass-assembling young women to be the obedient objects they were meant to be. Kate, in a very Robin Williams fashion but without half as much pizzazz, tries to open the eyes of the women to the vistas of possibilities, to Van Gogh, and all that maverick jazz. Alas, the women are into girdles and matrimony. Perfectly predictably, Kate then falls prey to ad hominem when she is labeled as the "progressive" threat around campus. Roberts is no feast in this flat role, and the slapdash cinematography doesn't really help. Just another chick- flick masquerading as social commentary. Skippable.
Rating:
Summary: Saved only by Gyllenhaal
Review: "Mona Lisa Smile" is a pretty bad movie, full of predictable plot twists and dialogue that insults the intelligence of viewers, all while claiming to be a movie that respects the intelligence of people, particularly the oppressed class of women in the 1950s. It depicts a year in the life of a Wellesley art history professor (Julia Roberts) who wants to inspire the restricted young women into becoming women like... well, like the Julia Roberts of today, I suppose. The noble intentions of the movie suffer under the weight of obvious dialog and cultural references which scream "I am a contemporary movie set in the past!" Did people ever really say "I'll see you next year... 1954!" Or "I want to stay home... it's after 8 o'clock and 'Strike it Rich' is on"? Maybe they did, but these lines seem aimed at contemporary reactions to what were normal goings on at the time. One reason to see the movie: Maggie Gyllenhaal. She is a spunky and confident actress who adds integrity to the otherwise silly movie. I hope the movie's only Oscar nomination is for her.
Rating: 
Summary: Rename it "Badly Directed Movie."
Review: There are about a million things wrong with this picture but I will try to list only a few. First, the performances are so shallow and without substance. Julia Roberts plays a know it all teacher who says corny soap opera dialoge all through the picture. Kristen Dunst plays a high society snob who midway through the picture all of a sudden becomes likeable (sorry but the change does not work). Julia Styles has nothing to do except smile and say even more corny dialoge through the picture. There is also a romance that does not work. Some tasteless comments made about family, marridge, and society in general. It goes on and on in a badly written script and the movie's ending makes you want to take asperin. Avoid this garbage at all costs.
Rating: 
Summary: Fine for the matinee price
Review: I can say a lot of nice things about this movie: the actors did a wonderful job, the scenes were well scripted, the locations accentuated the story, etc, etc. Unfortunately, it's just an average movie. Warning: If you are like me and hate movies that make you laugh up until the last second, only to hit you with some emotional moment right before the credits, this movie is to be avoided! Why must they do that? Can't someone convince them it doesn't do anything to make the movie better?!? I would have been just as happy with a laugh. See it at the matinee price.
Rating: 
Summary: EXCELLENT film
Review: I was expecting to like this movie. But I didn't leave the theater liking it--I left it LOVING it. This is without a doubt one of Julia Roberts' best roles ever. She was unbelievably convincing as the amateur teacher as Wellesley, and her character was very easy to sympathize with. Julia Stiles, though, played my favorite character (Joan). I think she was very strong to stand up for herself against Ms. Watson, but not in a way so that she was a SNOT like Betty. I really respected Joan for what she did. Kirsten Dunst tackled this difficult role with excellence. I've always seen her play the good girl, and seeing her as a complete witch was quite a change of scenery. Her acting was really very good--she was a very easy character to hate, playing Betty...the girl who thought she had everything, but really had nothing. Maggie Gyllenhaal played Giselle, another of my favorite characters. She's kind of a slut, but a nice person. She was funny, too, as was Connie. I couldn't imagine anyone else playing Giselle besides Gyllenhaal. All the girls are different from each other, have their own minds, and are very easy to sympathize with. I would highly recommend this movie to ANYone...even though it IS kind of a chick flick.
Rating:
Summary: authentic, good little movie
Review: I attended Wellesley in the early to mid 1960's and thought the movie would be authentic for the time frame it presented --1954--because there aren't too many years in between. I laughed at the silly stuff we still did in the 1960s, like the hoop roll, the sack bathing suits for swim class (and the caps!), wearing skirts to class, using rollers and pin curls in our hair, and the pearls, the lessons on etiquette (how to sit, stand and walk, we really did that!), the parietal rules, etc. I mostly laughed during the movie--a lot! Those days seem so far away to me now. I'm glad so many people enjoyed the movie, even if they didn't go to Wellesley!
Rating: 
Summary: not the typical chick flick
Review: I'm opposed to all movies that start off "In a far away land..." and ends with "they lived happily ever after." And this chick flick isn't a typical lovey dovey type of story, it actually turns the other way by having the main woman asserting her independence by not letting society make rules for her life. This is the main theme the director concentrated on.
Its a great movie to watch if you're a feminist, you like art (Julia Roberts is an art professor), and/or to take a friend/daughter/tormented boyfriend so they can see what strides woman have done and what we still have to do.
Rating:
Summary: A Mona Lisa complex for those who understand how life was...
Review: A 'Bohemian' from California has arrived at a prestigious girls' college in New England to teach Art 101 to preppy rich students some of whom appear brilliant but really use only rote memory and cannot think for themselves. She soon learns that this is merely a finishing school disguised as a college in the Fall of 1953. These girls are taught that a good wife allows her husband to think everything is his idea. Far fetched according to the wives of middle aged men of today. This young idealistic teacher thought she could make a difference in the fate of these bright students but is cautioned by the president of the college (put me in mind of Hannah Gray of the University of Chicago, maybe not so rude) to stick to her subject and leave the rest to others. She demanded excellence from these art students, challenging the roles they were born to fill. As they study Van Gough instead of Michelangeo, each girl reflects on the smile on Mona Lisa's face and tries to figure out if it is a happy smile. Most think it is not. While studying the pink and gray streaks in a block of marble, one of the girls stated emphatically, "That is not art." I once made a similar statement to my son about a block of black marble at this local art museum. He taught me that if a piece "speaks to you" it is art, as he had not seen the marble in that black object. The t.v. shows and ads were so marvelous to see again. One character enthused, "I Love Lucy ... even if she is a Communist"! There are a lot of labels in this film. Being an art teacher, she is said to have a subversive attitude. The old woman made a fool of herself by trying to impress the young bartender. The parody of a wedding was comical. "I'll take a Jack & Ginger" at the wedding reception confused me. Is that a drink or what? They assumed their destiny was to get married and it was their duty and obligation to stay in a bad marriage. The Bohemian tried to point out that not every relationship leads to marriage. As was pointed out by the philandering "Italian" professor who never got out of the United States. Most men lied then just as they do now. Time does not heal rudeness! She wanted her students to be able to make choices not to automatically transform into what others expect but to be themselves. One is accused of a man's pretense: "You're not saying anything; you never do." But they learn that if any disregard their traditions, there will be dire consequences. "People change -- things happen" is never explained to them. The music selection is fantastic. The consultants must be regular listeners to my favorite radio network, 'Music of Your Life' as this music came right out of that programmed by Chuck Southcott at the time this movie was being filmed. Alas, it has drifted into other superficial selections at the present. The all-girl band at a party did a commendable job of playing the CONTINENTAL (first Academy Award winner in the music category). The ads on fifties t.v. portrayed the women of that time. Now, how can a girdle 'set you free'? The old fashioned typewriter added authenticity (I used one for a prize winning project once upon a time). The fur stoles were so typical of rich ladies of that era. I especially like the grey sable. The monograms on clothing certainly dated the item. It was fun to see the old fashioned one-piece bathing suits and white caps at the indoor swimming pool. But I was perplexed by a wood screen door on a wealthy home. The New England Christmas was effectively done. The Maypole scene of bringing in the rite of Spring was colorful. As were the elbow-length gloves some wore to match their gowns at the prom. The teacher who used the unorthodox teaching methods certainly grew as a person and left a lasting impression on these young women of the early fifties. Betty's husband destroyed her inner dignity and tore her apart; but she chose to move on. The bar scene was drab. Back then, the bars were smoky and dark -- just like today's. Life is not always easy and the rich aren't automatically happy because of their status. This is a movie for a certain age group, the emphasis lost on those too young to appreciate the concept.
Rating:
Summary: A great movie
Review: I truly loved this movie, even if I am a guy. The writing, directing, and acting are so terrific, that I smell Oscar all over it next tear. The movie does not fall into cliche. It is just great all around! I loved it. This is a case of a strong ensemble of actors and that such a great story about women was written by two men, I am very amazed. It has my highest recommendation.
Rating:
Summary: Underdeveloped, but I loved it all the same
Review: If nothing else, "Mona Lisa Smile" has made me want to learn more about what Wellesley and other colleges like it were really like half a century ago. It's hard to believe an institution founded on the then-radical idea that women should have a right to an education could ever have been that repressed and conservative; but then, in 1953 those two characteristics could be found in a lot of places you wouldn't expect today. So, is it really "Dead Poets' Society" with girls? Only in the most superficial sense. Yes, they're both about teachers who brought radical ideas to schools that weren't quite ready for them, but that and the decade they're set in are about the only two similarities I could see. The presentation of that decade is a bit sanitized, as some other reviewers have pointed out, with most of the common intolerances of the time being only hinted at or receiving token mention. Likewise, Julia Roberts' character usually seems unrealistically oblivious to the limits facing most women in 1953 as she encourages her students to reach beyond the finishing-school life they have all been conditioned to pursue. It's sad but true that the resistance she meets in that quest is one of the more convincing points of the story, but there are also plenty of delightfully raw looks at what life was like just beneath the surface of the perfect upper-class existence of the era. The students are also somewhat by the numbers - the free spirit, the conflicted one, the nasty one, the ugly duckling who isn't really ugly - but the talented cast does a lot with the familiar formula all the same. Likewise, some cliches turn up in the plot, but the story and its characters are original enough that they don't seem too stale. For example, perhaps you've already seen the student-trespassing-in-an-opposite-sex-dorm scene in every other '50s college movie ever made, but this one at least features the character you'd least expect to find there and you care enough about the preceding events to be glad it happens. The one real problem with the movie is that most of the characters and the tension in the storyline (to the extent that there is any) are somewhat fuzzily portrayed, with the result that the various resolutions seem either unconvincing or too perfect. It's almost as if the writers assumed that the audience would be able to fill in the blanks on our own thanks to years of exposure to Hollywood formulas - probably correct, but I was still left thinking much more could have been accomplished with such a great cast, setting and story. Still, what they do give us is delightful for what it is. It's a textbook "chick-flick" (i.e. no nudity or violence - gratuitous or otherwise - most of the major characters are women, and you're supposed to care about them), which will be enough to keep a lot of people away. For the rest of us, it's unconvincing, but a treat nonetheless.
| 
