I am obsessed with movies. Like any girl, I love shopping [sorry for falling into that stereotype], but I probably spend even more money going to or buying movies than I do on clothes. I tried counting all my DVDs one day, at least the ones I have at my apartment at college, and I stopped once I got to 200. I have everything: comedy, action, romance, indie, CLASSICS, Disney, everything. So, in the spirit of awards season, I'll start with my first review of the movie I've seen most recently, Dear John, starring the delicious Channing Tatum (John) and former-Mean Girl Amanda Seyfried (Savannah). Before I start, here's the trailer:
Compared to their previous roles that they're most famous for, Channing's being in Step Up, Stop-Loss, and She's the Man, Amanda for Mean Girls, Mama Mia, and Alpha Dog, I felt that they both made significant improvements. Channing has played soldiers before, but he stated in interviews that he wanted to portray a soldier that was more honorable and showcased their real sacrifice rather than the troubled or fantasy images he'd done before. He has a reputation for being a wooden actor--and I wouldn't say that he should be looking out for an Oscar anytime soon--but he was able to bring up emotions that I hadn't expected from him, so I think he's well on his way to working on his craft. Channing has had other roles that have showcased his growing talent. I recommend you see A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, costarring Shia LaBeouf and Robert Downey, Jr. It's a supporting role, but it's an amazing film.
As for Amanda, she's no longer the girl whose breasts could tell when it's raining lol. Mama Mia definitely illustrated that she could do something different from her first role as the "dumb blonde," and the success of Dear John further proves that she is becoming a box office draw [she is currently on Vanity Fair's "Young Hollywood" cover]. Her performance wasn't especially striking, but I feel that she held her own, especially in the latter part of the movie. Perhaps that's a good sign for her, though, since she didn't have as much to prove as Channing. I'm looking forward to her role as an...umm... "escort" in Chloe, out later this year. The true scene-stealer, however, was Richard Jenkins, who played John's father. The scene with the two of them at the hospital is heartbreaking, almost more than the central story itself.
Aesthetically, the Charleston, SC, setting came across beautifully, but I felt as if I had seen it all before. Maybe it's because I live in North Carolina and that's where all of Nicholas Sparks' novels take place.
Now don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the movie. It elicited all the emotions that the typical successful chick flick should--laughs, longing, sadness, tears. Hell, it even took Avatar down to number 2 after WEEKS at the top spot. BUT [and I feel wrong comparing for even comparing them since it's a different director and other actors, though adapted from the same author] it is no Notebook. Ironically, Dear John is my favorite book by Sparks, and the movie was almost on par with The Notebook, but it stopped just short. Sure, both books changed elements of their stories in order to bring them to the big screen--with Sparks' approval, of course--but the major change at the end of Dear John is so fundamental to the overall meaning of the original story that it almost seems completely new. If you saw the movie without reading the book, you're probably wondering what the hell I'm talking about. You might even be pleased with how it turned out. I can tell you that the movie was fairly true to the book, up until the end at least. The producers changed the ending to satisfy an audience so brainwashed by Hollywood's myth of happy endings. I read that they originally shot the ending in the book, but test audiences were not pleased, so they changed it. I explain the change in the last paragraph, but it contains spoilers, so beware!
Overall, I did enjoy the movie and was impressed with the actors' improvements. There were occasional segments where I felt that the pacing was off and that there were too many Hollywood cliches, but it is based on a Nicholas Sparks book, after all. I'd give it a B+. Unfortunately, I don't plan on seeing the next Sparks' adaptation, The Last Song, starring Miley Cyrus out next month. Sparks' wrote the role specifically for her, and he loss so many cool points for that. I can't even bare to read the book.
SPOILER ALERT [don't read ahead if you don't want to know the ending of Dear John]: The book is ultimately about sacrifice, especially those we're willing to make when we really care about someone. Savannah doesn't marry someone else out of pity or just to have the rights to take care of his son [who is his brother in the book] after he passes; he doesn't get sick until after they're married. In the last scene of the movie, we see John and Savannah meeting up again; although open for interpretation, we could reasonably assume that they end up together. However, in the book, there is no such happy ending... at least not in the traditional sense. John gives up his hope of being with Savannah and makes it possible for her to have some semblance of a "happy ending" with someone else, despite realizing that they both still love each other. I felt that the book ending was more realistic, especially given all that they had been through.
No comments:
Post a Comment