Movie Reviews
Movie Reviews
By Eric Jones
Staff Writer
An event as immense as going to see “The Return of the King” can only be undertaken in the most arduous manner, because if it is not, it may end in disaster. Watching this movie is an event best handled with a very cautious mentality and which only the most wary should approach. Before you leave for the theatre make sure you have eaten recently, bathed, paid the bills, fed the dogs and shaved. Not devoting the proper time to these suggested matters may indeed end in tragedy as you arrive back home stinky, bearded, with a dead dog and no light or electricity.
I saw “The Return of the King” twice to show how preparation can lead to thorough enjoyment, while the lack thereof can lead to complete catastrophe. The first time I saw the movie I took all of the necessary precautions. My scrupulous planning came in handy. “The Return of the King” was the greatest movie ever! I felt the pain of Frodo’s burden. I felt the joy of the victory at Minis Tirith. I laughed; I cried; it became a part of me. As I gazed about with awe at the miraculous war scenes, which devoured at least 97 percent of the film, I was stunned at my reception of the movie’s unforgiving length. I could have watched those neat little orcs for another three hours, especially the one whose head looked like a chewed up piece of bubble gum. He was my favorite. Wow, what a movie!
The second time I watched the movie I attempted to reverse the preparations made for my previous journey. This time I slept late, ate popcorn all day, and watched “Saving Private Ryan,” while lying on the couch drinking Tang. Surprisingly, the first hour of the movie treated me fine. However, well into the second hour a deep swelling madness began to set in. The movie just wasn’t ending! I began to look at my watch more and more, I broke out in cold sweats, and I was jumpy from all of the Tang. I rocked in my seat. I shivered. The war was over, but Frodo and Sam were still so far away! They could easily take up another seven hours with their melodramatic dialogue and endless dwelling upon the fate of the one stupid ring! In exhausting futility I struggled to reason with the troubled hobbit, but it was useless. The movie, like the flaming plains of Mordor, was unending, and I collapsed into the dizzying lunacy of its sanctum .
I bid viewers beware. Those who are devout fans of “The Lord of the Rings” will undoubtedly have no problem enjoying this movie to the very end, but those who are not adequately prepared and who have only casually seen this movie’s predecessors should question the commitment they are about to make. It’s a long, long, long way to the end of Frodo and Sam’s journey, and popcorn can only do so much.
—————————————
By Bo Shell
Staff Writer
Smart, clever and funny are not words that describe “Mona Lisa Smile,” Julia Roberts’s latest attempt to rekindle the Oscar flame. From the one-dimensional cast to the plotless ramblings of the stereotypical storyline, Roberts has a full-fledged flop on her hands.
If you can imagine a coming of age story set at an all-girls college in the 1950s, you could have written the “Mona Lisa Smile” script. After graduating from UCLA, West Coast liberal Katherine Watson (Roberts) travels to Massachusetts to teach art history at Wellesley College, but when she arrives it seems that her students are more concerned with becoming housewives than using their higher education.
Watson tries unique teaching methods to catch the girls’ attention and open their minds to a world beyond their hopes of marriage, but not without controversy. Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst) and her posse of textbook personalities (Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Ginnifer Goodwin) have their own ideas for Watson, and they don’t include her liberal teaching ways at Wellesley.
Watson and her students battle through the year and, of course, come graduation, all is resolved and the girls have learned their art history, but more importantly, they’ve learned about themselves.
As a summary cannot do a movie justice, these words can’t paint the muddled picture that is “Mona Lisa Smile.” The film is tainted with unexplained, diluted relationships between Katherine Watson and a boyfriend she left in California and later between Watson and a fellow professor at Wellesley; bad writing and poor acting make both of those relationships totally insignificant and ultimately confusing.
Ever since critics first saw “Mona Lisa Smile,” there has been talk that this movie is a self-serving tool for Roberts and her new production company Red Om. Roberts’ performance is overrated, especially considering the solid performances from the lesser-known members of her ensemble. Dunst plays the token stubborn conservative very well, as does Gyllenhaal in the roll of token nymphomaniac, but even those characters are underdeveloped.
Luckily, when the film’s plot lulls audiences toward sleep, at least they can close their eyes and immerse themselves in the film’s unique soundtrack. Macy Gray, Seal, Chris Isaak, Mandy Moore and others add new life to songs from the 1950s on the 14-track album. Tori Amos, who contributes two tracks, cameos as a wedding singer in the film, as well.
So, let’s get one thing straight: “Mona Lisa” is no “Erin Brockovich.” If you don’t believe the critics, just look at the box office numbers. “Erin Brockovich,” the film that scored Roberts her only Oscar, grossed over $125 million — nearly $75 million more than it cost to make. As of January 19, “Mona Lisa Smile” was about five million shy of its estimated $65 million cost, making it little more than a pricey flop.
If “Mona Lisa Smile” can change one person’s life, then it has accomplished an important goal. For some audiences, it may even grant the power of liberation. Empowering individuals should be greatly applauded, but bad movies like “Mona Lisa Smile” should not.
Posted by Colonnade Archives
on Jan 23 2004. Filed under Other.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
