RSS 2.0Mona Lisa Smile (2003)
I am actually one of those people who adores Julia Roberts. I shouldn’t, especially with what fees she has credited to her bank account for what seems to be minimal efforts. Like Mona Lisa Smile, which brought Mrs. Roberts (who is currently married to the movie’s cameraman) $25,000,000. This led the remaining members of the cast to settle for less. Mona Lisa Smile is completely disposable. The story is messy (especially the first hour) and didn’t do anything for me. Though maybe that was due to the fact that I’d lost one of my contact lenses throughout the first half hour. But despite that, what could have been, wasn’t what it should be. Still get it? Bring on the booze!
Picture it. Wellesley women’s college, Massachusetts, 1953-1954. These are times in which smart women get the chance to go to college and then get married and you know’ throw it all away, start a family and make sure dinner is on the table on time. When Julia’s character, Katherine Watson, starts lecturing art at Wellesley she thinks it’s time to break with tradition and make the young women aware of their qualities. This undermines the college’s regime, so Katherine gets bossed around by the management, blah blah blah, yada yada yada. Is there any wine left?
In my (attempt to have a) sarcastic undertone I hope you will hear exactly what I think is wrong with Mona Lisa Smile. It is all so extremely predictable and, though the cast is good (including Maggie Gyllenhaal, Kirsten Dunst and Julia Stiles), they don’t get much material to shine or act themselves off the screen and into your heart. Of the two dimensional characters we see only Kirsten Dunst’s is kinda worth the experience. Some scenes of her’s are pretty emotional and give the movie the depth (also proverbially) that we see in Leonard Da Vinci’s painting ‘ but completely miss in Mike Newell’s flickie. We know what Newell is capable of, judging by his previous achievements like Four Weddings and a Funeral. But, it is not even Mike Newell I can blame for making Mona Lisa Smile an embarrassment. It is the script ‘ or maybe the editing ‘ that’s to blame. Hopefully Newell does better on Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. We really should get some more alcohol…
To end this review a little more positively, though. The only reason why I actually wanted to see this one is because of the small cameo by American singer-songwriter-pianist Tori Amos, of whom I am a big fan (she’s in the purple dress in the wedding scenes). Such a shame the movie is in her way… Actually it is the soundtrack of Mona Lisa Smile that provides most of the fun, with contemporary artists singing old jazz and big band tunes. Personally, I am quite surprised that Elton John (with his nicest song ever, The Heart of Every Girl) didn’t get nominated for the upcoming Oscars. All in all, the music is absolutely great, it’s just a shame its video (in the form of Mona Lisa Smile) sucks’ And I hardly drink at all… can you imagine… Mona Lisa Smile almost makes me become an alcoholic. I have the AA application forms lying on my desk.
‘I can be cruel’ I don’t know why”
Directed by: Mike Newell
Starring: Julia Roberts, Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal
Official Website
‘Mona Lisa Smile’ runs 117 minutes and is showing now worldwide
____________
Arjan Welles (213 posts)Arjan Welles - law graduate. I work at a bank, I work as a film critic for Dutch and English media. My favorite directors are David Lynch, David Fincher, Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino. I love arthouse over blockbusters.
6 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Arjan, I guess that since you’re a guy you shouldn’t have gone to this film in the first place. This one has “chick flick” written all over it in big neon letters…
Comment by weefselkweekje — Tue February 10, 2004 @ 16:09well the chick-flick factor isn’t what automatically keeps me away. That is not why I think MLS stank…
I saw some pretty cool chick-flicks… including the Hours…
Comment by Arjan — Tue February 10, 2004 @ 23:46Actually, I never thought of The Hours as a chick-flick. That term is too ‘Hollywood’ for that movie. When I think of chick-flicks I think of movies with a typical, slightly feminist, storyline that’s been designed to make you cry in the end. And there’s always some (succesfull!) romantic plot.
The Hours actually did make me cry, and was a lot more sincere imho than most typical chick-flicks.
Comment by weefselkweekje — Wed February 11, 2004 @ 11:21This chick happened to see Mona Lisa Smile this afternoon. Thoughts? Well, it actually wasn’t as bad ‘ or as predictable ‘ as expected, with enough to keep me interested and enjoyable enough. I think women will indeed appreciate it more than men. And it’s what I would call ‘a rainy Sunday afternoon movie’.
I could also say something about the editing or muddle/undevelopment of sub plots etc but I haven’t the inclination. Other thoughts though… Nice to see a fine British actress in there ‘ Juliet Stevenson CBE (who had us all in tears in Truly, Madly, Deeply). But a shame she lowered her voice a few octaves to play her lesbian character and had a bad drag queen hairdo to boot. Was great to see Maggie Gyllenhaal in there but I will never be able to look at her in the same light again after seeing her incredible performance in Secretary.
Finally, Arjan, just reread your review and must admit to absolutely not noticing the Elton John song!
Comment by Pip — Wed February 11, 2004 @ 21:23@ pip
the elton john song is played at the end credits… you know when the pretty roses start to draw (that was a nice touch)
@ weefsel
Comment by arjan — Thu February 12, 2004 @ 1:42I guess in some ways the Hours is a chick-flick. But to me being categorized as c-f is not a bad thing per se… The Hours had a very female theme but I absolutely loved it. MLS is a different kind of movie and not even half as good as The Hours…
Well, still don’t remember the song. But the credits were great by the way – don’t leave the cinema before they roll…
Comment by Pip — Thu February 12, 2004 @ 15:16