Letters to Juliet (2010) is one of my favorite romance films. Yes, I realize it's cliché and it can be syrupy sweet at times. but ya know sometimes you need a film like that, feel good entertainment. I knew what i wanted to see going into this film, and I got just what I wanted out of it. A great love story, actually two great love stories, generations apart. The story is brought to life by the great cast. Vanessa Redgrave, who is ofcourse a legend, does really well in her role. I can't imagine anyone else playing the role of Claire, she really gives a very compelling performance. Seyfried is god as the lead, she also gives this role her all, I've seen her in films i really enjoyed (Mamma Mia, Chloe) and in films that i hated (Dear John), and this is for sure going in the enjoyable bin. The scenery is breathtaking, the acting is great, the story is sweet and one that i think everyone can enjoy. Sure, there aren't really any surprises at all, but I still loved it anyways. 9/10 for letters to Juliet.

An adequate rom-com, also the final movie made by the genre journeyman Gary Winick (who passed away from brain cancer in 2011), LETTERS TO JULIET stars Amanda Seyfried as a modern-day romantic heroine Sophie Hall, travels from New York to Verona and serendipitously, destiny presents a new light into her life under the tourist-swarmed spot, Juliet's balcony. The story threads through two pairs of searching for love, Sophie, must choose between her restaurateur fiancé Victor (García Bernal, thanklessly loquacious and inward-looking) and a young British barrister Charlie Wyman (Egan), who, very importantly, provides pro-bono service for those who cannot afford a punitive legal fee; meantime, Charlie's grandmother Claire Smith (Redgrave) is trying to track down her Italian lover Lorenzo (Nero), with whom she has lost the touch 50 years ago. And it is all because Sophie chances upon Claire's letter to Juliet, which is preposterously stuck in the wall adjacent to the said balcony for half-an-century without being noticed (not to mention there are soi-disant "Juliet's secretaries" frequently collecting these letters and voluntarily answering them accordingly), so Sophie writes back to Claire and it prompts the whole junket trip to locate Lorenzo's namesake one by one, lavished with the area's bucolic landscape.Pedestrianly emulating a time-tested template but with generic but feel-good wheezes (piteous backstories is a must, he is parentless and she is deserted by her mother and attraction must be bred from initial enmities, etc. etc...), the film is very self-aware of its functionality and target demography, Seyfried is particularly photogenic in her fresh-faced innocuousness, and overtly star-struck in front of a gracious Vanessa Redgrave, who was in a very difficult time at then because of the sudden bereavement of her daughter Natasha Richardson (1963-2009) due to a ski injury, and stoutly puts on a strong face along with this therapeutic filming process, safeguarded by her spouse Franco Nero, long live Vanessa! For those who watches LETTERS TO JULIET of his/her own volition, blithe gratification is guaranteed, whereas for those who doesn't bother to do so, there is no loss either.

I mainly knew about this film because of the leading actress, I didn't know anything else apart from that, but critics gave it good reviews, so I hoped I would like it, directed by Gary Winick (13 Going on 30, Charlotte's Web, Bride Wars). Basically aspiring American writer Sophie Hall (Amanda Seyfried) works for magazine The New Yorker as a fact checker, she goes on a vacation to Verona, Italy with her chef fiancé Victor (Amores Perros's Gael García Bernal). While there Victor is unmoved by the romance of Italy, he is preoccupied to research for his soon to be opening restaurant, he often neglects Sophie, she meanwhile is looking around for something to write about for a magazine article. Sophie explores the courtyard of Verona, most famous for being the setting of William Shakespeare's Romeon and Julet, there thousands of people write letters to the fictional lover, Sophie finds a group of women called the "Secretaries of Juliet", who respond to these letters, using the return addresses. While assisting the women collecting these letters, Sophie knocks a brick out of a wall, and finds an unanswered letter to Juliet, written in 1957, so she decides to respond to the letter, hoping that she will be able to find the woman who wrote it. Soon enough, the now elderly woman, Claire Smith (Vanessa Redgrave), along with her handsome barrister grandson Charlie Wyman (Christopher Egan), arrive in Verona, Sophie and Claire form a friendship, but Charlie and Sophie do not get on with each other. Following Sophie's reply, Claire wishes to find the man the letter was intended for, Sophie thinks that this story could help her writing career, so decides to help her find her long-lost love, Lorenzo Bartolini. The only problem is that Lorenzo Bartolini is a very common name, many live in the area, they spend days searching for the man Claire recognises, with no success, including one Lorenzo being dead. Charlie blames Sophie for Claire's sadness, he says she knows nothing about loss, but Claire tells him that Sophie's mother walked from her when she was little, she wants Charlie to apologise to Sophie, they resolve this argument, and get much closer, to the point when they kiss. The three spend one last day searching for Lorenzo, on a whim they find and stop at a vineyard for a drink, while there Claire spots a young man who is a spitting image of young Lorenzo, they discover he is the grandson of the Lorenzo Bartolini (Franco Nero) they have been looking for, Lorenzo and Claire happily reunite. Sophie returns to New York, Bobby the New Yorker Magazine Editor (Oliver Platt) agrees that the story will appeal to many readers and is pleased to publish it, even asking if she has other stories in the pipeline, Sophie is pleased to say she will look into it. Sophie decides to break off her engagement with Victor, before heading back to Verona to witness Claire and Lorenzo getting married, she sees Charlie with another woman, Patricia (Ashley Lilley), she wrongly assumes he is in love with her, admitting she loves him, he explains that Patricia is his cousin, Charlie also admits his love for Sophie, after a Romeo and Juliet style balcony moment, he falls, and they kiss as he lies on the ground. Also starring Luisa Ranieri as Isabella, Marina Massironi as Francesca and Lidia Biondi as Donatella. Seyfried is beautiful and sweet as the young woman trying to find the perfect story, and Redgrave gives a subtle but great performance as the old woman trying find her past lover, I first thought the story was a bit random, but I went along with it, then I found out it was based on a non-fiction book, it a charming tale of long-lost love, and newfound love along the way, a pleasant romantic drama. Good!

First of all I would like to clarify a few things. I watch a lot of movies. Also I read a lot. This puts me in a situation where I can almost instantaneously grab the plot.So as the movie opened, It tried to carry a good mood (like incorporating the paintings into the roll credits was a indeed a good idea) but, I think it did not serve its purpose. Movie shows Sophie to be an aspiring writer. It implies that she would publish her book at the end of the movie. The pre-honeymoon concept is something I din not like it. Also, a brief intro of her to be husband in the noodles shop means he is NOT going to be her husband its clear. This shows she will fall in love with someone in her trip.Coming to the main plot, I would say this is going to be happy ending story. Which means Sophie and that guy will be married & the old woman and Lorenzo will be married. Further the movie progresses, one could easily identify the next scene, this puts the movie into a place where there is nothing special nor any surprise element in it. This is very important for a love story particularly if the narration or screenplay is very weak.Negatives / Drawbacks :-1. The acting is terrible (I tell this because I always look take acting part very seriously. The actors of any film have to act in such away that we will simply cease to believe that they are indeed acting. We simply forget that its a film and we are so engrossed that we believe that it is a situation happening before us. I did not find that in any actor except the old Lorenzo). 2. The weak and predictable plot 3. Narrative type of documentary styled cinematography 4. Poor usage of budget or less budget.People who could have done the roles1. Kate Winslet for the old woman 2. Natalie Portman / Rebbecca Ferguson for Sophie 3. Leonardo Dicaprio / Matt Damon / Micheal Fassbender / Benedict Cumberbatch / Tom hardy for the grand son Charlie role. I personally feel that the role should be given to Matt Damon 4. Lorenzo could be done by the guy who actually did the role in the film or it could be given to Robert DE niro or jack NicholsonPlot holes (Not errors, but plot holes.) 1. Why would Sophie write that letter when there are more experienced people there 2. what if the old Lorenzo is dead 3. Why would her fiancé not stay with her is a point even a child can understand but not Sophie 4. Why did the publisher publish the book if its unfinished, also he was the one who asked her not to write. 5. what if Sophie drew the circle and maybe Lorenzo not be there in that radius, 6. And finally, why is every old guy in Italy interested in the old ladyPositives :-1. The acting of old Lorenzo saved the film in its final moments. 2. Although the locations could be better, they are not bad (kind of visual delight sometimes) 3. Cinematography and music(I am telling you, if there is anything that saved this film, its the music and cinematography)I would rate this film 6.9/10 because i believe that they could make this film better and i really do not want to give it a 7/10 rating.