Mona Lisa Smile

Rating:
Summary: Great Movie
Review: I just saw this movie last night, and before it was over I knew that I wanted to own it on video/DVD to watch it over and over again. It's funny, light enough to make you smile, and deep enough to make you think. The actors, Julia Roberts, Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles, etc are perfect for their parts. It is a girl movie, but not overly mushy and romantic. For the most part, it is a clean movie, only a few implied romantic scenes. (Yea!)It doesn't promote women being career driven, or housewifes, but promotes choosing to do what you want, whether it be a career, a full time mom, or both. I'd definitly pay to go see it again. I loved it!

Rating:
Summary: The Way It Was--How Strange It Seems Now
Review: As the mother of three daughters, I was eager to see Mona Lisa Smile. I expected a movie in which females were exposed to life beyond what they had been taught to expect, and I was not disappointed. It was rather bizarre seeing young women attending college classes in nylon stockings and pearls, their hair in pin curls when going to bed. Yet that was their world in those days, the world of the rich and privileged, the brightest and the best. There were of course the misfits, like Giselle Levy (Maggie Gyllenhaal), the only Jew, beautiful, charismatic, and brilliant, who masked her loneliness with promiscuity, and Connie Weaver, not as pretty or personable as the others, who sought comfort in the cello. But the leaders, embodied by Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst) and Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles) knew where their futures lay. Betty married early into her senior year, an extravaganza orchestrated by the mother from hell (a truly hateful Donna Mitchell) while Joan looked for an engagement ring. Then Catherine Watson (Julia Roberts) came into their lives to show them that they could be more, contrary to the wishes of the Dean (Marion Seldes) and the alumni president, Mrs. Warren. She succeeded in raising their awareness of art, and to an extent in raising their awareness of their options in life.

One truly poignant scene will remain with me for a long time. Betty, who has begun to realize that her "perfect" marriage to young lawyer Spencer has serious problems, returns home for comfort. Her mother scornfully sends her back to her home without as much as a kiss or a caress. I realized then that she had only had Betty so she could produce a society wedding one day. Had Betty been mine, I'd have comforted her and listened to her. Perhaps I would have sent her home, but only after making sure it was the right decision. Thus Betty's becoming a supporter of Catherine's, after undermining her throughout the year with her editorials in the school newspaper, rings true.

I left the theater feeling glad that that had not been my world and that my daughters had a wide world of opportunities open to them. It made me feel good, and it made me think. What more can one ask?

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing.....
Review: This movies was extremely disappointing. Julia Roberts did her typical shallow performance. However, this time she had company in the director, writer, and supporting cast accompaning her in this shallow parade. The one good thing about this movie is Kirsten Dunst. She has the talent and the ability to be a great actor.
There were no transistion in the characters emotional evolution. We can not see why all of a sudden Julia Robert's character, Ms. Watson, falls in love with the Italian teacher.
Is it merely a physical attraction? We do not even see that evolve. We saw her only a few times interacting with the members of her class, so, how does she affect them so deeply.
There is no emotional substance in this film.
There are so many gaps in this storyline and that in combintation with the generally poor acting makes this one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Save your money and better yet your time and go see another movie.

Rating:
Summary: impressive
Review: I won't go into to much of the storyline since many other reviewers have. This was a wonderful movie that tells us that we should do what we want to do and not what others choose for us to do. I thought this was going to be a movie preaching feminism, but it wasn't.

This movie protrays the society girls of the 1950's and how they dealt with life. Should they become a good wife and mother that everyone expects of a women in this period or become the person they want to be no matter what it is or invovles.

Kirsten Dunst perfectly plays the girl that does everything buy the book, and does things as people and tradition dictate. Eventually she comes to relize everything isn't perfect and some things can not be hidden or ignored. She relizes that a smile on your face doesn't mean your happy.

Julia Roberts was great as a forward thinker. Her personality seemed to fit this role well. Her character pushed people to be happy in what they chose. She just wanted to make sure it is what they chose. I love that she never conformed and wasa freespirit to the end.

This is a great movie for starting a conversation about what you are, want to be and what you want to get out of your life.

Rating:
Summary: A Horribly written and directed film
Review: This film is not a portrait of the individual characters but simply a theme using characters. The emotional transitions are non existent. We can not see why certain characters change. Why does Julia Roberts character suddenly fall in love the Italian Instructor?? There is no romantic precursors to this event. Why does Julia Stiles character suddenly think Ms. Watson is a great teacher?? We only see a few interactions with them, which are aimless and empty.
Several reviews compared this film to the great, "Dead Poets Society". There is NO comparison whatsoever, except in the timeline and circumstances. "Dead Poet's Society" used precise character examinations to portray a fluid like story. DPS was conceived and executed in the way great films are. "Mona Lisa's Smile" was conceived and executed in the way a Junior High School play with no adult writer or director does.
Do not waste your time on this film! You will thank me...

Rating:
Summary: THE feel-good movie of the year...
Review: It doesn't matter whether you like Julia Roberts or not. I don't care much for her but I must say she does an excellent job in this one. It's not the chick flick I feared, it just happens to present an all-female cast, and a great one at that. Ironically, I would say it's Marcia Gay Harden who steals the show as one of the rigid Wellesley professors.
You know the plot so let's not elaborate on it... The performances are stellar and there is never a dull moment, which is quite an achievement!

Go see it if you are into this Christmas kind of mood when you want to be entertained and above all feel really good!
And the Oscar goes to...

Rating:
Summary: Plastic Smiles, Plastic Plot, Plastic Characters
Review: Given my profound admiration of Julia Roberts and my enthusiasm for material that provides thoughtful insight into the shallowness of so much that seems to constitute the American Dream, it may come as some surprise that I am so critical of this movie. In fact, all that I can find to compliment are the stunning skills of Julia Roberts, convincing as always--so much so that you forget you are watching her and actually believe in the person she portrays, and the intent of the screenplay writer, admirable in its correct depiction of an educational institution devoted to a purpose so devoid of any real meaning.

Unfortunately, the skills of the director, and perhaps of the screenwriter as well have limited the actual film to an almost ludicrously two dimensional portrayal of virtually all the characters in the movie, and have created a story so hyperbolic in nature as to render the plot comedy at times when it should be serious and pathetic at times when it pretends to humour. In the opening scene we are supposed to believe that every student in this fine university have acually read and mastered the assignment for the first class in its entirety, memorizing to perfection dates and styles of art going back to the 15th century BC.

Later, we are expected to believe that the Italian Professor (Mike Newell) who has exhibited absolutely nothing in the film worthy of the attentions of the thinking, caring, highly intellectual professor which is Katherine Watson, succeeds not only in seducing her but in further maintaining a relationship lasting for a period of several months.

Finally, we are expected to believe that Betty (Kirsten Dunst) who has consistently been portrayed as the acquiescing member of high society, consistently scornful, indeed derisive of her professor suddenly becomes her ardent admirer and is willing to turn to her for support and advice just because she has given up on her marriage and broken bonds with her domineering mother. Possible, yes, but the film here, as in so many other scenes, fails to provide any transitional material explaining the change in attitude or behaviour.

The one sequence that most significantly varies, refreshingly, from this is that where Joan (Julia Stiles) boldly challenges Katherine's (Julia Roberts) teaching as that of imposing her own values on others rather than that which she claims to be doing--teaching students to find their own way.

To be certain, taken on the strength of their individual performances, there were a number of reasonably good appearances by key actors and actresses. There were a few good scenes in the movie and its fundamental message was one with which many of its viewers will be no doubt inclined to agree. Unfortunately, only one performance could be described as brilliant (that of the inimitable Julia) and the film as a whole bears no comparison with the likes of Mr. Holland's Opus, a masterpiece of drama, believable, human and multidimensional throughout. Alas, this could have been such a rich fabric of natural fibers rather than the plastic imitation that it is.

Rating:
Summary: nothing to say, and two hours to say it
Review: Perhaps the one good thing about this movie is the splendid joke of casting Julia Roberts in a film with the title "Mona Lisa Smile". Whether she uses it to grin or pout, Roberts' wall-to-wall mouth has got to be one of the least subtle and mysterious in all of Hollywood. Jack Nicholson's might run a close second.
Beyond that, there's really very little to recommend this film. The word "lackluster" isn't quite strong enough to describe what director Mike Newell has put together. There are plenty of movies out there with nothing to say, but this one has achieved a rare, almost perfect hollowness. Roberts plays Katherine Watson, a free-thinking "bohemian", who comes to the elitist Wellesley College in 1953 to teach Art History. What she finds is a training camp for future Stepford wives, and soon she is on a mission to liberate their minds by getting them to ponder such radical questions as "what is art?" Mixed in with this, we get several little mini-dramas involving her students and their romantic entanglements, as well as Katherine's ill-considered romance with Bill Dunbar (Dominic West). Dunbar seems to be the only male teacher at Wellesley, and he takes this as a license to use the school as his personal harem. Katherine knows he's a sleazebag, but, being a free spirit with nothing better to do, decides to sleep with him anyway. You go girl.
What is so profoundly annoying about this film is that it pretends to be about non-conformism, a "dare to be yourself" movie, but it dares absolutely nothing. It's bad enough to subject the world to a watered-down version of "Dead Poets Society" made with an all-female cast, and it's especially bad to do so without adding a single original idea. But how dare Newell serve up a feast of cliches and try to pass it off as a homage to free thought? The students and their personal dilemmas seem to be pulled right out of the Hollywood-stereotype bag: we have the Overachiever, the Tramp, the Comic Relief, and the Stuck-Up-One-Who-Has-a-Dramatic-Change-of-Heart-and-Becomes-a-Better-Person-In-The-End. We get regrettably tired dialog, and occasional splashes of feminist ideas which, as feminism, might have been daring for the 19th century but not for 1953, and in 2003 they wouldn't even get you in the door of a Judy Chicago retrospective. (It's interesting to note that, in Watson's art history class, the only the works of male artists are shown. It's also interesting to note that the director and screenwriters are all men-- not that it means they've got any bias here, I'm just saying that it's interesting.)
At one point in the film, Watson singles out for criticism a paint-by-numbers kit for van Gogh's "Sunflowers", lamenting how our society has replaced the passion of art with a regimented, follow-the-rules mentality. This film has more in common with that kit than it would like to admit. At the end, as Watson bids farewell to her class, each student presents her with a version of the van Gogh (each in that student's own style, we're given to believe). "How else will you remember us?" they ask. Good call, ladies. I was having a hard time remembering you twenty minutes after I left the theater.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing but worth watching Julia Roberts
Review: Having so much respect for Julia Roberts as an actress, my husband and I gladly accepted an invitation to go see a special advance screening of this film. As expected, we had the greatest pleasure of watching Julia's talent shining in this film that reminded me of Dead Poet's Society and Emperor's Club. But that was the only favorable thing I can say about this film. I agree that it has a good message but also feel that it is an archaic message that doesn't really give the audience much to think about, unlike the messages that make you reflect upon your lives and the current society. I don't doubt that many in the audience found this film very entertaining because it made them laugh about the values imposed upon women of that period, which, from our contemporary point of view, appear vastly absurd. I also found that many of the classroom teaching scenes were just unrealistic and transitions between many scenes were so awkward, which undermines the merit of the film. Overall I will rate this film much lower than either Dead Poet's Society or Emperor's Club.

Rating:
Summary: Julia's best since Brockovich?
Review: MONA LISA SMILE is beguiling not only because it's a well-done, mid-1950s period piece, but also because it stars the always-enchanting Julia Roberts. With a film title like that, who else would be appropriate?

Roberts is Katherine Watson, an art history teacher from California's public university system, who has the nerve to apply for - and get - a position on the faculty of the prestigious eastern college for women, Wellesley. Watson's goal is to make a difference in the lives of her students, but her Wacky West Coast feminism is immediately at odds with staid Wellesley tradition. The college is hardly more than a finishing school for marriage-bound debutantes. After all, it's 1953 and, at least according to contemporary cultural mores and commercial advertisers, a girl's ultimate dream is to be married to a successful white-collar professional, and have a house, children, washer and dryer, and a Hoover. To make things worse, Watson's first-day presentation in Art History 100 is gutted by a class that's already read the entire course syllabus. A humiliated Katherine must go to Plan B.

Watson's students are a mixed bag represented in the plot by: Betty (Kirsten Dunst), the patronizing and know-it-all editor of the school paper who's soon to be married to a young lawyer, Giselle (Maggie Gyllenhaal), the free spirit that sleeps around, and Joan (Julia Stiles), who's torn between becoming a lawyer and getting married. Katherine is determined to get Joan into Yale Law School. Of the three, Dunst gives the most poignant performance as the one whose dream comes up against hard reality. And Joan's heartfelt explanation to Watson of her final choice gives Watson pause.

There are several reasons why MONA LISA SMILE is an engaging, almost-excellent film. As a period piece, it's lavish in its depiction of the music, fashion, dance, advertising, and social expectations of the time. (The pre-determined role for young women of the upper-middle and upper classes will likely cause feminists to grip the arms of their seats with a white-knuckled fury.)

MONA LISA SMILE has that general gist of MR. HOLLAND'S OPUS (1995), i.e. the generally acknowledged but too rarely explored effect that a great teacher can have on young minds. The latter film was so excellent that, in comparison, I can't quite bring myself to award MONA LISA SMILE the same five stars. Compared to the career of Mr. Holland (Richard Dreyfuss), which spanned decades, Watson's is a relative flash-in-the-pan over one academic year. (Also, I didn't find it so credible that Wellesley's severely conservative president should have been so surprised with Watson's non-conformity. I mean, didn't the college interview Katherine before giving her the nod, especially as she was coming from such a plebeian background? What were they thinking?)

Lastly, there's Julia Roberts, who perhaps hasn't done so well in a leading role since ERIN BROCKOVICH, for which she won a Golden Globe as Best Actress. I wouldn't be surprised to see a nomination stemming from this performance. It's a genuine treat to see her again in something other than a fluffy, romantic comedy.