Disappointing to say the least. Given all the talented performers, this could've and should've been a whole lot better. The writing was sub-standard ( too many 'what are you doing heres?), references to California, and not the greatest dialogue. Also, a few anachronisms undermined the film as well. The acting was good overall and saved the movie from zero stars. LJM

A new teacher who comes in and changes the students' outlooks on life is a common theme in movies. "Conrack", "Stand and Deliver" and Mr. Holland's Opus" are examples. "Mona Lisa Smile" continues this motif. Julia Roberts plays a free-spirited bohemian who takes a job as an art history professor at a conservative college in the early 1950s and is displeased with the expectation that the girls will receive their degrees only to become homemakers.It's not any sort of great movie. The focus on the era's gender roles is developed enough, but it doesn't leave any room for subtlety. This is one movie that's all about being direct with its message (not just the gender roles, but the old-money WASPs' attitude towards minorities). I guess that it's worth seeing to understand the mindset of the 1950s and the falsity of the seemingly perfect lives that women were supposed to have after getting married.OK, not great. Maybe worth seeing once. I wonder how many people realized the irony of showing a Jackson Pollock painting...while co-star Marcia Gay Harden played Lee Krasner (Jackson Pollock's wife).

This was a movie to sit through on a rainy day in the Northwest. I like Julia Roberts, but I think any actress could have played her role. The movie was not edited well, in my opinion, Julia's role was not a constant point. The story glanced into the lives of the students, but it failed to show how the main character made any difference in what those lives were. The movie was simply too long, Julia Roberts' character was poorly developed, and the whole thing can be chalked up as escapism. I don't know how true a picture this film portrayed of wealthy upper class white girls in the early 1950s, but it failed to hold my interest, whatever it was. As soon as it stopped raining, I was outta here!

It's 1953, Katherine Watson (Julia Roberts) is a California girl hired as an Art History teacher at the conservative all girls Wellesley College. The students are all from upper crust families, top academically, and aiming to get marry.There are top talented actors in this movie. The girls are Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Ginnifer Goodwin. That's some acting power. The oddest thing acting wise has to be the subdue performance of Julia Roberts. She starts off timidly which just doesn't fit her persona. Her energy is literally vibrating as she tries to squash it down. Instead of a slice of life, it feels more like a magazine article about a slice of life.Without more realism or more tension, the story just doesn't have the zip. One problem may be the fact that everything is about marriage. It is the era of the movie, but just superficially old fashion. Maybe director Mike Newell should emphasize more the pressure of the day. Instead he assumes the audience feels this automatically. He definitely needs to build up the tension. He needs more scenes like the one with Kirsten Dunst and her mother.