yulie-2

Girl with a Pearl Earring is a beautiful movie. It's beautifully designed, gorgeously shot, has a lovely score and a beautiful performance by the incredibly talented Scarlett Johansson in the lead role.

Unfortunately, it is also a very boring movie. While the slow pace was perfect for the novel, here it seems as though we are treated to scene after scene of the characters doing, well, nothing - or at least, nothing interesting.

Also disappointing are the performances by much of the rest of the cast. Tom Wilkinson was good but underused; Colin Firth, who is normally very good and occasionally entertaining as well, sulks about the lovely sets, looking as bored as I felt. He also looked eerily like David Boreanaz in the Buffy and Angel flashback scenes. I was half-expecting him to bite into someone's neck - which would have at least made things somewhat more interesting. Alas, no neck-biting this time.

Worse yet is what happened to Alakina Mann. Excellent in "The Others", she is given nothing to do here - and that's just criminal. If memory serves, the book-Cornelia was a spiteful, jealous, and ultimately very vindictive little girl. Here she's just a typical annoying brat. Miss Mann can do better - she certainly deserves much better.

Overall, I'd give this a weak 6, because although the movie was boring, at least it was pretty to look at.

I have a new theory. I think an evil being has taken over John Travolta's body and is deliberately trying to wreck his career to the point where even the next Tarantino won't be able to salvage it. I have no idea why said being is doing this, but consider the following evidence:

1. Swordfish is a truly horrible movie, pointless, overlong and predictable, with a strange yellowish tint to it which I have not been able to account for. Yet most of the cast managed to do rather well in it - how exactly, I cannot imagine.

2. But not Travolta - he's doing the traditional over-the-top performance he seems to have patented on the set of Face/Off. It serves no purpose here, or most anywhere else.

3. A quick look at his credits reveals he has not made a decent movie in four years, unless you're into Scientology and believe BE was a misunderstood work of cinematic brilliance/genius. I do not subscribe to this theory.

Now, I actually like Travolta, and think he can be a pretty good actor. I liked him in Grease, Saturday Night Fever et al., and in his early post-PF movies. And maybe he should have gotten an Oscar for Pulp Fiction. But something has gone horribly wrong the last few years. So now I want the old Travolta back, the one who had fun and didn't take himself so seriously. The one who made good, or at least enjoyable, films.

The one who wouldn't have gone anywhere near this movie. And neither should you.

"Amelie" has two major assets: fabulous cinematography, and the delightful Audrey Tautou. It's not enough.

Here is a movie that wants people to like it, really, really like it. It seems as if the whole thing was put together just so the audience would think it's the cutest, most charming and (my favorite) heart-warming little flick ever produced. This leads to constantly dumbed-down situations and behavior. Why?

With Amelie, one either goes with it - my guess is, that's the way to enjoy it, and what most people do - or look past the cuteness to ask, what's there? What's all this really about?

Not very much, in my opinion. Amelie is currently no. 10 on the IMDb's top 250. Like the movie, that's not heart-warming. It's just plain silly.