Thursday, March 11, 2004
Today was a day off and was able to sneak in two rentals (one was my choice and the other my wife's pick) so here goes: "Mona Lisa Smile" & "American Splendor."
"Mona Lisa Smile" was predictable yet interesting for it's idea. Most people probably wrote it off as a female "Dead Poets Society" (I will admit they have many similarities like setting, era, themes etc.) but it had a bigger risk. Women. Hollywood makes very few "female ensemble" pictures, so that in itself is a bit of a triumph. But it was a nice, sweet picture. Maggie Gyllenhaal was good, Kirsten Dunst played a viciously wicked bee-hatch, Ginnifer Goodwin was great (stretching from her role on NBC's "Ed") and Julia Roberts was just that. Julia Roberts. And as much as it pains me to say it, Julia Stiles was good. I normally don't care for her much. Overall, a good renter but it did share a topic with "American Splendor." The idea of being subversive.
subversive
\Sub*ver"sive\, a. [Cf. F. subversif.] Tending to subvert; having a tendency to overthrow and ruin.
While "Mona Lisa Smile" talked a lot about the characters "subversive" actions, the film itself was straight-forward, ho-hum fare. "American Splendor" was anything but ho-hum. From fantastic performances, unusual characters, plot and creative, unusual, exciting visuals this film is a stand-out. The only thing this film probably "ruined" (from the definition) is people's preconceived expectations about comic films. Paul Giamatti was great, Hope Davis was awesome, Harvey Pekar himself was funny, and (while only a very small role) James Urbaniak was perfect as R. Crumb!! I loved this film and thought it was worthy of all the indy awards it received, and deserved more!!! Check this one out!
"Mona Lisa Smile" was predictable yet interesting for it's idea. Most people probably wrote it off as a female "Dead Poets Society" (I will admit they have many similarities like setting, era, themes etc.) but it had a bigger risk. Women. Hollywood makes very few "female ensemble" pictures, so that in itself is a bit of a triumph. But it was a nice, sweet picture. Maggie Gyllenhaal was good, Kirsten Dunst played a viciously wicked bee-hatch, Ginnifer Goodwin was great (stretching from her role on NBC's "Ed") and Julia Roberts was just that. Julia Roberts. And as much as it pains me to say it, Julia Stiles was good. I normally don't care for her much. Overall, a good renter but it did share a topic with "American Splendor." The idea of being subversive.
subversive
\Sub*ver"sive\, a. [Cf. F. subversif.] Tending to subvert; having a tendency to overthrow and ruin.
While "Mona Lisa Smile" talked a lot about the characters "subversive" actions, the film itself was straight-forward, ho-hum fare. "American Splendor" was anything but ho-hum. From fantastic performances, unusual characters, plot and creative, unusual, exciting visuals this film is a stand-out. The only thing this film probably "ruined" (from the definition) is people's preconceived expectations about comic films. Paul Giamatti was great, Hope Davis was awesome, Harvey Pekar himself was funny, and (while only a very small role) James Urbaniak was perfect as R. Crumb!! I loved this film and thought it was worthy of all the indy awards it received, and deserved more!!! Check this one out!
Comments:
Post a Comment
