Even with its flaws, this is still a decent romantic film.
I watched the film Letters to Juliet today on Netflix. It is December 30, 2025, and the time is 2:30 PM. This romantic film was released in 2010, written by Jose Rivera and Tim Sullivan, and directed by Gary Winick. The main characters are played by Amanda Seyfried as Sophie Hall, Vanessa Redgrave as Claire Smith, and the very charming Christopher Egan as Charlie Wyman.
The story follows Sophie, who travels to Verona, Italy, with her future husband on what is supposed to be a honeymoon trip. There, she becomes involved in reuniting lovers who were separated fifty years ago, and through that journey, she begins to understand herself and what love is supposed to mean. As the title suggests, the love story of Romeo and Juliet also functions as an important plot device within the film.
Coming to the watch experience, this film belongs to that 2010 era where destiny-based romantic films were very common. It is built on beliefs such as love happens only once in a lifetime, that it happens with only one person, and that if two people are truly meant to be together, even fate will bend to help them. The film celebrates and encourages the idea of ideal love that people under the age of twenty often believe in.
Even if I put aside my personal opinions, this is not a grand or epic love story. It has a very simple, linear plot. The film does not demand much from its actors in terms of complex storytelling. Still, the first and biggest reason the film works is the city of Verona itself and the way it is captured on screen. A city filled with culture, history, and beauty can make even the smallest story feel pleasant, and this film benefits greatly from that.
The setting becomes the film's biggest strength. Beyond that, the characters are also neatly designed. Sophie, the central character, mostly functions as an observer throughout the film. Even though she lacks strong quirks, her background and her emotional position add weight to the story. Charlie, the realist who does not believe in love, might not have worked as a character if not for Christopher Egan's charm. Despite being an irritating character on paper, Egan makes him watchable and even likable.
It is hard to deny that the film becomes a little boring at times and moves exactly in the direction we expect it to. Still, when harsh summer heat or uncomfortable cold traps us inside our homes and we have time to kill, this is a perfectly acceptable film to put on and watch. It may not be a powerful romance that deeply affects us, but it is also not a bad film by any means.
The story follows Sophie, who travels to Verona, Italy, with her future husband on what is supposed to be a honeymoon trip. There, she becomes involved in reuniting lovers who were separated fifty years ago, and through that journey, she begins to understand herself and what love is supposed to mean. As the title suggests, the love story of Romeo and Juliet also functions as an important plot device within the film.
Coming to the watch experience, this film belongs to that 2010 era where destiny-based romantic films were very common. It is built on beliefs such as love happens only once in a lifetime, that it happens with only one person, and that if two people are truly meant to be together, even fate will bend to help them. The film celebrates and encourages the idea of ideal love that people under the age of twenty often believe in.
Even if I put aside my personal opinions, this is not a grand or epic love story. It has a very simple, linear plot. The film does not demand much from its actors in terms of complex storytelling. Still, the first and biggest reason the film works is the city of Verona itself and the way it is captured on screen. A city filled with culture, history, and beauty can make even the smallest story feel pleasant, and this film benefits greatly from that.
The setting becomes the film's biggest strength. Beyond that, the characters are also neatly designed. Sophie, the central character, mostly functions as an observer throughout the film. Even though she lacks strong quirks, her background and her emotional position add weight to the story. Charlie, the realist who does not believe in love, might not have worked as a character if not for Christopher Egan's charm. Despite being an irritating character on paper, Egan makes him watchable and even likable.
It is hard to deny that the film becomes a little boring at times and moves exactly in the direction we expect it to. Still, when harsh summer heat or uncomfortable cold traps us inside our homes and we have time to kill, this is a perfectly acceptable film to put on and watch. It may not be a powerful romance that deeply affects us, but it is also not a bad film by any means.
- Vetrrich_Chelvan
- 29 dic 2025