The Web    www.100share.com    Google
 
Mona Lisa Smile
List Price: $2.99

Our Price: $2.99

You Save:

 


Customer Reviews:

  • Dull
    The only reason I can honestly say that this film is not as bad as, say, Saving Private Ryan or Titanic or From Hell is simple- the babes are cute as hell- Maggie Gyllenhaal is always sexy in a sly way, Kirsten Dunst does aptly portray the 1950s type whose bodice needs ripping & bosom needs suckling, & Julia Stiles has an eerie porcelain-like perfection, almost preternaturally perfected, that makes her mesmerizing to watch. &, hey, JR is not the best actress on the planet, but her goofy good looks are not punition. I would like to see stars like her wield & flex their power to improve rancid scripts like this. Hopefully the younger babes, if they become stars, will do just that- & ironically learn real lessons from this film that are not contained within. I can only guess JR actually likes clich¨¦d wannabe tear-jerkers, or she lacks the ability to see 1 when she reads it. Either way, take a pass, & try reading anything for 2 hours....more info
  • Upperclass Life In An Earlier Time
    This is a time in the early 1950's when some women went to top women's colleges to learn how to be the "perfect" wife, mother and homemaker, rather than to pursue a career in law, business, finance and other male domains. Julia Roberts plays a brash new college teacher who instills in her students the motivation and thinking that they should be going after these advanced careers first and not just looking to get married to the right man....more info
  • A must see for young women
    Julia Roberts is cast as a young, idealistic teacher who takes her first teaching job at a strait-laced Ivy League girl's college. She strives to bring the girls into the 20th Century by teaching the women from affluent families to think for themselves and use their free will to make independent choices for their futures. Entwined with her clash with the school's straight laced approach to educating women, there is romance for her and her students. Placed in the early 1950's when the growth of women's' liberation started, it has great significance. I would recommend it to every girl in high school or college. It's a great story with meaning....more info
  • Not just a "Chick Flick"
    After accepting a job at the ultra conservative Wellesley women's college in the 1950s, West Coast art professor Julia Roberts finds herself among the brightest and the best, but the terminally unambitious. Getting their "MRS" degrees seems to be the goal of her students, not changing the world, not taking charge of their destiny. This rubs her the wrong way, but her attempts to "enlighten" the women results in her being called subversive and puts her on the short list for termination. The characters may be stereotypes, but they are convincing. It was an enjoyable movie....more info
  • not what I expected
    Considering the subject matter and the feminist overtones, I expected much more from this movie what was delivered. Save for one brilliant (if somewhat awkwardly-placed) scene involving Julia Roberts' passionate admonishment of the internalized sexism of popular advertising, this movie is rife with cliches and over-trodden ground. There are times when you feel as if the film is trying to say something more about sex roles, feminism, and the advent of what would later be coined as "the feminine mystique," but they appear so infrequently, so awkwardly, and so unsatisfying as to barely merit a mention.

    In terms of acting, Julia Roberts' and Maggie Gyllenhaal's roles are the most successfully portrayed. Kirsten Dunst succeeds at being annoying (for once her intent matches her performance) and Julia Stiles' role was just awfully acted altogether, no two ways about it. I've never heard a more unconvincing and "I'm happy!" in my life. Her heart-to-heart with Roberts, regardless of how important the message, almost brought tears to my eyes -- not out of any strong feeling, but because it was so painfully artificial.

    If taken at little more than face value, the movie warrants a viewing, if only for the beautiful cinematography and snapshot of female collegiate life post-World War 2. But if you are a historian or a feminist (or both) hoping to enjoy a glimpse into the world that inspired Fridan's classic expose, look elsewhere. And if you ever find one that satisfies this desire, be sure to let me know....more info
  • 2.5 stars out of 4
    The Bottom Line:

    Coupling a garden-variety inspiration teacher story to an uninteresting love triangle between Julia Roberts and her two suitors, Mona Lisa Smile is only of interest to people who want to see the fairly rare occurrence of a movie told from a woman's perspective; other than that, it's hardly worth watching....more info
  • Uncompromising misfit, yet dedicated and compassionate
    The social phenomenon known as "Women's Lib" was years away, yet Miss Katherine Watson, an art history teacher at an exclusive New England all-women's college in the fall of 1953, seemed about to bring its ideas into terra incognita and thus come into conflict with just about everybody.

    Julia Roberts plays a character actively challenging the stereotypical thinking behind the motives of the young - and spoilt - twenty-somethings, who have already been more than happy to remain indoctrinated by both men and women into believing that they could achieve all the happiness in the world simply by being in the home at the beck and call of their hard-working husbands.

    For them, domesticity seems to be a calling, something which rankles with Watson, who has come all the way from sunny California in the belief that she is preparing tomorrow's leaders at a college, yet, as she says in a moment of emotion to the "philandering Italian professor", Bill Dunbar (Dominic West), it appears that she is simply grooming tomorrow's leaders' wives at "a finishing school disguised as a college" instead.

    Challenging the status quo via "subversive" activities is not tolerated at this college by the president, Jocelyn Carr (Marian Seldes), who summarily fires the school nurse, Amanda Armstrong (Juliet Stevenson), for "being seen to promote promiscuity" by distributing contraceptive devices in spite of having been associated with the college for nearly a quarter-century.

    Practically everyone's nemesis appears to be the insufferably overzealous Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst), whose mother (Donna Mitchell) just happens to be the president of the college alumnae association. Watson will not tolerate any challenge to her own authority from this student, who appears to be just as ready to be as subversive as her, yet at the same time is receptive to questioning her expected role as devoted wife, domestic, and future mother in the light of her mother's insistence that she stay with a husband who thinks more of his job than he does of her.

    In the meantime, Watson is exasperated by everyone else's blind acceptance of this kind of role for "educated" women and openly asks Carr if she is proud of her students. The president's response serves only to drive Watson almost to the point of telling everyone exactly what she thinks of the whole situation.

    Through not teaching what is on the art history syllabus, Watson encourages those who wear rose-tinted spectacles to think outside the box. She expects them to challenge accepted norms about what is supposed to be acceptable, who is supposed to think so and, above all, why it is supposed to be so. She uses modern, not classical, art as her medium for getting the young women to become forward thinkers, much to the consternation of Carr, who urges Watson to remember that "we are traditionalists", to which remark Watson says dryly, "Yes, I've noticed."

    This is mainly Roberts' movie, as she maintains her screen presence by never exaggerating the emotions of the main character, being as abrasive and blunt when she needs to be ("'A girdle will set you free'? What does that mean?!") and as compassionate about her work and her students when she needs to be. The main cast of female supporting actors, Dunst, Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Ginnifer Goodwin, give sterling performances as the young women who seem ready to embrace the lifestyle of middle-class wives pushing vacuum cleaners and using washing machines, but gradually become accustomed to thinking that there just might be a way to balance both being wives and being career women.

    This is despite the fact that, for one, Joan Brandwyn (Stiles) is totally prepared to throw away the chance to go to Yale law school by telling Watson that "this is all I've always wanted - a home and a family". Watson's face shows her predictable reaction yet congratulates her on her sudden marriage in the hope that she might just think about her actions. Certainly, Watson believed that she was definitely not ready to marry herself, and the scene in the common room where she publicly scotched the rumors of an impending marriage was memorable, since it challenged the young women's perception of her as "anti-marriage" and "anti" anything else she was thought not to like.

    Overall, Lawrence Konner and Mark Rosenthal have written, while Mike Newell has directed, a very enjoyable movie about the pros and cons of embracing a particular piece of (now largely outdated) ideology, even if it was never meant to be a social history polemic. However, the characters, including those who may be perceived as being utterly shallow and narrow-minded, are made quite believable by the actors. The contrast between the initial naivety of Watson and her disillusionment with the mindset of the staff and students is quite stark, and Roberts does a good job from start to finish in portraying the one "caught in the middle" between traditionalism and feminism. Watson is uncompromising in her views, yet proves to be dedicated to her job - even if she is basically a misfit in the college - and compassionate to those around her.
    ...more info
  • You`ll need counselling after seeing this
    This movie makes University assigments very thrilling heck if your a 80 year old person seeing this you`ll die of deliberate boredom lucky i`m young.This movie has no plot its just a long and very depressing movie.If your a block head watch this but if your a type of person who thinks drugs are bad wait till you see this,SCARRED FOR LIFE GUARANTEED ...more info
  • Dead Poets Society for girls.
    Here's the skinny: In the 1950's, unconventional Katherine Watson lands a teaching position at the exclusive (and traditional) Wellesley College. Her square-peg-in-a-round-hole approach to teaching art history encourages her students to look at life, and themselves, differently.

    For the most part, I thought this was a pretty good movie, featuring an impressive cast of young female stars. Gennifer Goodwin as Connie was particularly convincing and lovable, and Maggie Gyllenhall was pitch-perfect as the rebel (and token Jew) in the group of tight-knit friends the movie follows. (Both are star material; mark my words.) All of the actresses look GREAT in this movie; the makeup and hair were particularly convincing. Some of the shots of the college campus are also gorgeous as well.

    There was one thing that really bothered me about the movie, though. Betty (Kirsten Dunst) spends the whole movie hating Katherine Watson (Julia Roberts). Then, all of a sudden, at the end, she decides she absolutely LOVES her. It made no sense.

    Anyway, this is a fun little chick flick. I don't think it would be on the top of my list for earth-shattering film-making, but it's a good movie for a night in with the girls....more info
  • Never a dull moment
    Set in the mid 1950s - Julia Roberts plays Katherine Ann Watson , a fresh out of college graduate who manages to get a job at a very prestigious private girls college , as an art history teacher. There she sets out to teach the girls to see life in a whole new way , while coming up against the school establishment.
    Alongside Roberts stars Kirsten Dunst as Betty Warren the insecure , 'bitchy' debutante , who rejects Miss Watsons ideas (until the end where she shows a whole new side to her character) , Maggie Gyllenhall as the 'free spirited' Giselle Levy-the token Jewish girl in an all wasp college , Julia Styles as the pretty and high achieving Joan Brandwyn , and Ginnifer Goodwyn as the good natured Connie Baker.
    All the girls are through their trials and tribulations looking for love and a place in the circle of life.
    It is as much about the girls as it is about the teacher , as their lives are shaped in a new way. Unlike most feminist movies , it has a balanced message , recognizing that a girl must follow her heart , and if she wants to raise a family as her mission , that is also OK!
    The storyline itself was not what made this movie unforgettable , it was the characters , and the excellent acting that ensured there was never a dull moment...more info
  • Not Very Good...And That's Being Generous
    Since the malnourished plot is already described elsewhere, I'll do everyone the favor of skipping what this film was about, or more accurately what it hoped to be about, and just tell you why I think seeing it represents two wasted hours of life. The boring, leaden-messaged Mona Lisa Smile reminded me that a studio got a lot of flavor-of-the-month twentysomething actresses together under contract and then scrambled to find some film to put them all in with a large anchor star. At least that's what the cobbled-together Mona Lisa Smile felt like to me. In its pre-release publicity for this film, the studio, as it struggled to define what this virtually plotless movie was about, latched comparisons onto superior productions from the past like Dead Poet's Society, and even Mr. Holland's Opus, all in an effort to bolster this turkey via association. I wonder if anyone was fooled? Mona Lisa Smile steals your time in a contrived, pointless, clumsy example of weak storytelling, while relying on big names to add some illusion of gravitas to the whole mess. It's like a massive wad of cotton candy sold in fancy packaging, and I for one found it pretty darned bad....more info
  • A list of respectable actresses
    The cast list reads off many aspiring young actresses as well as the talented Julia Roberts. It delves into a hidden world of the desires and aspirations of many young women who struggle between a dichotomy of conforming to societal frameworks and rebelling towards a path of progressiveness....more info
  • Horrible
    This movie is really BAD. The acting is horrible and the overall plot is crap. See one of the actresses other movies. I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS MOVIE AT ALL!!!!...more info
  • nice
    mona lisa smile was a pretty good movie. that has alot of great actresses....more info
  • not treading on new ground
    I was prepared before seeing this to dismiss it as drivel, and in some sense it was. Although Julia Roberts was not terrible in this role by any means, I found her to be... not entirely believable in her role as a professor. Still, the kind of professor she was supposed to be and her ability to ruffle feathers and shake things up (being a more free-spirited California girl as opposed to the stuffy upper crust girls she teaches at Wellesley), that was more believable. Roberts has the kind of fired-up passion to inspire her students. More important though were the supporting cast of characters, her students, who fall into some stereotypical roles but who do so believably within the framework of the era (1950s); though being educated, they were being groomed for marriage and family life. Roberts comes along and tries to make each of them see that this was not the only option available to them. Julia Stiles and Maggie Gyllenhaal were particularly believable; Kirsten Dunst is particularly good as an insecure, spoiled witch debutante who revels in schadenfreude. I can buy that. Although there were some good moments here, and the film was fine enough, it was too much a female version of Dead Poet's Society and therefore isn't treading new artistic territory. ...more info
  • A list of respectable actresses
    The cast list reads off many aspiring young actresses as well as the talented Julia Roberts. It delves into a hidden world of the desires and aspirations of many young women who struggle between a dichotomy of conforming to societal frameworks and rebelling towards a path of progressiveness....more info
  • Petty Betty Gets a Reality Check
    The initial scene of this exquisite 2003 charmer is narrated by Kirsten Dunst's auburn-haired Wellesley newspaper columnist, Betty Warren, who is as pretty as a rose, and just as thorny, especially in her criticism of those around her.
    This is particularly true when a new and unconventional art professor from California named Katherine Watson, played by Julia Roberts, arrives at Wellesley College in the autumn of 1953.
    Betty, whose tyrannical mother(Donna Mitchell)is the President of Wellesley's Alumni Association, initially resents the arrival of this "subversive" young teacher with radical ideas.
    Directed by Mike Newell, the film's cinematography is periodically bathed in the golden light of nostalgia, and studded with an array of fine performances not only by Roberts and Dunst, but also by a charismatic Julia Stiles as the throaty-voiced, New England-accented Joan Brandwyn, the class leader, and Betty's best friend, Ginnifer Goodwyn, as the plump, friendly, accomplished cellist, Connie, real-life Wellesley alumni Laura Allen as the breathy-voiced, refined-sounding Susan Delacorte, and the willowy and unconventionally beautiful Maggie Gyllenhall as the stereotypically promiscuous daughter of divorced parents, Giselle Levy, who, like Professor Watson, is probably one of the most realistic characters in the film, perhaps more fully aware of certain truths about life and relationships that the strait-laced and conservative Betty will simply have to learn the hard way.
    Marcia Gay Harden, who won an Oscar for playing Jackson Pollock's wife, is also featured in this film in which a Pollock painting receives attention. She plays the ettiquette Professor, Nancy Abbey, who like many women of her time has to present a facade of respectabilty in order to cover up the unpleasant truth
    about her own status as a single woman. Interestingly we learn about her past in an in vino veritas moment during Betty's wedding reception. We also learn why Betty's wedding day is more her mother's day than her own.
    The male counterparts in the film are led by Dominic West, who reprises the role he had as a lying womanizer in "Chicago", only this time as an Italian Professor. Beau Bridges' son, Jordan reveals that the acting genes haven't gone thin as Betty's uncaring husband, Spencer. One feels that Topher Grace as Tommy Donnegal, and Ebon-Moss Bacharach as Betty's sweet cousin, Charlie Stewart, the love interests of Joan and Connie, are destined for happy marriages. Their perfomances lend a certain winsomeness to the story.The reality of Betty's marriage is initially summed up by the single longing glance Betty gives a kissing Joan and Tommy as they visit her at her home.
    Juliet Stevenson, a prominent figure in feminist theatre, has an interesting role as the closet case school nurse who is fired after one of Betty's editorials reveals her distribution of conraceptives, which at that time, were illegal.
    Viewers observe the routines and rituals of a conservative women's college, as well as the chilly reception Miss Watson receives during her first class,and her challenging of her students'conventional views of art, especially when the fresh, rosy-faced young women respond to the sight of the Jackson Pollack painting.
    We observe the growing number of clashes between Professor Watson and the faculty (led by Marian Seldes as a staid and icy President Carr) as well as Betty Warren, who will come to realize how silly she looks in the editorial photos in which she tries to capture the essence of a married Wellesley girl soon enough.
    Miss Watson's daring sexual behavior would have raised more eyebrows in its time than it does 50 years later.
    The costumes of the women are another point of interest in the representation of their characters. Giselle is often clad in rich, vibrant, if not jewel-toned colors and flesh-revealing clothes, complimented by a necklace with a sensuous heart-shaped pendant, whereas the more conservative Joan and Betty wear conservatively colored, preppier and more modest styles complete with the inevitably prissy set of pearls.
    The story itself has a lolling gentility that sharply contrasts with the theme of radicalism that it promotes. Ultimately the conventionally trained members of Wellesley's graduating class of 1954 will be inspired by their art teacher to shape their own destinies, wheather they choose careers of their own or conventional family lives, and while I would agree that this film is the obligatory girls version of "Dead Poets'Society", its touch is delightfully feminine, and the graduating class' tributes to Miss Watson, both in their final class assignment and graduation-day salute, give the film a sunnier and more hopeful ending.


    ...more info
  • Really just for soap fans and Roberts lovers...
    This all-gal soap opera (except for the underrated and versatile Dominic West)takes us back to 1950s Welleseley College to be hit over the head with the message that women were either repressed by men, repressing themselves, or both. But an Auntie Mame art teacher (of course...it's Art. Nothing so banal as history or Latin...) in the form of toothy Julia Roberts breezes in to shake up their world and leave moist eyed feminists dabbing with hankies by the campy closing credits.

    Is this the female take on Dead Poet's Society with a little of The Children's Hour, thrown in? Or a complete meager ripoff of The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie? All the cat-eye glasses and girdles in the world can't make the young female cast look any less anorexic conetemporary...and even glamorous Roberts, who eschews much makeup, looks horribly out of period. A great opportunity for creative art direction and/or cinematography was missed. The usually great Marcia Gay Hardin romps throughout like she is in a "Lifetime" TV movie...which is where this one belongs.

    Fortunately, the star power of Roberts and the talents of Gyllenhall and Stiles make it a watchable film. (The usually splendid Dunst, like Hardin, seems to be merely phoning in a community-theatrical performance!)

    The music, though, is fun and fans of soap opera will enjoy this. The DVD special features, unfortunately, are negligible....more info
  • Pretty shallow.
    Mona Lisa Smile starring Julia Roberts tries to be an inspiring film about young women making a difference in society but it fails to deliver that message. Robert's performance isn't so motivating especially since she's playing a college professor, her character doesn't teach the girls any valuable information, she preaches rather than giving them heartfelt advice. The supporting cast falls flat as well especially Kirsten Dunst but Gennifer Goodwin does shine in her role. Don't expect much from Mona Lisa Smile, feminisism is a more powerful tool than this film has to offer. ...more info
  • Another `teacher changes lives' film that leaves us entertained but not in awe...
    I may be one of the few people who found `Dead Poets Society' ridiculously clich¨¦d and ultimately unfulfilling. Yes I understand that just about everyone and their mother loves that movie but I just couldn't see where the draw was. `Mona Lisa Smile' is pretty much the all girl affiliate to `Dead Poets Society'. You have a liberal teacher who is nothing like the tightwads that walk the school. This time around the subject is art as apposed to poetry which is a form of art in itself. In fact it's pretty much the same recycled experience except for one strange development. This time it seems to work. Not brilliantly, but `Mona Lisa Smile' is by all means a `good' film but far from a `great' one. It captures the attention of the audience and handles some heavy matters with care and diligence, but it fails to elevate itself to perfection.

    A big reason why this film works is the fact that its star, Julia Roberts, can make just about anything palatable. Her performance is just what this film needed to make it entertaining and relevant. Sure, this is far from her best start turn, but it is classic Roberts and it delivers on all fronts. She's smart, commanding, witty and charming.

    Roberts plays Katherine Watson, the newest addition to an all girl's college. She immediately realizes that she is outnumbered in thought and tradition and is forced to face the fact that her presence is not truly appreciated by the staff and most of the students. Taking place in 1953 the idea of college graduate is merely for title, not for application. The idea that a woman would excel to be something more than a common housewife is ludicrous to these women and far from encouraged, it is shamefully discouraged. Katherine Watson is a different bird altogether though. She ruffles feathers as she pushes forward in encouraging her students to break away from the domineering brainwashing of society and think for themselves, think about what would make them happiest.

    Her students range from the sweet natured overachiever to the shy and reserved `fat girl' to the misunderstood `loose girl' to the even more misunderstood aggressively heartless brat. By the end of the film revelations have taken place for all of these girls and their lives are forever changed. Julia Stiles plays Joan, the overachiever who dreams of being a lawyer yet is soon to be married. In all due respects Julia is supposed to be our star next to the `other' Julia, but Stiles manages to get pushed to the background by her co-stars. While her performance is decent the other three girls steel all of her thunder. Kirsten Dunst is the epitome of evil as Betty Warren, and while this is far from her finest performance she is definitely effective. The two standouts though are none other than Ginnifer Goodwin and Maggie Gyllenhall. Their performances are layered and emotional and moving, and delivered with such perfection it's no wonder their careers are taking off.

    The supporting performances by the likes of Marcia Gay Harden and Dominic West are effective in their own rights and take nothing away from the film, albeit not really adding anything either.

    In the end `Mona Lisa Smile' is a sweet film that will touch the heart and satisfy the viewer. It's not the type of film that moves mountains or changes lives and it's not a film that will stick with you forever but it will not leave you cold or distant. It's good entertainment, but just don't expect it to be a masterpiece. It is a bit clich¨¦d and it is a bit generic. We can all guess the ending before it comes and the revelations that face each girl are the furthest thing from original. Like I said, this is recycling at it's best for it takes the same old thing and regurgitates it with different actors and a slightly altered setting yet it works slightly better than the original so bravo in that regard....more info
  • I Just Don't Understand!
    This doesn't have the best rating from the reviewers here on Amazon.com, but I think that it is a wonderful movie. It has a strong story, some very beautiful scenes, a great cast, and an enjoyable soundtrack. Katherine Watson, a bohemian from California, finally attains her dream; to teach at the highest ranked women's college in the country. She soon comes to find that instead of preparing these women for the world, the institution is simply preparing them for marriage. After coming to form extremely close bonds with some of the girls, and a rather rocky existance with others, the whole situation is wrapped up in a life altering experience that changes the way they all view the world. Give this one a try. Hopefully, you'll love it as much as I do....more info
  • Dead Poets Society for Women, but not as good
    Here is the setting: An idealistic young teacher arrives at a well respected private school with the intention of making a difference in the lives and education of the students. This teacher soon runs up against a tradition bound administration as well as some tradition bound students. Soon enough the teacher begins to win over the students who are inspired by the teacher, but the administration is not so pleased by the radical new ideas and teaching methods used by this idealistic young teacher. What movie is this?

    While I was talking about "Dead Poets Society", the above description can be used without any changes about 2003's "Mona Lisa Smile". Katherine Watson (Julia Roberts) is a young art history teacher from California newly arrived at the prestigious Wellesley College. She has definite ideas about the role of women in the 1950's, but Wellesley seems to be nothing more than an excellent school to prepare the young women to be a good wife and mother. While the academic standards are rigorous, the goal isn't for the woman to aspire to be somebody herself, but to help her husband be somebody. Watson is appalled by this and by the resistance she meets from the administration and even by some of the brightest students.

    We are also introduced to some of the students, though we never get too much into their minds or lives. There is Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst). Betty is something of a snitch and seems to consider herself the purity police and is too full of herself. Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles) is the student whom Katherine holds the most hope for. In Joan, Katherine sees a little bit of herself. Giselle Levy (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is introduced only as the girl who, gasp, may have loose morals regarding men. Finally Connie Baker (Ginnifer Goodwin) is the slightly dumpy girl who just hopes to find a man.

    This is really the Katherine Watson story and her influence on the girls, such as it is, and her frustration with Wellesley. If we changed the all girls college to an all boys high school and traded Julia Roberts for Robin Williams, we'd have "Dead Poets Society". But "Dead Poets Society" is a far better movie. It may not be fair to compare the two movies, but when "Mona Lisa Smile" is so clearly modeled on "Dead Poets Society" how can the comparison not be made? The main problem with "Mona Lisa Smile" is that it portrays 1950's Wellesley where the women are not expected to have minds after graduation nor are the expected to use them. It is difficult to see how the issues raised in "Mona Lisa Smile" are relevant today. "Dead Poets Society" dealt with academic pressure and the ability to think for oneself. "Mona Lisa Smile" touches upon the same issues, but does so in such a way that the problems just don't feel as important. This is all the more so because fifty years later the expectations on women in education are far different. "Dead Poets Society" is much more universal.

    A minor issue, to place the movie in a historical context, is that I have read reviews questioning the accuracy of the portrayal of Wellesley in the 50's, and that the college was not the backwards wasteland which only expected women to marry and have children. I can't say whether or not that is the case, but it is worth noting that the filmmakers may have twisted what facts were available to make a lesser movie.

    Grade: C+

    -Joe Sherry...more info