Rating: 
Summary: girls good, julia please
Review: Julia was fine in Notting Hill and Sleeping with the Enemy, but hard to take seriously in this role where she is supposedly ventage outrage at girdles. As an audience, are we supposed to believe outrage at traditional female icons from this actress who has certainly embraced a goddess image for herself? Not to say that she should eschew it, since it has served her well. But to play a role where she is supposedly outraged at feminine stereotypes makes her laughable. You get the sense, here in and in Erin B., that she wants her cake and to eat it too, to have the goddess image and still have roles of substance. To use her movie roles to "instruct" -- as she puts it in one of the DVD extras. But please, who is she kidding? Her real life "role" is no less a fantasy than the "freedom girdles" of the 50s, and very little less repressive in its perfection as an icon for women today than the icons she is rebelling against in the movie. Are we supposed to overlook the irony of a present day icon venting outrage at the iconography of the 50s? How valid a statement is that? Is she that blind, or does she take her female audience to be blind and dumb not to expect us to see the hypocrisy here? Though Julia could better have been replaced with a more believable actress, (and the other teachers or adult women were largely cardboard stereotypes) the girls, I thought were wonderful. Dunst was a good foil, but I thought all the girls were excellent. They come of age pretty much on their own, were surprisingly fresh and novel, considering the rest of the cookie cutter ensemble. I can't see that the art teacher has all that much influence, but that's as it should be. The girls are what this movie is or should be about. In general a movie worth seeing for the portrait of the times, and the wonderful supporting cast in the girls, even if Julia herself is ridiculous in the central role.
Rating: 
Summary: Best movie I've seen in a long time
Review: This must be one of those love-it-or-hate-it movies, because I'm surprised to see so many negative reviews. I absolutely loved it. I don't think you have to be female to appreciate it, thought the message will certainly hit home deeper if you are. Although we've come a long way from the 50's, the message still holds true - you can have it all, never settle - and I think this would make a wonderful graduation gift for any young woman about to embark on her journey of life. Unlike what some of the other reviews state or imply, Julia Roberts' character was not anti-marriage or anti-tradition. Her message was simply that women do not have to choose between marriage and a life of their own. You can have marriage and a career, or a family and interests. You can think for yourself instead of filling canned, predetermined roles set by dated ideals. I found it empowering and inspiring.
Rating: 
Summary: Wow! That was painful!
Review: I had heard some truly wonderful things about this movie and was looking forward to watching it. Mona Lisa Smile tells the story of a professor (Julia Roberts) who starts teaching Art History, or Appreciation, or something at Wellesley (an all-girls school). There are several big name young actresses-I mean students in her class. And they're all know-it-alls. The movie wants to be the "girls' version of Dead Poet's Society" so bad that the creators of DPS should be looking into a slander lawsuit because it is insulting what they do to what was originally a really good movie. Katherine Watson (Roberts) came to Wellesley to make a difference and she was not going to take no for an answer. So, when the actresses-I mean students outsmart her, she has to make the class more difficult. Because I guess they're not *really* learning until Watson has taught them. And Watson is not going to just teach them about Art. No. She's gonna teach them about *life* and that they don't have to get married and have babies. They can be whatever they want because they are soooo smart. And if they want to get married and have babies, then they're just in denial. Because Watson knows everything! Sadly, no one dies unlike in the original DPS. There's the antagonist, Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst), who hates Watson, but in the end, loves her the most. The protagonist, Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles), who respects Watson, but in the end teaches Watson a life lesson. The morally ambivalent wanna-be, Giselle Levy (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who wants to be Watson. And the "ugly, fat girl", Connie Baker (Ginnifer Goodwin), who just wants to be liked by a boy. Most of the acting was very cardboard. I am not sure whether to blame this on the script, the director, or the actors. Julia Roberts looked exactly the same as she has looked in her past 5 movies. Same "smile" theme, same bursting laugh, same "unliked-girl" who really is a pretty woman (ha!) deep down. She's turning into Meg Ryan by picking the same character over and over again. Kirsten Dunst's character was a little too whiney and in the end, when Betty Warren does the "morphosis", it is not believable. Even if it was believable, then we wouldn't really care because the way she was portrayed would be akin to feeling sympathy for Atilla the Hun. Julia Stiles was the only one whose character seemed to remain consistant. I am not sure if this is because of her acting or because the script didn't call for a "character evolution". Either way, Joan was still boring and lifeless. Maggie Gyllenhaal is beautiful and sexy and boy is Giselle a sexually free spirit in this movie. Hmm...Secretary, anyone? But, I'm not sure what they were trying to do with that student-teacher relationship/affair thing. Maybe I fell asleep and missed it. For the life of me I could not figure out why they thought Ginnifer Goodwin's character was fat or ugly so, we'll just ignore her because her character has no conflict! For that matter, nothing at all anywhere in this entire movie does... Oh, did I fail to point out that the title is mentioned throughout the movie at least eleventy-billion times? I bet the writers did this on purpose to encourage drinking games since that's the only way they could get anyone to willingly watch the whole movie to the end.
Rating:
Summary: Our Mothers, Our Selves
Review: The reviews for this movie about the injection of a Left Coast "Bohemian" Art instructor (Roberts) into the 1953-1954 school term of staid Wellesley College for Women generally fall along gender lines. But this is not just a period piece of chick flick fluff about stereotypical men who prefer Stepford Wives and Marilyn Monroe mistresses, and divine debutantes who need only worry their pretty little heads about "marrying well" and picking out the correct china pattern. The excellent cast and extra features on this recommended DVD show the underbelly - unrestrained by an advertisement for the "freedom" of a rigid girdle (!) - of the pseudo perfect & placid 50's. The viewer gets the feeling, though, that just like the era itself, major currents and events have been editted out. Mona Lisa's mysterious smile, indeed.
"You've Come A Long Way, Baby." Virginia Slims Cigarettes, advertisements, 1960's and 70's
but
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana 1863-1952
Rating:
Summary: Good film
Review: Julia Roberts did a good acting job in this true-to-life film.
I enjoyed it, even though the message seemed, at times, to be a bit heavy handed. I recommend it. Debbie Farmer parenting author,'Don't Put Lipstick on the Cat'
Rating: 
Summary: It's OK
Review: The ironic thing is, it's better than I thought it was going to be-Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly hated this movie, and they have every right to. It has those "I've seen them all before" predictable plotlines, the script was OK, and it was just another Julia Roberts romantic comedy. I'm actually beginning to hate Julia Roberts now because with the exception of Pretty Woman, Notting Hill, Ocean's 11 and Erin Brockovich, she has made really boring movies and she plays the same recycled romantic comedy role every other movie, which is why people liked Erin Brockovich so much. It's not that she's a bad actress, but she doesn't deserve the crowned princess of movies title anymore, either. This movie would have been so much more interesting had it been centered around the students rather than the teacher. This film could have been much better had it been a look at the rebelious time of housewives-to-bes rather than a cheesy look at the teacher who left something behind is a little late at the journey of finding herself and instead leads the students. The only thing that saves me from giving this movie one star is one person: Maggie Gyllenhaal. She is the only good actress in this movie. It's tiring to watch Julia Roberts, Kirsten Dunst is a good actress, but she didn't stand her own in this movie. And Julia Stiles is another good actress, but she didn't really make her character her own-and I didn't like her fake New England/Brittish accent. Maggie G. made her character very human and likeable asside the fact that she was permiscuous. I hope to see her again in the near future, and I expect to. And Ms. Harden, I would like that Oscar back! She was just so annoying! This makes me want to give her a second Oscar for Mystic River (she was very good, but some of the other nominees were better). Maybe if this female-dominated film wasn't made by a male-dominated crew it would have been better. Maybe if it hadn't had copied the good parts of DEAD POETS SOCIETY and made it bad it would've been better. Maybe if Julia Roberts hadn't recycled her old movie roles and stayed at home with hubby Danny Moder it would have been better. Either way, this movie is not a piece of art.
Rating: 
Summary: I Like This Movie for Reasons OTHER than What Was Billed.
Review: Mona Lisa smile. Oh, goodness, what a trip. Having gone to an all-girls high school in New England that has always been a feeder for Wellesley (and the Wellesley of today is quite different than in the 50's), I was admittedly curious about the film. However, all my good sense told me to stay away. I had enough feminism shoved down my throat at that school to last me a lifetime. That said, I eventually saw the film as a captive audience member on an overseas flight. As they jumped in to the story, all the stereotypes came screaming out of the screen to me: stuffy old New England school, liberal from California, jaded students who know how to act the part for teachers, rich kids with parents on trustee boards, etc. I think the movie relies on these well-worn characters because the writers certainly didn't do a very good job of developing them. You just sort of fall into a familiar world. My main criticisms of the film are:
1. As the movie progressed, I kept thinking that the storyline wasn't in sync with the character development. They kept jumping ahead in the plot, assuming that you are keeping up with all the nuances of all the girls as they bloom in their senior year. Really, this wasn't too hard as they kept the girls pretty one-dimensional. 2. The whole 'Mona Lisa' concept was forced and ridiculous. It didn't make sense that Julia Robert's lover called her that, and Kirsten Dunst's scene where she discusses this with her mother is laughable. You knew what Dunst was getting at, but the film must have relied heavily on the audience's personal sentiment because they certainly didn't bring you there emotionally. 3. And the ending...my goodness what a rip-off of 'Dead Poet's Society.' Many movies have ripped off 'Dead Poet's Society,' but none seemed as clear as this. I won't give it away, but don't worry...the girls didn't all stand up on their desks at least. For all that, I don't think the movie was a complete failure. I thought the following were noteworthy in the film:
1. First off, I need to praise Maggie Gyllenhaal's acting!!! 'Who?' you may ask. She was the 4th one mentioned in all the previews and was the one that no-one really knew. Her character could in some ways be a tired cliche, but she brought it to life and easily stole every scene she was in. I was really mesmorized by her performance, and I look forward to more in the future. 2. Ginnifer Goodwin (the cello player) and Marcia Gay Harden (the old spinster) also turned very solid performances. 3. The fact that Julia Robert's character was ultimately able to turn down relationships with 2 charming men was fairly remarkable. The fact that she had, needed and enjoyed these relationships so much shows that she is not anti-male or anti-marriage. She merely has a mature understanding that marriage is not an absolute good and that neither of these men could ultimately stand by her. 4. What they did with Julia Styles' character (girl who was accepted into Yale Law School) was also impressive in this 'progressive' film. That character perhaps single-handedly kept this from being just empty feminist propaganda. 5. Kirsten Dunst's role (the girl who gets married) & her relationship with her mother gives some spooky insight into 'advice' some girls were getting from their mothers. The night her mother turns her away from her home is particularly painful. Overall, I think the film is pretentious and completely misses what it aimed to be. Additionally, I don't think Roberts, Dunst or Styles turned in particularly outstanding performances. However, there was enough life there from random sources to keep the movie afloat.
Rating:
Summary: Boring, over-hyped CRAP!
Review: Why does Hollywood hate traditionalist values so much? If you can't see the one-sided portrayal of liberalism as the "enlightened" way of life, you weren't paying attention.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful Acting Makes this Movie!
Review: The performances by all of the actors and actresses in this movie are top notch! I was particularly impressed with the performances by Kirsten Dunst and Maggie Gyllenhaal. The scene where Kirsten has a 'melt down' while chastising Maggie is just an amazing piece of acting by both actresses. The story line is a bit overdone in movies; a coming of age story involving the positive influence of an instructor upon a set of students. In a way, this movie could be "Dead Poets Society," "Cider House Rules," or any number of similar movies. What keeps this movie from becoming an "I've seen this before" let down is simply the superb acting. Bottom line: If you love great acting, you'll love this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Oddly it is quite good
Review: Julia Roberts re-making Dead Poets society, that cannot be good? However contary to expectations it is an entertaining and pleasant film. One of the things it has going for it was that Dead Poets Society was such a brain dead film. Robin Williams ranting at kids and getting them to meet and read poetry in a cave at night. This film by comparisson is far more intelligent. Julia Roberts instead of advocating a get in touch with your inner feelings message as Williams did in Dead Poets does two things. Firstly she is able to teach art history in a way that is not patronising and is rational. Second she interacts with the charaters not to suggest what they should become but to suggest that they have choices. She is assisted by the strong casting and strong writing for the girl students she is teaching. In Dead Poets Society the students were two dimensional at best, and somewhat retarded at most times. In this film the students are indvidual people, all intelligent and multi dimensional. The ending is a bit cliched but, well this is a feel good film.
| 
