To be honest, I wasn't expecting much from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Lasse Hallstrom, I thought I should check it out anyway. Eventually, I thought it was a rather weak and sappy romantic flick. I mean, the directing was decent, Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried were both quite charming and they were both doing their best but the whole thing was just a borefest... Everything they said, everything they did was just so plot driven. Furthermore, there was also a subplot involving autism which was rather poorly developed. Indeed, it is a dear subject to me (as a matter of fact, my step-son is autistic) and if you are going to tackle this difficult subject, you either have to do a good job or just drop the whole thing and, in this case, it wasn't really convincing, I'm afraid. For example, if his dad was autist, how did he get some income? How did he get this house and all those coins which must be worth a fortune? I was really surprised to discover that Nicholas Sparks's son is actually afflicted with Asperger's Syndrome and I would have expected in this case a better approach on this subject. Anyway, to conclude, even though it was a well made romantic drama, it was still rather tedious and it is not really worth a look, except maybe if you are fan of this genre.
Dear John Reviews
Dear John review
Posted : 12 years, 8 months ago on 30 August 2011 10:520 comments, Reply to this entry
Dear John review
Posted : 12 years, 8 months ago on 16 August 2011 01:520 comments, Reply to this entry
Kind of a drag
Posted : 12 years, 11 months ago on 23 May 2011 04:37ACTING 6/10: The only reason I will give this an above average rating was because Amanda Seyfried did very good. She didn't over act or try to hard at it. Richard Jenkins played a very shy and disrupt father and I must say he did a nice job at it. But I didnt give this a higher raiting because look who is in the movie Channing Tatum. He doesn't show any emotion at all, and when he tries to cry I felt like I was watching Ben Affleck trying to cry. At least Seyfried cried nicely
SCREENPLAY 5/10: There was some really good lines, but also had it corny teen little lines that I wasn't to impress with at all. At a couple points I felt like I was just watching two people write letters and actually nothing happens at all.
STORY 5/10: The story wasn't too bad there was some good twists but nothing hugely shocking, but still good
This wasn't the best movie or the worst movie I have seen. There are better movies and worst movie. I will say it was better than The Tourist which I recently saw. This isn't like Revolutionary Road or An Education, but it still wasn't terrible either.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Dear John
Posted : 13 years, 8 months ago on 11 September 2010 03:01The first act of DEAR JOHN gives one very little hope for what is to come afterwards. The development of how the two leads meet and supposedly start falling in love with each other is very much on-the-surface. This is where we're supposed to start rooting for John (Channing Tatum) and Savannah (Amanda Seyfried) to stay together... but... well, it's impossible to root for a pair of lovers when you don't even feel anything. I don't know if this makes me insensitive but I hardly felt anything during DEAR JOHN. I suspect that girlfriends of guys who have gone away for duty will (inevitably) relate to this material more than I will, but there's very little material here to help the average viewer achieve an emotional connection with the plot.
The montage that follows the first act is actually an improvement. It features John and Savannah exchanging letters while he's on duty and she's at college, and we get to hear voiceovers of the letters. This is the kind of thing that often doesn't work in movies, and I'm surprised by how well it works here. Sadly, this is basically the only good segment of the film. The scenes merely gloss over John's experience as a soldier, while Savannah's college life gets but a tiny bit of screen time.
When the next "letter montage" comes, the film makes the poor decision to show text instead of voiceovers, but this doesn't compare to the poor decision that the film makes at one of its most pivotal moments. John hasn't received letters from Savannah in a while, and all of a sudden, he does, and we obviously know something "bad" is coming. We're just not sure what. Then we hear it: "My life without you has no meaning, John." My instant reaction is, of course, "Oh my God, she killed herself! Great twist! I didn't see that coming. I thought this was just gonna be like all those other movies, in which the guy dies in a heated battle while the girl waits for him back in America." Of course, a couple of seconds later, my inference gets disproved when John speaks to one of his fellow soldiers and tells him what the letter actually said, which, to say the least, is way less interesting and way more conventional.
If there's one conclusion I can finally make after watching DEAR JOHN, it's that Channing Tatum can only give a good performance if he's under the direction of Dito Montiel. The only films in which he's been able to shine are A GUIDE TO RECOGNIZING YOUR SAINTS and FIGHTING. Every other performance he has given has been cringe-worthy, particularly when he's required to display emotions and cry, and his line delivery in this particular film is often dreadful. Amanda Seyfried holds her own, but she's displayed more talent elsewhere. But the worst sin of all is the fact that the magnificent Richard Jenkins is relegated into a role in which he hardly gets to do anything, and what's worse is that it's the type of role in which a great actor like him could've done wonderful work. Too bad.
DEAR JOHN is sappy and flimsy. Unfortunately, it's more flimsy than sappy, which is a bad route to take, because sappy movies aren't always bad, but flimsy ones obviously can't escape rottenness. I appreciated the early "letter montage" and I guess I liked the somewhat open ending, but neither of those two things can make up for how vacuous the rest of this cinematic experience is.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Dear John review
Posted : 13 years, 9 months ago on 1 August 2010 05:090 comments, Reply to this entry
A groaning bore
Posted : 13 years, 9 months ago on 24 July 2010 07:03
Romance sells at the box office. Stephanie Meyer (the Twilight saga) knows this, Nicholas Sparks (The Notebook) knows it, and all of Hollywood knows it. 2010's Dear John is exactly the type of romantic tearjerker to be expected from an adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel, and it's awful. Look, I admit that this film was not made with me in mind - it's doubtful that the filmmakers told themselves "Let's make this film for a young bloke with a proclivity for hardcore action films". On the other hand, though, I'm not immune to the pleasures of a terrific romance - Titanic is among my favourites, and I'm one of the five people on the Earth who'll defend Meet Joe Black and Australia. But pulling off a successful romance requires a deft touch, and such skill eluded the filmmakers responsible for Dear John.
On leave from military service, Special Forces Sergeant John Tyree (Tatum) returns home to visit his distant father (Jenkins) while also spending time riding the ocean waves. In typical meet cute fashion, John meets college student Savannah (Seyfried), and over the course of a fortnight their relationship rapidly blossoms. Following their initial two weeks together, John returns to active duty and Savannah returns to school. Swearing to one another that their relationship will continue through letters, John and Savannah pour their hearts into their correspondence in the hope that a year apart will seem like weeks instead of months. The romance is again threatened, though, when the 9/11 terrorist attacks unfold and John chooses duty over Savannah in order to re-enlist for further military service.
In the past, director Lasse Hallström has proved to be a superior purveyor of weepy dramas, with What's Eating Gilbert Grape and Chocolat being two esteemed inclusions on his filmography. Dear John, however, is hindered by an overwhelming sense of obviousness. In the hands of Hallström, the film yanks on the heartstrings in practically every scene (Kleenex likely financed the production), yet it's seldom effective - most people may prefer a barf bag instead of a tissue. The writing is atrocious and unfocused as well - once John is back in the Special Forces, the film merely becomes a succession of voiceovers snippets which vocalise the characters' letter-writing while cheesy music frequently intrudes. There are visual accompaniments too, including a montage illustrating the workings of the mail system. Once this formula is exhausted, 9/11 occurs. After John re-enlists, Dear John is further sapped of focus. The screenwriters were clearly unsure of where to take the story - the romance degenerates into a bittersweet afterthought as the emphasis is placed on John's military experiences and his relationship with his father.
Lack of talent aside, the primary problem with Dear John is its clichéd framework and the "been there, done that" vibe that pervades the material. We've seen it all before: the 'kissing in the rain' courtship, the careful, tasteful sex scene, the strain of a long-distance relationship, and so on. Of course, conventions are inevitable and there's nothing wrong with using them per se, but the film is utterly flavourless, hence the conventional nature is hard to forgive. And, while no major spoilers will be divulged, the manipulative nature of Dear John becomes increasingly irritating as well. At one point, a viewer is basically asked not to sympathise with a nice man with cancer; in fact the film expects us to hope for his death. We're expected to buy all of these ludicrous developments and to follow the convenient narrative path, but there's nothing worthwhile to latch onto. The film is a groaning bore.
In terms of acting, none of the performers are worth writing home about. Channing Tatum further demonstrated his limited acting abilities here with this below-par performance: he's stiff as a board, and he recited all his lines as if reading them off a cue card for the first time. Girls may make a case about Tatum being pleasing eye candy (God knows Twilight fans use the argument of "hot boys" in the defence of those putrid films), yet the star has all the acting talent of a fire hydrant. Featuring as Savannah, Amanda Seyfried neither disappoints nor exceeds expectations; she's just there, and at no time does she make an impact or come across as a poor actress. There are a few specific performances that shine, however - Henry Thomas is quite impressive, and Richard Jenkins is excellent as John's father. Then again, Richard Jenkins is always excellent.
While Dear John is not entirely bad from a technical perspective, it does not excel in any area. If you enjoy these kinds of formulaic romance tragedies, you may find something to enjoy here, but there's little of interest for a wider audience. That's the best summary I can offer you.
3.2/10
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Dear John review
Posted : 13 years, 11 months ago on 25 May 2010 04:540 comments, Reply to this entry
Dear John review
Posted : 13 years, 12 months ago on 9 May 2010 08:27Remove a really good movie about love is very difficult: it is important not to slip on the one hand, the commonplace, and on the other - in the edification. This delicate balance remarkably managed to find and Nicholas Sparks, author of "The Notebook" and the well-known director Lasse Hallstremu. That's probably why the film looks at one go. Along with the love line, it is clearly traced another - the relationship between fathers and sons and the impression that they can impose sometimes for life. After all, every one of us, being a child of his parents, he eventually becomes a parent.
Do not think "Dear John" another reckless and weepy melodrama only because the film was shot in America. The American film industry has repeatedly proved his versatility by producing a rental rather unexpected movies, do not pretend to box office success, but, nevertheless, continued to merit. After all, simple human feelings and difficult human relationships - a topic that will interest the audience always, unlike chases and special effects, never get bored. There is no doubt and the quality of the film. it makes you realize how fragile happiness can be as hard for him to stay, when it gets to your hands.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Surprisingly entertaining...
Posted : 14 years ago on 26 April 2010 01:44Dear John tells the story of John Tyree (Channing Tatum) who is a young soldier from the Army Special Forces who falls in love with Savannah Lynn Curtis (Amanda Seyfried). John lives with his dad who has always been obsessed with his coins and hasn't really been a father to John due to this and Savannah thinks that he might be autistic like her neighbour's young son. Savannah is a college student on spring break. and during this break, she falls in love with John. When they are apart, they decide to exchange letters to each other and because of this, their lives are changed forever. I was thinking that Channing Tatum is a bit like the two dickheads from the Twilight films but his performance in this film as John was actually good and very moving. I really got into the character when I really underestimated him to start off with. Amanda Seyfried made a name of herself in 2008 summer blockbuster Mamma Mia! and now she stars in something different and delivers a very moving performance. E.T. star Henry Thomas was very good as Tim Wheddon.
Lasse Hallstrom has made a couple of great dramas in the past like Chocolat, The Cider House Rules and What's Eating Gilbert Grape? but I have to say that Dear John is another good drama that he has done. Hallstrom perhaps tries to make Dear John like how Joe Wright made Atonement and that cannot be replaced but to be fair, it wasn't a bad effort. The film may not have had been a major success critically but I think it is one that I think people should at least attempt to watch.
Overall, Dear John is a decent romantic war film that I did like. It is nothing major, it does take a lot from other romantic war films. Nevertheless a good piece of entertainment that could melt the hearts of its audiences.
0 comments, Reply to this entry