Rating: 
Summary: Charming in spots, but kind of a mess
Review: This is a semi-interesting movie about Wellesley College in the 1950s, and an art history teacher who comes along and changes the lives of her students in 1953. How accurate a portrait it is of Wellesley at any time, I don't know; apparently they showed the movie in an early screening to a bunch of 1953 Wellesley grads and they hated it. But Wellesley still holds the "hoop roll" that's shown in the movie -- the winner of the hoop roll used to be said to be the first one to marry, now apparently it means they'll achieve "success, however they define it." Whatever. Seems stupid to me, but I didn't go to Wellesley or anyplace like it, so what do I know.There are many very charming moments in this movie, and some fine performances from the young actresses, particularly Maggie Gyllenhall, who plays her character with a great mix of brazenness and vulnerability, and the actress who plays Connie, who's adorable - you can't help rooting for her in her quest for love and understanding. The movie features two of my least favorite actresses - Kirsten Dunst, who is not pretty or talented enough to keep getting the plum roles she's getting, and Julia Roberts, whose talent is overrated, in my opinion. Apparently Roberts had a hand in producing the movie and the script definitely plays to her advantage, aggrandizing her in places and also giving her lots of chances to look serious, over-emote and flash her toothy grin. Dunst's character is the girl you love to hate, as the uptight, brittle preppy girl who has the fairy-tale wedding to a hunk who ends up not to be Prince Charming. I never felt sorry for her character at any point in the movie, even after the big "reveal" towards the end. Julia Stiles is also somewhat good as Dunst's character's best friend, but they don't give Stiles a lot to do, which is probably good, considering she doesn't seem to have much of an acting range. I really wish they had expanded Gyllenhall's part to give her more to do; she was the most compelling part of the movie, for me. While there are moments in the movie that are heartwarming, as a whole, the script is a mess. People do things with little or no motivation, characters are introduced and then largely dropped, storylines are introduced and then peter out with little or no explanation of what happened or why we were shown that piece of information in the first place. Things that should have a lot of emotional weight seem glossed over, while the movie perseverates on some minor details that don't seem to make that much difference to the overall story. The story jumps around a lot, with very little continuity. Maybe this was supposed to be more of a diary of Roberts' character's year at Wellesley; if so, it's still not done very well. This could have been a very good movie if they had chosen a screenwriter that could have woven the pieces together into a coherent whole. As it stands, the movie is practically a series of vignettes, rather than a whole story. As for the pro-feminist message of the movie - it's pretty heavy-handed, but I didn't feel beaten over the head by it. The movie doesn't have a lot of positive things to say about marriage in the 1950s - I wasn't alive then, so maybe life was as wooden and stifling as the movie portrays, and men were for the most part clods who wanted "dinner on the table by 5 o'clock," regardless of how much respect they had for their wives. I don't know. But I really, really doubt things were as black and white as the movie portrays. All in all, this is worth a watch for the costumes - they're fabulous - and Maggie Gyllenhall's performance. Other than that, there's not much "there" there, if you know what I mean. A clean-up screenwriter could have done wonders with the movie, it's too bad they didn't bring one in. A lot of fine talent was more or less wasted on this movie - hopefully the good actresses from the film will get other chances to show off their talent in a vehicle more worthy of them.
Rating: 
Summary: Empowering
Review: This was an empowering film to me. I loved how Julia Roberts' character, Katherine Watson, challenged these women into different ways of thinking. She helped them all to see what potential they have and that they didn't have to fit a binary of a woman in the 50s. Watson challenged every idea that these women were brought up with: the ideas that a woman's role was to serve her husband and keep house and home. Watson was a teacher ahead of her time and the fact that Julia Roberts played her character allowed Watson to come alive for me. This film was excellent and very well done.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining but Cliched Plot
Review: I love Julia Roberts' glowing smile and infectious laugh, but this movie is just another cliché of the inspirational teacher. This time, it's not inner-city gang members, but privileged college girls at Wellesley who are motivated by a special teacher. I was pleasantly surprised by the ending, in which Julia Roberts' character admits that marrying and raising a family might not be evil incarnate after all.
Rating:
Summary: Could've been much better
Review: 3 stars for three reasons: Maggie Gyllenhaal, Julia Stiles, and Marcia Gay Harden. (I loved Topher Grace's appearance too, but there wasn't enough of him to warrant 4 stars.) What about Julia Roberts, you ask? Well, Julia Roberts is a great actress, no doubt about it. But she just didn't fit the role. Another reviewer said it well -- she's just too modern to be in a movie taking place in the '50s. Roberts plays Katherine Watson, a pre-feminism feminist who goes to Welsley College as an art history teacher, hoping to make a difference in the young women's lives. During her stay at the school, a few students stand out in her class -- Elizabeth Warren (Kirsten Dunst), Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles), Giselle Levy (Maggie Gyllenhaal), and Connie Baker (Gennifer Goodwin). The movie focuses on these five women -- Elizabeth's struggle to be the perfect 1950s housewife, despite her husband's lack of interest in being her husband; Joan's dilemma about whether to attend Yale University or marry her boyfriend (Topher Grace); Giselle's struggle with her reputation, as well as harboring feelings for a professor; Connie's struggle to, well, to love herself; and Katherine's struggle to bring the young women around to her feminist point of view. The problem with this movie is that, apart from being cliched, Katherine Watson is not a very likeable person. She constantly tries to force others into her way of thinking, particularly Joan. Joan makes a decision in the movie that shocks Katherine, who does not for a second consider that maybe Joan's choice was what made her happy. Add Katherine's completely unconvincing romance with a fellow teacher (the same object of Giselle's affections) and you have a boring, unlikeable central character. However, some of the students are very engaging and likeable. Elizabeth makes a startling transformation by the end that is actuall quite believable. Giselle -- well, she's played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is emerging as one of the best young actresses in Hollywood. This alone will make you like her character, but Giselle in her own right is a good person who is just lonely. Connie is the most endearing character -- you can't help but root for her. Joan is one you can respect, and she is played by the very respectable Julia Stulies. In all, the students were much better characters than Katherine. However, there is one as-yet-unmentioned character -- that of Katherine's housemate, Nancy Abbey, played by Marcia Gay Harden. Nancy is a great character -- graceless, yet sympathetic, enshrouded in such a cloud of sadness that we wonder throughout the movie if she might be a bit mad. Marcia Gay Harden is absolutely terrific in this movie, and outshone Julia Roberts in every scene they appeared in together. This movie is certainly not innovative or clever, and as I've stated several times, the central character is not very endearing. However, it does have its feel-good moments, and the young actresses are outstanding. Recommended if there's nothing better on. You probably won't wonder in horror where your last two hours went, but you certainly won't be thinking about it for long after the movie ends.
Rating: 
Summary: Mona Lisa Would Frown at This
Review: This is possibly one of the worst supposedly 'feminist' movies I have ever seen. I had hoped it would be better than what the trailers showed, boy was I wrong.
Julia Roberts' character and acting are totally unbelievable. She looks like she was from the future and she didn't even come close to looking like she was from the 50's. The romance with her and the other teacher was so off what her character would do or act, it didn't make any sense. And of course they have the typical Julia Roberts scene with her flat on her back, hair splayed out, then cue laughing (in that irritating high pitched neighing/squealing). As usual she plays the same role she almost always does in her overrated 'acting' carrer.
Julia Stiles did well as her typical overachiever, try to do it all, but her character went downhill near the end, in an unbelievable way. Kirsten Dunst was good as a nasty student that turned nice at the end. But by far the best were Maggie Gyllenhaal as a promiscuous yet smart and likeable student and Ginnifer Goodwin who you might have seen in the television show Ed (which she was wonderful in) and How to Win a Date With Tad Hamilton. She is the most realistic of the bunch and the one who stole the whole movie. She shined brighter than any of them. I wished she could have been in it more, it would've been a better movie. Marcia Gay Harden and Topher Grace were both great in their small roles also. I give JR .5 star, JS and KD 3 stars, and everybody else I mentioned 5 stars.
And just what the heck was up with the scene at the end with Kirsten Dunst riding on a bicycle along side Julia Roberts in the car. There was never any bonding between the two to make any sense in that happening.
I'd recommend skipping this movie, unless, of course you'd like to see something that will make you cringe and wonder why you wasted your time with such drivel. The story is simply awful! I totally disagree with Amazon.com's Editorial review, so very far off the mark.
Oh and a note to the reviewer above (Shelley Shay), that was Erika Christensen as Topher Grace's girlfriend in Traffic, not Julia Stiles. So, in fact, it is not ironic.
Rating: 
Summary: not what I expected
Review: Considering the subject matter and the feminist overtones, I expected much more from this movie what was delivered. Save for one brilliant (if somewhat awkwardly-placed) scene involving Julia Roberts' passionate admonishment of the internalized sexism of popular advertising, this movie is rife with cliches and over-trodden ground. There are times when you feel as if the film is trying to say something more about sex roles, feminism, and the advent of what would later be coined as "the feminine mystique," but they appear so infrequently, so awkwardly, and so unsatisfying as to barely merit a mention.
In terms of acting, Julia Roberts' and Maggie Gyllenhaal's roles are the most successfully portrayed. Kirsten Dunst succeeds at being annoying (for once her intent matches her performance) and Julia Stiles' role was just awfully acted altogether, no two ways about it. I've never heard a more unconvincing and "I'm happy!" in my life. Her heart-to-heart with Roberts, regardless of how important the message, almost brought tears to my eyes -- not out of any strong feeling, but because it was so painfully artificial.
If taken at little more than face value, the movie warrants a viewing, if only for the beautiful cinematography and snapshot of female collegiate life post-World War 2. But if you are a historian or a feminist (or both) hoping to enjoy a glimpse into the world that inspired Fridan's classic expose, look elsewhere. And if you ever find one that satisfies this desire, be sure to let me know.
Rating:
Summary: Petty Betty Gets a Reality Check
Review: The initial scene of this exquisite 2003 charmer is narrated by Kirsten Dunst's auburn-haired Wellesley newspaper columnist, Betty Warren, who is as pretty as a rose, and just as thorny, especially in her criticism of those around her.
This is particularly true when a new and unconventional art professor from California named Katherine Watson, played by Julia Roberts, arrives at Wellesley College in the autumn of 1953.
Betty, whose tyrannical mother(Donna Mitchell)is the President of Wellesley's Alumni Association, initially resents the arrival of this "subversive" young teacher with radical ideas.
Directed by Mike Newell, the film's cinematography is periodically bathed in the golden light of nostalgia, and studded with an array of fine performances not only by Roberts and Dunst, but also by a charismatic Julia Stiles as the throaty-voiced, New England-accented Joan Brandwyn, the class leader, and Betty's best friend, Ginnifer Goodwyn, as the plump, friendly, accomplished cellist, Connie, real-life Wellesley alumni Laura Allen as the breathy-voiced, refined-sounding Susan Delacorte, and the willowy and unconventionally beautiful Maggie Gyllenhall as the stereotypically promiscuous daughter of divorced parents, Giselle Levy, who, like Professor Watson, is probably one of the most realistic characters in the film, perhaps more fully aware of certain truths about life and relationships that the strait-laced and conservative Betty will simply have to learn the hard way.
Marcia Gay Harden, who won an Oscar for playing Jackson Pollock's wife, is also featured in this film in which a Pollock painting receives attention. She plays the ettiquette Professor, Nancy Abbey, who like many women of her time has to present a facade of respectabilty in order to cover up the unpleasant truth
about her own status as a single woman. Interestingly we learn about her past in an in vino veritas moment during Betty's wedding reception. We also learn why Betty's wedding day is more her mother's day than her own.
The male counterparts in the film are led by Dominic West, who reprises the role he had as a lying womanizer in "Chicago", only this time as an Italian Professor. Beau Bridges' son, Jordan reveals that the acting genes haven't gone thin as Betty's uncaring husband, Spencer. One feels that Topher Grace as Tommy Donnegal, and Ebon-Moss Bacharach as Betty's sweet cousin, Charlie Stewart, the love interests of Joan and Connie, are destined for happy marriages. Their perfomances lend a certain winsomeness to the story.The reality of Betty's marriage is initially summed up by the single longing glance Betty gives a kissing Joan and Tommy as they visit her at her home.
Juliet Stevenson, a prominent figure in feminist theatre, has an interesting role as the closet case school nurse who is fired after one of Betty's editorials reveals her distribution of conraceptives, which at that time, were illegal.
Viewers observe the routines and rituals of a conservative women's college, as well as the chilly reception Miss Watson receives during her first class,and her challenging of her students'conventional views of art, especially when the fresh, rosy-faced young women respond to the sight of the Jackson Pollack painting.
We observe the growing number of clashes between Professor Watson and the faculty (led by Marian Seldes as a staid and icy President Carr) as well as Betty Warren, who will come to realize how silly she looks in the editorial photos in which she tries to capture the essence of a married Wellesley girl soon enough.
Miss Watson's daring sexual behavior would have raised more eyebrows in its time than it does 50 years later.
The costumes of the women are another point of interest in the representation of their characters. Giselle is often clad in rich, vibrant, if not jewel-toned colors and flesh-revealing clothes, complimented by a necklace with a sensuous heart-shaped pendant, whereas the more conservative Joan and Betty wear conservatively colored, preppier and more modest styles complete with the inevitably prissy set of pearls.
The story itself has a lolling gentility that sharply contrasts with the theme of radicalism that it promotes. Ultimately the conventionally trained members of Wellesley's graduating class of 1954 will be inspired by their art teacher to shape their own destinies, wheather they choose careers of their own or conventional family lives, and while I would agree that this film is the obligatory girls version of "Dead Poets'Society", its touch is delightfully feminine, and the graduating class' tributes to Miss Watson, both in their final class assignment and graduation-day salute, give the film a sunnier and more hopeful ending.
Rating:
Summary: Mona Lisa Smile
Review: I normally hate watching films and generally refrain from reviewing them altogether. But Mona Lisa Smile caught my attention from the beginning, and now I've finally bought it. I can say without hesitation that I have absolutely no regrets. This is one of those videos you find once in a lifetime--one you can watch over and over, one that still brings you to tears after the thousandth time, and one that never loses its magic.
Julia Roberts works her usual charm over the entire film playing the ambitious young teacher, Kathryn Watson, whose life dream is to be a teacher at an upscale all-girls school in Massachusetts. She wants to change these girls' lives. Mona Lisa Smile documents her struggle to win the hearts of the aloof--but sometimes risqué--girls who attend there. Kathryn shows the young women who they can be, but she also must find herself, and who she really is.
In the tradition of the tear-jerking Dead Poet's Society, Mona Lisa Smile captures the heart and mind. It's one of the films (and be assured, there aren't many) that will never fail to reduce me to tears in several scenes. The stellar cast, the raw emotions, and (what else?) the beautiful smiles that make up this wonderfully produced film make it simply a must. If one video ever deserved a resounding five stars, it would be Mona Lisa Smile.
Rating:
Summary: nice
Review: mona lisa smile was a pretty good movie. that has alot of great actresses.
Rating: 
Summary: Uncompromising misfit, yet dedicated and compassionate
Review: The social phenomenon known as "Women's Lib" was years away, yet Miss Katherine Watson, an art history teacher at an exclusive New England all-women's college in the fall of 1953, seemed about to bring its ideas into terra incognita and thus come into conflict with just about everybody.
Julia Roberts plays a character actively challenging the stereotypical thinking behind the motives of the young - and spoilt - twenty-somethings, who have already been more than happy to remain indoctrinated by both men and women into believing that they could achieve all the happiness in the world simply by being in the home at the beck and call of their hard-working husbands.
For them, domesticity seems to be a calling, something which rankles with Watson, who has come all the way from sunny California in the belief that she is preparing tomorrow's leaders at a college, yet, as she says in a moment of emotion to the "philandering Italian professor", Bill Dunbar (Dominic West), it appears that she is simply grooming tomorrow's leaders' wives at "a finishing school disguised as a college" instead.
Challenging the status quo via "subversive" activities is not tolerated at this college by the president, Jocelyn Carr (Marian Seldes), who summarily fires the school nurse, Amanda Armstrong (Juliet Stevenson), for "being seen to promote promiscuity" by distributing contraceptive devices in spite of having been associated with the college for nearly a quarter-century.
Practically everyone's nemesis appears to be the insufferably overzealous Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst), whose mother (Donna Mitchell) just happens to be the president of the college alumnae association. Watson will not tolerate any challenge to her own authority from this student, who appears to be just as ready to be as subversive as her, yet at the same time is receptive to questioning her expected role as devoted wife, domestic, and future mother in the light of her mother's insistence that she stay with a husband who thinks more of his job than he does of her.
In the meantime, Watson is exasperated by everyone else's blind acceptance of this kind of role for "educated" women and openly asks Carr if she is proud of her students. The president's response serves only to drive Watson almost to the point of telling everyone exactly what she thinks of the whole situation.
Through not teaching what is on the art history syllabus, Watson encourages those who wear rose-tinted spectacles to think outside the box. She expects them to challenge accepted norms about what is supposed to be acceptable, who is supposed to think so and, above all, why it is supposed to be so. She uses modern, not classical, art as her medium for getting the young women to become forward thinkers, much to the consternation of Carr, who urges Watson to remember that "we are traditionalists", to which remark Watson says dryly, "Yes, I've noticed."
This is mainly Roberts' movie, as she maintains her screen presence by never exaggerating the emotions of the main character, being as abrasive and blunt when she needs to be ("'A girdle will set you free'? What does that mean?!") and as compassionate about her work and her students when she needs to be. The main cast of female supporting actors, Dunst, Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Ginnifer Goodwin, give sterling performances as the young women who seem ready to embrace the lifestyle of middle-class wives pushing vacuum cleaners and using washing machines, but gradually become accustomed to thinking that there just might be a way to balance both being wives and being career women.
This is despite the fact that, for one, Joan Brandwyn (Stiles) is totally prepared to throw away the chance to go to Yale law school by telling Watson that "this is all I've always wanted - a home and a family". Watson's face shows her predictable reaction yet congratulates her on her sudden marriage in the hope that she might just think about her actions. Certainly, Watson believed that she was definitely not ready to marry herself, and the scene in the common room where she publicly scotched the rumors of an impending marriage was memorable, since it challenged the young women's perception of her as "anti-marriage" and "anti" anything else she was thought not to like.
Overall, Lawrence Konner and Mark Rosenthal have written, while Mike Newell has directed, a very enjoyable movie about the pros and cons of embracing a particular piece of (now largely outdated) ideology, even if it was never meant to be a social history polemic. However, the characters, including those who may be perceived as being utterly shallow and narrow-minded, are made quite believable by the actors. The contrast between the initial naivety of Watson and her disillusionment with the mindset of the staff and students is quite stark, and Roberts does a good job from start to finish in portraying the one "caught in the middle" between traditionalism and feminism. Watson is uncompromising in her views, yet proves to be dedicated to her job - even if she is basically a misfit in the college - and compassionate to those around her.
|
