Letters to Juliet (B or 3/4 stars)
A young American girl travels to Verona, Italy (home of star-crossed lovers, Romeo & Juliet) on a quest for love in 'Letters to Juliet', directed by Gary Winick. Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is a fact-checker for The New Yorker, but desires to write an actual article for the magazine. While on a pre-honeymoon vacation to Verona with her fiancee, Victor (Gael Garcia Bernal), Sophie discovers the perfect subject for her writing. During a visit at the fictional courtyard of Juliet, she learns that every day, hundreds of women leave behind letters addressed to Juliet. Fascinated, Sophie then joins a group of women (named 'secretaries of Juliet') who respond to the letters; which seek advice about love. After being invited to share their task, Sophie finds her 1st writing project: to answer a letter dated 1957, written by a 15 yr. old girl who is torn btwn. staying in Verona with Lorenzo, the boy she thinks is the love of her life, or returning to London.
Much to Sophie's surprise, after sending her reply to this woman, Claire Smith (a regal Vanessa Redgrave), now a widow of about 70, the letter inspires Claire to travel back to Italy in search of her long-lost love. Before long, Sophie meets the grateful Claire, along with her arrogant grandson, Charlie (Christopher Egan); and asks to join them on their search for Claire's Romeo, Lorenzo (played by Redgrave's real-life husband, Franco Nero). The threesome set-off on a charming chain of events that will bring love into both women's lives. Can Sophie put her fact-checking skills to good use by locating the real Lorenzo for a hopeful Claire? And when Charlie starts to let his guard down, can Sophie sweep aside growing feelings for him when she knows she's engaged to an absent Victor?
'Letters to Juliet' is a funny little movie. I tend to fall for fluff like this; overlooking glaring weaknesses to celebrate the finer parts that 'get' to me. And I tend to feel guilty for liking them. But something is odd about it … I actually think it IS a good movie (from a structural stand point); with a good set-up, decent middle, solid conclusion, witty dialogue, & lack of stupid plotlines. But the film takes a long time to get going. And Gael Garcia Bernal's (who is a great, versatile actor) portrayal as Sophie's fiancee hits such a wrong chord that it throws off segments of the film involving him for the rest of the movie. The way that the film is presented, Sophie is supposed to be falling out of love with Victor, & he is supposed to not care IF they break-up ... but the chemistry btwn. the actors is strained so early on that we can't get invested in the potential dissolving of said relationship, anyway.
So, that was a problem for me throughout the 105 min. of the film. I like what critic A.O. Scott says, 'it's a movie that's nearly perfect without being especially good'. That said, the good far outweighs any not-so-good. The single most important component to every romantic comedy is: are we invested in what happens to the protagonists? The answer here is yes. Too many rom-coms mess that philosophy up. I also must mention the tone of the film. The wrong tone can irrevocably damage a movie. But this film's tone is just right (light enough, dramatic enough, romantic enough, funny enough). And when I mentioned that the structure of the film is solid; that is to say, there are no out-of-place jokes, pratfalls, or juvenile plot decisions. Now, that's not to say that it's perfect (no film is). Some of the romantic parts feel a tad forced. And sentimentality creeps in & out of the script.
But the cast saves the film every time it starts to dip. Amanda Seyfried is as sweet as ever; thriving because of her chemistry with leading men - which makes Garcia Bernal's performance all the more disappointing. Seyfried has that all-American, bubbly presence, but she's also the most expressive, level-headed young actress out there, right now. She is well-matched here by relative newcomer, Christopher Egan. They have nice repartee, & make for a very attractive couple; hence their casting. And the incandescent Vanessa Redgrave gives wonderful gravity to the carefree Claire; a woman on a mission to find her Lorenzo, though, scared enough to question those intentions, as well. It is fun watching her observe the budding hate-turned-to-love relationship btwn. her grandson & Sophie. I just loved watching her - to see her breathe life into the next line of dialogue. She commands attention & gives quiet heft to whatever she interprets.
Overall, the spirit of the film & its double-romantic payoff are well-handled. The lush Italian locales (photographed by Marco Pontecorvo) are beautiful. And though 'Letters to Juliet' is as predictable as the day is long, & though there are little hiccups along the way, & though the resolution drags on too long ... I still think most audiences will fall for it. If you've seen the movie trailer, then you've seen the movie. And I bet you liked the trailer.
Much to Sophie's surprise, after sending her reply to this woman, Claire Smith (a regal Vanessa Redgrave), now a widow of about 70, the letter inspires Claire to travel back to Italy in search of her long-lost love. Before long, Sophie meets the grateful Claire, along with her arrogant grandson, Charlie (Christopher Egan); and asks to join them on their search for Claire's Romeo, Lorenzo (played by Redgrave's real-life husband, Franco Nero). The threesome set-off on a charming chain of events that will bring love into both women's lives. Can Sophie put her fact-checking skills to good use by locating the real Lorenzo for a hopeful Claire? And when Charlie starts to let his guard down, can Sophie sweep aside growing feelings for him when she knows she's engaged to an absent Victor?
'Letters to Juliet' is a funny little movie. I tend to fall for fluff like this; overlooking glaring weaknesses to celebrate the finer parts that 'get' to me. And I tend to feel guilty for liking them. But something is odd about it … I actually think it IS a good movie (from a structural stand point); with a good set-up, decent middle, solid conclusion, witty dialogue, & lack of stupid plotlines. But the film takes a long time to get going. And Gael Garcia Bernal's (who is a great, versatile actor) portrayal as Sophie's fiancee hits such a wrong chord that it throws off segments of the film involving him for the rest of the movie. The way that the film is presented, Sophie is supposed to be falling out of love with Victor, & he is supposed to not care IF they break-up ... but the chemistry btwn. the actors is strained so early on that we can't get invested in the potential dissolving of said relationship, anyway.
So, that was a problem for me throughout the 105 min. of the film. I like what critic A.O. Scott says, 'it's a movie that's nearly perfect without being especially good'. That said, the good far outweighs any not-so-good. The single most important component to every romantic comedy is: are we invested in what happens to the protagonists? The answer here is yes. Too many rom-coms mess that philosophy up. I also must mention the tone of the film. The wrong tone can irrevocably damage a movie. But this film's tone is just right (light enough, dramatic enough, romantic enough, funny enough). And when I mentioned that the structure of the film is solid; that is to say, there are no out-of-place jokes, pratfalls, or juvenile plot decisions. Now, that's not to say that it's perfect (no film is). Some of the romantic parts feel a tad forced. And sentimentality creeps in & out of the script.
But the cast saves the film every time it starts to dip. Amanda Seyfried is as sweet as ever; thriving because of her chemistry with leading men - which makes Garcia Bernal's performance all the more disappointing. Seyfried has that all-American, bubbly presence, but she's also the most expressive, level-headed young actress out there, right now. She is well-matched here by relative newcomer, Christopher Egan. They have nice repartee, & make for a very attractive couple; hence their casting. And the incandescent Vanessa Redgrave gives wonderful gravity to the carefree Claire; a woman on a mission to find her Lorenzo, though, scared enough to question those intentions, as well. It is fun watching her observe the budding hate-turned-to-love relationship btwn. her grandson & Sophie. I just loved watching her - to see her breathe life into the next line of dialogue. She commands attention & gives quiet heft to whatever she interprets.
Overall, the spirit of the film & its double-romantic payoff are well-handled. The lush Italian locales (photographed by Marco Pontecorvo) are beautiful. And though 'Letters to Juliet' is as predictable as the day is long, & though there are little hiccups along the way, & though the resolution drags on too long ... I still think most audiences will fall for it. If you've seen the movie trailer, then you've seen the movie. And I bet you liked the trailer.