An insipid 90-minute documentary about how women have the inner strength to make the world a better place. I absolutely agree with the premise, but so many of the women interviewed come off as silly that the film's point is almost entirely negated. The filmmakers do use clips from some intelligent and influential women. But all too many of the interviewees are over-made-up Hollywood actresses, yoga teachers and so-called life coaches with absolutely nothing intelligent to say. It doesn't help that the documentary is sprinkled with strange stock clips from the '50s or that motivational author Marianne Williamson is the film's principal voice. I'm a committed feminist, but I found this imbecilic movie painful to watch.
Reviews
3 Reviews
Behind the Red Door
(2003)
Tear-jerking melodrama
9 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
We watched this film because of the fine cast, but we were taken aback by the obviousness of the story (sister has to reconcile with gay brother before he dies of AIDS)and the shallow characterizations.
No fault of the actors, but yikes! I could predict everything that was going to happen, and poor Kyra Segdwick and Kiefer Sutherland had no roles to play. Stockard Channing had maybe six lines. The screenplay was so poor that we never did figure out where the movie was supposed to be taking place, despite the breathtaking scenery. (Nova Scotia? Maine? I'd love to go there if I only knew.)
Overall: arty but not satisfying.
No fault of the actors, but yikes! I could predict everything that was going to happen, and poor Kyra Segdwick and Kiefer Sutherland had no roles to play. Stockard Channing had maybe six lines. The screenplay was so poor that we never did figure out where the movie was supposed to be taking place, despite the breathtaking scenery. (Nova Scotia? Maine? I'd love to go there if I only knew.)
Overall: arty but not satisfying.
Mona Lisa Smile
(2003)
Well-intentioned but caricatured look at women's college
16 December 2003
The makers of "Mona Lisa Smile" undoubtedly had good intentions, but their wildly exaggerated view of life at a prestigious women's college in the 1950s has little basis in reality. Clearly the movie's view of the college is some screenwriter's fantasy (two male screenwriters, I might add).
I'm sure there were some students at Wellesley College in the 1950s who were preoccupied with getting married. But many went on to illustrious careers (look at Madeline Albright, for instance), and the women I know who studied there in the 1950s did not have the kind of experience you see in the movie.
The scenery is gorgeous and the acting is mostly OK (although there is some pretty wild scenery-chewing from Marcia Gay Harden and several of the young women). And Julia Roberts is, as always, a pleasure. But this movie and its depiction of smart women in the 1950s are fantasy-land, nothing more.
I'm sure there were some students at Wellesley College in the 1950s who were preoccupied with getting married. But many went on to illustrious careers (look at Madeline Albright, for instance), and the women I know who studied there in the 1950s did not have the kind of experience you see in the movie.
The scenery is gorgeous and the acting is mostly OK (although there is some pretty wild scenery-chewing from Marcia Gay Harden and several of the young women). And Julia Roberts is, as always, a pleasure. But this movie and its depiction of smart women in the 1950s are fantasy-land, nothing more.
Tell Your Friends