I was really excited to see this movie for several reasons. First, I love romantic comedies. Second, Amanda Seyfried and Christopher Egan are both attractive people (I've never seen Christopher Egan before, so I was quite taken with his charming British smile). I like watching pretty people fall in love with a fairytale ending. Third, it clearly involved 2 love stories--one between Sophie (Amanda) and Charlie (Christopher), and another between Charlie's grandmother and her long lost love. Two love stories for the price of one, hooray! Fourth, it takes place in Italy, a beautiful backdrop for a romance. You could hardly go wrong with all those things going for it.
Overall, I thought the movie was just mediocre. Either my standards for romantic comedies have risen or they just don't make 'em like they used to. I had the exact same complaints on this one as the last one (The Back-Up Plan): the romantic lead, while attractive, is only mediocreally acted and is far too formulaic to be believeable. I want to be swept off my feet by this glorious silver screen lover, but so far I've been having trouble finding such a man. The previews make Charlie look positively adorable and charming, but his character is far from that. I'll go through the basics of the actors before I jump into his character in detail.
First, Amanda Seyfried is a mixed bag for me. I wasn't very fond of her in Mamma Mia, which was my first exposure to her (and in which, ironically, she also played a character named Sophie). She played a very different character in Dear John, but I can't say I was terribly fond of her in that one either, though that was more her character than her acting. Still, for some reason I was excited when I saw this movie. I wasn't at all hesitant because she was in it. She was pretty good in this one. She is a pretty, sweet romantic lead with a bit of a carefree lightness that makes her cute. She's no Julia Roberts, but she does alright. I fear that she'll never be able to do much more than play the wide-eyed, sweet young girl, but she plays that part well.
Christopher Egan is entirely new to me. Although, apparently after looking at his profile, he was Eragon's older brother Roran in the 2006 film adaptation of that most excellent book by Christopher Paolini. I'm disappointed the movie didn't do better because the continuation of the series would make for some exciting sequels. But I digress. I don't remember him in that movie at all. I think I recognize him from some commercials about a show about British royalty, and that seems to line up with his role in the TV show "Kings." But can I just say that I just read the synopsis of the show and it's not at all what I thought it was? lol I think it's about the British monarchy every time I see it because he reminds me so much of Prince William. I don't even know what part he plays in that show, but he seems to fit the regal British mold very well. That carries over a bit into this movie, where he plays a rather pompous British lad who seems to have been brought up on the high side of things. Of course, he's no monarch, but he does have the pride to make up for it.
Mostly, he was handsome in this movie. I'll give him that. He's surprisingly tan for a British person (turns out he's from Australia) and is strikingly handsome. From the hips up, he looks great. Why only from the hips up, you ask? He has this really awkward way of walking that severely detracts from his handsomeness. You want such a cool, attractive guy to also have a cool, attractive walk, but he seems to be slightly duck-footed or something. At any rate, when you watch him walk into a shot from the waist up, he looks positively handsome. When you watch him walk into the frame with his whole body, he looks extremely awkward. It's a bit odd. But you can tell he's taken care of himself, because he's got a good body otherwise and as I said, he's quite tan. I judge him mostly on his looks because that's what I liked best about him. More on that later. I'm such a tease! :)
I love Vanessa Redgrave. That was another reason I knew I would like this movie. I can't even tell you a single other film she's been in, but she's so familiar to me. She's great. And she was wonderful in this movie. She was playfully childish when her grandson was being clenched and uptight, lovingly affectionate when Sophie needed a friend, and believably starry-eyed and terrified in turns as she went on a journey to find her lost love. She was a joy to watch. Is it funny that I just checked and the only other thing I've seen her in is Atonement? I was apparently so affected by that movie that I give its actors much more weight than normal--I do the same thing for Saoirse Ronan and Michelle Duncan. Still, Vanessa Redgrave has a gigantic resume. It's not her fault I haven't watched any of the movies she's been in. She was wonderful in Atonement; she moved me to tears at the end. She was equally wonderful in this movie, and also nearly moved me to tears again. Wonderful actress, truly wonderful.
I don't have much to say about Gael García Bernal because I've never seen him before. I assumed he was Italian in the movie because his character is opening an Italian restaurant and making trips to Italy, but I'm not so sure. He kept speaking Spanish, but I could never tell if I understood it because Italian is like Spanish or if it was because he was really Spanish. He used the word "vale," which as far as I know is only used in Spain. But what do I know? Sophie also made a comment in the middle of the movie that confused me, something to the effect of "Now that we're in Italy, he thinks he's Italian." I don't know. The actor himself is Mexican and the name of the character is Victor. What do you think?
Bernal's character is not meant to be likeable. I mean, he's full of bubbly energy and he's obviously passionate about food, but you can see from the start that his cooking comes before his fiancee (Sophie). As such, it's hard for me to like the man himself. I'm very bad about projecting character traits onto actors when I don't know much about them. I don't know if he's as spastic and overenthusiastic as his character, but I feel like you have to have some characteristics of the character you're playing to truly play them believably. I suppose I would have to see more of him to pass proper judgment on him.
Now that I've commented on the actors, it's time to move to the characters. Sophie was a nice character, unfortunately ignored and suppressed (somewhat accidentally) by her fiance, but she eventually matures and grows out of the phase where she allows that to happen. That's nice to see. She's hopelessly romantic, and she has as few of the predictable standards of romantic leads--her mother left when she was young, she wants to be a writer but she's too afraid to stand up to her boss at work, she wants it to work out with her fiance but secretly she knows it's not working (so she's essentially emotionally available to the true romantic lead). Her loneliness leads her to a group of ladies that answer pleas to Juliet for help, and it is through this that she meets Charlie and Claire.
Enter Charlie. I knew the instant he walked into that room that we were set up for a predictable romance. I felt such a sense of letdown in that moment. He stomped his way in and declared that he didn't like Sophie, so she glared up at him and announced she didn't like him either. I'll be the first to admit that tense, coy banter between romantic interests is what makes a love plot so enjoyable. They think they hate each other, but then the fiery angry passion turns to fiery loving passion, and voila, a happy couple is born. I quite enjoy that formula. But is it sad that I've read enough romance novels to already be tiring of its predictability? The previews make Charlie seem to be genuine and happy, and head over heels for Sophie. Ah, would that it had been that way. I would have fallen quite hard for his character if he had displayed such traits. But instead, they bought into that old standby of fuming-enemies-turned-passionate-lovers. At the first sign of petulant dislike, I knew that we were going to see them slowly realize that they don't hate each other but rather love each other. You hate knowing that so early on...
Charlie is a self-proclaimed cynic and realist. He thrives on knowing that he is more practical and realistic than everyone else, so he is against the whole escapade from the start. Sophie and Claire, his grandmother, both romantic hearts, set out with a quest to find true love. Charlie sets out to convince Claire to stop the nonsense and just fly back home. Of course he blames Sophie for getting them into this mess and she can't believe he's such a prick. Claire provides a wonderfully sensitive but funny connection between the two. She just wants to find her Lorenzo, and the other two are there to help her along the way and add further romantic interest for the audience.
Charlie also has some unfortunate traits that, like Sophie, feel tired and overused. His parents died when he was young. He went to a good school and prances around like he's better than everyone else. He uses several funny British phrases, though I suppose that's just good character background. When I found out they were both half orphans, I just had to roll my eyes. Isn't there any other good pity factor out there? Surely they could have bonded over something else.
I had a few problems with how quick the turnaround seemed to be from hatred to love on Charlie's part. I mean, sure, it's every girl's dream to have such a handsome guy go from hating your guts to suddenly turning starry-eyed when he looks at you, but it was a bit too fast to be believeable to me. Within a couple of days he was already making strange comments about them sleeping together, which obviously embarrassed both of them when the full connotation was realized. It was too early in the already-unpleasant relationship to be making these kinds of jokes, so it felt out of place.
But I'll admit, there were several perfectly played moments where real human reactions were displayed. Charlie intrudes into Sophie's room to see how she's doing? I'm not sure--it's obvious he just wanted to see her (12 hours after proclaiming to dislike her). She shoves him out and tells him to just go to bed, and he makes a comment about wondering if this was one of those times when she meant the opposite of what she was saying. If you are playing along that he has so suddenly gone from hating her to liking her, this is utterly adorable. In the same instant that I considered how I would feel if I were in that situation, I saw Sophie display the very same reaction. She paused for a moment in confusion, and then a tiny smile crept onto her lips as she realized that he was starting to fall for her. Even engaged as she was, some part of her was highly amused and flattered at his new attentions. I quite liked that part because it felt so real, and captured that first giddy moment when you start to realize there might be a spark. There were a couple of other moments like that, and they were highly enjoyable. So few movies nowadays take the time to show that the character might first be confused by the attention of the romantic lead, and then find that they secretly enjoy it. I liked that this movie captured that emotion very well.
So while there were highly enjoyable moments of real romance, there were also the other bits that just felt like necessary parts of the formula. Angry + Time Together = Love, of course. Didn't you know that? Charlie was much more charming when he stopped being so purposefully obnoxious to Sophie (there was really too much going on with Claire's love plot to allow for him to be such a bully in the beginning). I would have liked him much better if they'd skipped the temporary and seemingly false anger at the beginning. When he starts spouting sonnets at the end, you just have to raise your eyebrows and go, "This is just a bit too cheesy for me." Even in a movie about Romeo and Juliet, you can't mix your realism and your fairytale to that extent.
The movie was filmed in a variety of beautiful locations. Judging by the credit list of nearly all Italian names, I would guess they shot on location. It's set in Verona initially, but they travel all around Sienna in their quest to find Lorenzo. I enjoyed the shots of the countryside and the cities, and I appreciated their attempt to show wide shots of them walking or talking in front of beautiful (and I'm sure, recognizable) structures and locations. However, I was distracted by the director's frequent use of extreme close-ups, particularly in the car scenes. I don't know how people normally show shots of a single person in the back seat, but every time it flashed to a grainy close-up of Sophie's face from the neck up, I couldn't help thinking that a wider shot would have looked better. I suppose they were trying to cut out distractions from the foreground, but I would rather see some of the headrests in the shot than feel like the shot is too close to capture the mood of the scene. Mostly these were limited to the car scenes, as I said, but I noticed it 5 or 6 different times, and it's never good when your audience is distracted from the plot by the way you choose to film its progression. Still, this was a minor complaint in comparison to the visually lush setting of the rest of the movie.
I would give this movie 3 ponies and a unicorn. The leads were attractive and the romantic storyline for the older couple not only provided humor in the movie but nearly brought you to tears because it was so beautiful. Filmed in the Tuscan countryside in Italy, the movie is a lush cinematic treat for the eyes even beyond the actors on the screen. My mom came out of the theater positively beaming, so it's clear that not everyone is as affected by Charlie's abrupt turnaround as I was. Two love stories for the price of one--and one set in Italy, no less--is hard to beat. If you're in the mood for a pretty romantic comedy that sticks to the tried-and-true anger+time=love formula, you'll enjoy this movie. If not, skip this and see something like Iron Man 2, or Robin Hood, which also came out this weekend. We've also got Shrek 4 coming up and a really promising romantic comedy from Ashton Kutcher and Katherine Heigl coming up June 4 (Killers). Letters to Juliet is not a must-see amongst such titans, but it will bring a smile to your lips and a glow to your heart. If that's what you're looking for, then I highly recommend it!
Rating (out of 5 rainbows and ponies): 3 ponies and a unicorn
Conclusion: happy ending
No comments:
Post a Comment