Mona Lisa Smile

Rating:
Summary: Surprising, eye-opening film
Review: For the people who say that Mona Lisa Smile is anti-marriage and male-bashing my response is: did you really pay attention to the movie?

The story is about empowering women at a time where women's roles were defined by society as being passive, there-for-their-family & limited to being excited by housecleaning and new appliances. Marriage, itself, is not challenged in the film but the concept of marriage to the exclusion of other desires is.

As for male-bashing, I didn't see any of that in the film. There were some men who had less than ideal behaviors but there were also some who were just fine. Men were just as much defined by society at that time as women were.

The cast of Mona Lisa Smile has some big names and all do a wonderful job but it is Julia Roberts and Kirsten Dunst who have the most powerful roles - one trapped by convention, the other a non-conformist. The tension between the 2 highlights the social struggle that was occurring at the time. Each character had to do some self discovery - even the non-conformist.

My biggest complaint with the film is the rather rushed ending, which is why I'm giving it 4 stars. I wish that the film had taken more time to resolve some of the storylines.

Rating:
Summary: Waiting for the DVD
Review: There have been three movies that have helped shape my beliefs, Amistad, Dream for an Insomniac and now Mona Lisa Smile. It's the kind of movie that you come away from feeling blessed for the generation you're a part of, grateful to the generations that got you there and knowing: It is not the choices we make, but the right to choose them that define our era.

Rating:
Summary: Mona Lisa Smile
Review: This is not a horrible film. It's NOT Dead Poets Society for girls. It's not a male bashing, anti-marriage film either. It's not a terrific film. It's mediocre. The film was ambitious and I'll admit I had high expectations for it. However, it seemed to have no point--or at least, no clear conclusion to be drawn by the moviegoer.

My husband and I walked out saying, "ALl right, so she went there to change things, but she changed nothing and she left?" What is the moral of the story?

Roberts does a good job as does Marcia Gay Harden as an old maid. Dominic West gives a nice turn here--although his character's motivations are unclear at best. John Slattery, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Ginnfer Goodwin are all a pleasant surprise. Their characters are well played.

Kirsten Dunst falls short of the mark here. Her performance is somewhat stilted. And I assume we are to take her character as the one who changed, but ultimately she did not. In her last scene, she is still just as witchy as always and her decision regarding her marriage had nothing to do with Julia ROberts' character. I like Dunst, but this is not her shining moment. Julia Stiles is another disappointment here. She seems to be attempting a hoity toity accent or delivery and it just isn't working for her. Stiles is talented, but somehow she never hits her mark in this film.

The true problem with the film is with the script. Kirsten Dunst's character is given too much to brunt, thus, we have little resolution for her and no clear idea of what's going on, how much she realizes and wants to rectify. The relationship between Slattery and Roberts' characters is too vague. Roberts' motivations are hazy at best. One moment, it appears she isn't against marrying completely, just not right now. Later, it looks like she IS opposed to it, but we're given no real reason.

Roberts' character also tells Stiles that she "Doesn't have to choose." I'm sorry, but in 1953, yes, you did. If you were a woman, you either married or you became a "Career girl." And how realistic were her character's expectations? Spend a year at Wellesly and undo a lifetime of parental training, societal expectation, etc.??? Doubtful.

This film could have been much better. The script needed more direction. Quite a few of the scenes lacked. The scene between Stiles and Roberts when Stiles delivers the line, "You're the one who told me I could be whatever I wanted to be" is subdued. It could have been a pivotal point in the movie. It could have been the scene that cinched it for us. But, it isn't. In fact, due to a loose scene earlier between Roberts and Stiles' fiance... well, it's just very unclear to the moviegoer exactly WHAT conclusion we're to draw. Is marriage what Stiles wants??? Or is she being lead like a horse to water??? We just don't know.

Not a terrible movie, as I said. BUt not what it could have been. I would give this 2 1/2 if I could.

Rating:
Summary: just bad
Review: A female version of "Dead Poet's Society" its not. The character's aren't well developed. The plot isn't very good either. Julia Roberts plays Katherine Watson, an art history teacher who comes to the conservative and tradition Wellesley College. As she tries to inspire her students to fulfill their potential, some feel threatened by her new ideas and try to hold on to the more traditional ways by making Katherine's job as a teacher quite a challenge.

The movie is very boring. I also feel like it insults women who just want to be wives and mothers. Julia Stiles character, Joan knows the options that she has: going to law school or being a housewife and she chooses to be a housewife. When her decision is final & she's happy with it, Katherine is still disappointed.

Joan's character chooses a more traditional role, the movie sends the message that it isn't as worthy as being a career woman. The movie should have sent the message that its okay to choose different roads without feeling disappointed. With Joan's character we're supposed to believe that the movie wants women to know that they have options but somehow the film doesn't make this point very well.

The movie is lying when it says that women didn't have many options. Maybe it was different for upper class women and that's whom the movie makes its focus on and not the middle class. Its a free country, who cares what society thinks? You should live your life. Besides by the 20s women already had the right to vote.

Rating:
Summary: It ain't measuring to a "Dead Poets Society" movie......
Review: The "cookie cutter" express era-

As a viewer, I would have liked to have seen a more assertive, influential, and engaging portrayal of the character Katherine Watson played by Julia Roberts.

If, and only if, the movie would have had the "Dead Poets Society" production idea and foundation, this would have made a more engaging movie. The title and the whole make up was not well created. Julia Roberts marketable so call "cute smile" is not that impressive.

The movie time period is the 1950s and a time when women's roles were institutionally relegated to the role of a house-wife, domestic keeper, and their husband's "do everything for him approach." From a sociological perspective, this movie depicts an era that shaped, continued to shape and form the role of American women. The women of this era were seen as preparing for their roles as housewives. The men and also to a given degree women, internalized the perception of what it means to be a woman and how women's roles were defined by the larger society, and I am sure the decision-makers and shapers were men. And, of course, this was a distorted perception of women's roles in the larger society.

The 1950s was also a "cookie cutter" type of society in which so-called mainstream America had this "ideal American model" in which all others should believe in, apply as their own, and internalize as the American family way.

Other than the sociological-historical perspective, I did not care much for the movie. The movie, per se characters, lacked a certain genuiness in the roles they played. Julia Roberts is not that impressionable in her role as an art teacher who challenges the status quo of the times. She did well in her role as Erin Brokevich; I did not find her engaging in her role. As for Julia Stiles, she played a more engaging role as a student.

.........So much for hollywood,

Mr. Diego Rodriguez
Chicago, Il

Rating:
Summary: "Mona Lisa" Brings A Small Smile
Review: The 1950s. The decade best known for its classic style, revolutionary music, major political events, and the rebirth of American society after a devastating war. Now, in 2003, it is also the setting for one of the most promising fall movies of the year, "Mona Lisa Smile", which although moderately satisfying, fall short of greatness.

This film, which also drew much attention as it symbolized Julia Robert's comeback after a year of seclusion, follows the story of UC Berkely graduate Katherine Watson (Roberts) who takes up a position as an art history teacher at the prestigious Wellesly College. As an all-girls school, the main conflict in the movie stems from the students torn between the more repressive morals and molds of 1950s women and their wishes for a more respectful, intellectual existence. As well as the conflict within the student body, Katherine finds herself immersed in controversy as well, as her curriculum and methods of teaching in the beginning are not respected by the faculty or the students she teaches. Among them, a harsh headmistress (Marian Seldes) and a scathing student with a dark secret (Kirsten Dunst) who critizes her every move.

However, as much predicted, Katherine wins over the students and parts of the faculty, but it is the way in which the film comes to a close that is rather unsettling. Characters that were well-established in the first hour of the film begin to lose their signature beliefs or attitudes towards different characters that were so strongly stressed, and plotlines are left without explanation, which leaves the audience with many unanswered questions. Not only that, but the story ends predictably, and not to mention abruptly, with little inclination as to how it got there. It's easy to tell the ideals and motives that the film is trying to stress, and it sets out with an ambitious idea on how to show them to the viewers, but it can't quite articulate the ideas in a meaningful fashion so that it touches the audience.

With a slew of brilliant young actresses (such as the wonderful Kirsten Dunst, newcomer Ginnifer Goodwin, and my personal favorite in the film, Maggie Gyllenhaal), with mostly solid performances (with the exception of Julia Stiles, who was suprisingly bland in her role as Joan) and a wonderful idea for a film, it's quite a mystery to me how "Mona Lisa Smile" doesn't quite satisfy us as the audience as much as we would like it to. It could possibly be the direction of Mike Newell, although much more likely the writing team of Lawrence Konner and Mark Rosenthal (who collaborated on "Planet of the Apes", among others), who although presenting us with a handful of feel-good moments, shocking turn-arounds, and emotional scenes in the script, try too hard to close up the story with a happy ending, which in turn, leaves many of the important plotlines and conclusions to the original motives off the radar. In short, "Mona Lisa Smile" is definitely one of the feel-good movies of the fall, but don't expect it to generate any Oscar buzz.

Rating:
Summary: The Best Movie Ever!
Review: This movie was above and beyond what I was going to expect.They really did an awesome job with this movie.I've really never seen anything like it.Julia Stiles,Julia Roberts,and Kirsten Dunst,BRAVO!!!!!Did an outstanding job!

Rating:
Summary: a waste of time
Review: I usually am a fan of Julia Roberts but this is a disappointing film. The movie doesn't know what it wants to be. It wants to encourage women but at the same time it puts down women that choose a more traditional role <--the film also makes it clear that its bad to want to pursue that.

I think the movie should have had the message that women are free to choose anything, to have different options. It tries to do that with Julia Stiles character but that message doesn't come across very well. There are some positive messages but those are far & few in between. It was also a very dull movie.

I'm sorry to say that it was a waste of time, I wanted to like it but it didn't turn out to be the great movie that I thought it would be.

Rating:
Summary: (4 ½) Why Is This Woman Smiling?
Review: I am an unabashed fan of the actress Julia Roberts[...]. Since she is not only the star but also one of the producers of this film, I felt it important to reveal my potential bias right up front. This is an historically accurate, thought provoking comedy that succeeds in both entertaining the audience while reminding us how much society and gender roles in this country have changed in the past fifty years.

The plot is simplicity itself, and since it has been detailed in numerous print views I will only outline it in summary form. Katherine Watson (Julia Roberts) arrives at the prestigious Wellesley College in the fall of 1953 as a new art history instructor. She has a undistinguished background and her capabilities are immediately tested by the students in her class. She soon discovers that Wellesley is more of a finishing school and "marriage prep" than an institution preparing its student to use their education to pursue careers and or influence the political landscape. When she uses nontraditional teaching techniques and lessons outside the prescribed syllabus, the fact that she is an "enlightened" and unmarried woman in that decade of conformity means that her goals are immediately subject to the suspicion of not only the students but also her fellow faculty members and conservative parents and alumni as well. There are all the crosscurrents one would expect, including the obligatory romantic conflict between her previous boyfriend and a male faculty member.

The genius of the film is in its execution. Its attention to detail and the accuracy of its portrayal of the fifties is astounding, and probably will seem unbelievable to the young women of today. And while Katherine Watson is clearly the central character, this is really more of an ensemble cast with many fine performances. Kirsten Dunst is Betty Warren, the student who becomes Katherine's nemesis as the protector of the status quo and the controlling senior who wants to direct everyone's lives. Ginnifer Goodwin as a shy girl who eventually achieves the self confidence that she has been so lacking does a wonderful job, as does Julia Stiles as Joan Brandwyn, the senior who consciously decides to become the loving wife and mother rather than pursue graduate studies and a career. Marian Seldes is also well cast as the college president caught between her conflicting roles as an educator and as the administrator charged with resolving the unease that Katherine has caused within the college's constituencies. Lastly, Marcia Gay Harden as Nancy Abbey, who teaches etiquette and whose overchintzed home is where Katherine lives and Maggie Gyllenhaal as Giselle Levy, who believes in living outside the Wellesley lines and defying Betty whenever possible almost steal the spotlight from Ms. Roberts' performance.

This is a hard film to rate, as indicated by the diverse viewpoints of other reviewers. I really enjoyed it but in some ways left the theater also feeling a little unfulfilled. The film asks more questions than it answers, and while the extent of Katherine's influence on her students in the short term is acknowledged; the long term impact is left undelineated. In other words, just as in life itself you wonder what will happen next. But since it so wonderfully portrayed the slice of life that it examined, I decided to round up my rating to five stars. However, be prepared: in the end we moviegoers are left to decide for ourselves whether Mona Lisa's smile is one of happiness or is only to be true to society's expectations of her.

Tucker Andersen --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title

Rating:
Summary: Terrific Entertainment
Review: Mona Lisa Smile is a winner- with more bite than most critics have given it credit for. Julia Roberts as the Art History Professor who changes her students lives is a refreshing change of pace. Not the mythical character that Robin Williams once played in Dead Poet's Society. She is stubborn, flawed, good hearted, intelligent. And Roberts incapsulates all of that. She's the perfect heroine. The strong supporting cast features Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Marcia Gay Harden, Ginnfer Goodwin and Juliett Stevensen.

Gyllenhaal, Harden, Goodwin and Stevensen impressed me most, but what seemed very predictable, was made surprising, as each character had a bit of a twist to their outward persona (like the Mona Lisa herself).

It perfectly captures the time with music, costumes, setting, and beautiful cinematography. It does have flaws, but I've given it a star more because of the harshness of the critics.