Movies-TV

Empowering

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.

A complete waste of time

A complete waste of time.

I Like This Movie for Reasons OTHER than What Was Billed.

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.

I love it!

This film has really helped me think of our lives nowadays. I am a woman too, and it tells me that in this world, there are women who don't really know how to think, and then in came a woman who thought she could change everything. It has a story that just grasps you and you don't really know what to say about it. The film leaves you with a sort of strange feeling in your heart. That there is this woman who wants to change everything, because women are different, that they should learn to think for themselves, and not only depend on their husbands. The school consists of many teachers who still act and believe in the old way, which is to educate the girls to be good wives and send them off to a happy marriage. But the interesting side of the film is that it's very ironic in a sort of way, that happy marriage doesn't exist if all you do everyday is to be a housewife and your husband is never at home. the irony is that everyone believes that Wellesly girls are the perfect housewives, but they are better than that-they are extraordinary women.

great!

very touching, teaches us theimportance of discipline and understanding that we must all show everyone to be able to teach and learn, connects to our modern society and the way we chose to lead it, it helps us understand the problems that women faced at that time, and how they slowly began to face and overcome it. it takes strength and courage, slowly, but surely the acknowledge that. ^^ ... a beautiful movie.--spoliders- i was very moved at one scene, where the teacher is leaving and all her female students ride their bikes along the taxi and wave 'goodbye'. Vair Vair beautiful scene!

Pretty shallow.

Mona Lisa Smile starring Julia Roberts tries to be an inspiring film about young women making a difference in society but it fails to deliver that message. Robert's performance isn't so motivating especially since she's playing a college professor, her character doesn't teach the girls any valuable information, she preaches rather than giving them heartfelt advice. The supporting cast falls flat as well especially Kirsten Dunst but Gennifer Goodwin does shine in her role. Don't expect much from Mona Lisa Smile, feminisism is a more powerful tool than this film has to offer.

In a world that taught to them think, she taught me how to live

Mona Lisa Smile is a movie based on true events. It shows a teacher named Katherine Watson (Julia Stiles) who starts teaching history of art in Wellseley College in 1953. She is sure that her students (Kirsten Dunst, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Ginnifer Goodwin, Julia Stiles) want to learn as much as they can but she soon understands that in that school, an engagement ring and marriage is more important. In a world that told them how to think, she showed them how to live.The movie made me think a lot about being a woman in the 1950's. Compared to now, they were nothing and their only mission in life was to get married young, have children and live a happy life next to their family. Even if you weren't happy, you had to make a happy face so others would consider you happy. The movie affected me in a way I cannot describe. I realized how lucky I am to be born in 1990's, to a world where women and men are almost equal and I have a chance to make decisions. I don't have to get married in my 20's and I can study in Yale or Harvard or Oxford if I want to.I would recommend this movie to all, but especially to women (or to say, girls). You will understand what options we have compared to fifty years ago.

Painted by Numbers

Spoilers herein.Yet another movie that preaches not following a formula and then does just that. It
should be reviled just for that lack of courage.And not only that, another movie about the sophistication of art (which has a few rather
artistic shots of its own) that presents that sophistication as unsophisticated. An insult to
any viewer.Stars should be wary of appearing in vehicles like this where others can be compared to
them. Roberts and Dunst are completely overshadowed by Harden and Gyllenhaal. How
could the producers allow such a thing? Aren't people tired of Julia's three expressions?As it happens, I experienced Wellesley in the sixties as one of the male targets (from a
local university) in their hunt. And I know well a recent graduate as well as a few others
through the years. Only the words have changed in the last forty years. All else is
essentially the same. Women are still victims of their own cages, though of course more
nuanced than depicted here.Believe it or not, in 68, there was serious talk of merging MIT and Wellesley until the two
started trading students. You can imagine the shock on both sides and the instant
retreat.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

turkey

"Mona Lisa Smile" is a shockingly weak effort from Mike Newell. There is almost nothing good to be said about it, other than that the costumes seemed authentic and that Julia Stiles was in so-far-unseen fine form. The script negotiated a line between the illogical, manipulative and insipid. Direction and cinematography strictly by the numbers. One would have thought the man who made "Donnie Brasco" could at least have unearthed some interesting moments and ideas among the schlock. Very disappointing all around. May it soon be forgotten.As a side note, I remember being at Wellesley College a few times in the early 1990s. The place depicted in "MLS" was not, at least on the surface of things, appreciably different in attitude to the Wellesley I visited, so maybe the choice to set this movie in the 1950s was little more than a desperate attempt to make the entire effort seem more "serious" by lending historical weight to it. On the other hand, who really cares?3/10

Beautiful yet not flawless

Mona Lisa Smile is a beautiful film. The whole setting of the liberal arts college, the 50s conservative setup in which the college dwells so firmly in, and the magical aura of a bygone era captivates you right form the start of the film. Top that with some beautiful photography, a nice gripping story and some convincing performances and you've got a great film.The focus of the film is primarily on the somewhat radical character of Dr Watson (played with finesse by Julia Roberts)and how she deals with the conservative environs of Wellesley College. She is able to build a great rapport with her students, something which happens rather spontaneously and is not explained - one of the flaws in the film. Eventually though , she must face the conservative forces in the college and decide whether she can bend her values and beliefs in order to stay on at the college.This is one of the better offerings from Hollywood in recent times. Definitely not a "chick flick".

beautiful sets, predictable story, weak character developmen

Just a little too over the top for my taste--but kept your interest due to the beautiful clothese and goofy social constraints. THese are the scenes that the REpublicans want to take us back to. Watch this film so that you will be sufficiently scared and outraged at the thought. I ought to know, I spent my childhood in that world!

Not just a "Chick Flick"

After accepting a job at the ultra conservative Wellesley women's college in the 1950s, West Coast art professor Julia Roberts finds herself among the brightest and the best, but the terminally unambitious. Getting their "MRS" degrees seems to be the goal of her students, not changing the world, not taking charge of their destiny. This rubs her the wrong way, but her attempts to "enlighten" the women results in her being called subversive and puts her on the short list for termination. The characters may be stereotypes, but they are convincing. It was an enjoyable movie.

fabulous portrayal of a difficult topic

At times, controversial topics can be either overdone or underemphasized. This film managed to address the topic of women's role in the 1950s without moving into the realm of the unreal. Even in the 1950s, there were some women who were ambitious despite their upbringing, and some that embraced the role set out for them with all their heart. This film show both sides of the coin while portraying the influences of the media on the women of the time.This movie also included fantastic performances by Julia Roberts, Julia Stiles, Kirsten Dunst, and Ginnifer Goodwin. Their dynamic performances truly make the movie.Julia Roberts plays an art history professor at Wellesley College, an exclusive women's college in Massachusetts. Her gutsy character is one straight out of the modern age, and at times seems to speak for the modern woman because no one else will.Julia Stiles plays a very proper New England girl, straight A's, head of many clubs, but can't seem to understand that women do have a place in society aside from being housewives.Kirsten Dunst plays the cold, bitter woman who believes that any woman who chooses not to be a housewife is making a direct attack on housewives in general, and her in particular. Her character launches an attack on her professor which is obviously a personal vendetta more than a moral one. This character is particularly dynamic, and Kirsten Dunst pulls it off to perfection.In particular, I would single out Ginnifer Goodwin for praise in portraying a character that we can all identify with from our moments of low self-esteem. Her character is sure that no man will ever look twice at her unless compelled to do so because she feels so unattractive. She gets no support from the girls around her, and when she gets fixed up on a date with a friend's cousin, she's sure that he only did it as a favor. Her face stands out as one that we have all seen before, either in a mirror, or on the face of a friend. Her charming portrayal of a difficult character who says one thing while obviously feeling another, is to be commended. I hope to see her in more films in the future.While there are moments while watching the film, the modern woman wants to strangle the characters, particularly the men who want supper on the table by five, and a few extremely conservative female characters, it simply adds to the feeling of authenticity that surrounds the film. Women who aspire to be housewives or college professors or President of the United States or anything in between will enjoy and be inspired by this movie.

Left me with a Smile

This movie does exactly what it set out to do and that is to entertain. I believe that a lot of people forget that movies are not real and that they are for pure entertainment. The acting was great the cast was excellent and the story endearing. It's a story about an independent woman trying to teach these girls that there is more to life then getting married and having children, which is what they have been taught is the only way live. Some choose that they want to be wife's,mothers, and homemakers. While others choose to be working women. This is realistic. Just because someone shows you a path doesn't mean that you are going to or want to follow it. I think that this movie is about choices more so then feminism. She was trying to teach them that they had the choice to continue onto grad school and have a career. She also learned from them that to be happy you had to follow your heart and choose your own path.

A film to show all men.

I think this did a brilliant job of portraying how exactly women were supposed to act and what they were supposed to think during the time period. It served it's purpose of making me angry when women were restricted from what they wanted to do, and to make me happy when things went their way. I think it would be a good film to show the men of today who seem to think women should still act like this! This film also had a very strong cast. Julia Roberts was quite good as Katherine Watson, and Kirsten Dunst has stuck with her more-than-common role of being the bitchy ringleader - a role she seems to be growing out of now. I also loved Julia Stiles' character, though she annoyed me a little by the end, and Maggie Gyllenhaal's character's attitude was refreshing to see in an otherwise depressing movie.

Petty Betty Gets a Reality Check

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.

Her brown eyes and big smile only

After the title of the movie, I really didn't know what to expect as a story and all that was a surprise to me. Unfortunately, Julia Roberts was also a surprise, as she didn't perform that well. She just gave an average interpretation for an average movie and her brown eyes and big smile only are not enough anymore to carry a whole film. I liked the original idea of the story, live free and break walls, be yourself instead of interpreting roles given by the outside world. However, this theme had already been presented a couple of times, and an average movie on this is rather boring. I'd prefer then the Dead Poet's Society or Finding Forrester. So, Mona Lisa smile was no big shock for me, but I came out with a little smile from the film, which makes it perfect for me for a Sunday afternoon watch 7/10.

yark.... keep away

I don't remember why I rented this movie. Maybe it was watching the trailers, and just hoping, that it would not be as bad as it appeared from the those.


Nope, it was. And then some. Everyone said that this was like Dead Poet's Society, but with women, but it just wasn't. Dead Poet's society had an engaging teacher and interesting, quirky students. This was some kind of Hollywood consciousness raising that fails miserably.

Julia Roberts playing that art teacher was really not all that convincing to begin with. Actors have to transmit some kind of inherent intelligence to be believable as teachers. She does not. And, as usual in movies, the orders of the art time periods are mixed. Its cave painting, then Pollack, then Van Gogh. Uh, ok?


As for the actresses, the only one I found somewhat palatable was Ginnifer Goodwin, who to me played someone who was not a stereotype or a caricature. The rest of them.... Julia Stiles plays an overachiever. Again. Maggie Gyllenhall as the one who sleeps around and Kristen Dunst as the marrying one. Boring. Kristen Dunst's marriage falls apart.... What a shock.


I also couldn't understand why this movie was made. The 50's were a really divisive time in America, and set the stage for the 1960's. So this slice of life from the privileged classes enjoying the privileges of the privileged classes is supposed to remind us of the "good old days" when women wore chastity belts, I mean girtles? Women worked back then, women go to college looking for a husband now. What message is this movie trying to transmit? I have no idea.

Now these are just the same comments everyone makes, but the movie lacked one more thing. Flesh. Sex. I'm not saying they should be making porn here, and I know, PG-13, and all, but no intimate situations are ever shown. Just one scene of one of these girls, just alone, talking to their significant other, privately, the way couples do, would have been sufficient. Instead, its just "oh, let's get married. Let's get divorced," etc. Like that's what the script says. I got the feeling that maybe there were some scenes like that, but that committee that makes the movies in Hollywood, so that they are as bland as possible and reach as wide an audience as possible said "cut the sex. Don't want America's children to know anything about life."

If you must see a Julia Roberts movie, rent My Best Friend's Wedding. That one at least has some singing in it.

Yet another attack on the 1950s

This is yet another example of Hollywood's liberal attacks on America's most popular decade. There are books written about teenagers that portray all of them as rebels that were out to destroy their parents. As a teenager (actually I was in my early 20s; I was born in 1935) in the 1950s, I came across NO ONE who had these feelings at all both in high school and college. Neither did my teenaged sisters. ANYWAY, let's look at this film:

Set at supposedly idealistic Wellesley College in Massachusetts (said to be the most conservative woman's girls school) just after Eisenhower's election (America's best time period was from when Eisenhower was elected in 1952 to when Sputnik went up in October 1957), these young ladies continue to be traditional. Then this radical from Berkeley (naturally) comes and encourages them to not be traditional. Soon, the girls turn to lesbianism and sleep with all the male professors. This is vicious because it is portraying all men in the 50s as being cheaters (thanks to the Kinsey report) and all women are lesbians. Marriage is wrong. It enslaves women because women should be free and live together, not vow to love, honor and obey. This is the message this show presents.

Marriage is something that is no joke. I remember the old Frank Sinatra song: "love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage since you can't have one without the other." I married my college sweetheart in 1958 and we were happily married and raised two sons until she tragically drowned ala Natalie Wood in 1982. I remarried in 1992. So steer clear of works like this and instead look at real 1950s films made by Douglas Sirk, Joshua Logan, Nicholas Ray, Billy Wilder, etc. I think you'll find those more interesting and enlightening.

Balanced points of view

What I like about this movie is what a great job it does in balancing the points of view about feminism and identity. Most movies take a single argument and defend it. This one presents independence, family, career, etc. as all equal choices...with the ultimate issue being what's right for each person is something you have to find on your own. What works for one person maynot be right for everyone. That's a hard position to take in a movie, and this one does a great job.