Querido John

Movie should be about distance love and related consequences, unfortunately it's too flat because It doesn' t transmit any passions or emotions ti the watcher

Not having read anything about the film (or book) beforehand, I went into the cinema with no expectations, (though I was worried it might be a soppy, pull-at-the-heartstrings epic like The Notebook).

This wasn't the case. There were so many times when I thought 'Oh, I hope this doesn't happen', or 'I hope they don't do what I think they're going to do', and they didn't. There are moments of sadness, but some of them could have been made a lot worse.

The story isn't unique, (neither is The Notebook) but it is executed in a way that makes you feel as though you're watching something new. Channing Tatum is the lovable beefcake reminiscent of Marky Mark, and Amanda Seyfried is cute, delivering well executed dialogue. And I did actually think they had good chemistry, despite what other reviewers have said. Channing's John is an army boy who had a lot of issues growing up, so you can't expect him to be overly forthcoming with his emotions.

Richard Jenkins gives a great performance as the father, and even Henry Thomas is likable as the neighbour (I must be the only person in the world who hasn't seen E.T. so I didn't recognize the name at first).

To me, this was acted out a lot better (and even structured better) than Twilight: New Moon, which I assume is meant to appeal to the same audience. I know to some that isn't saying much, but perhaps our expectations are a bit high these days. If you want to see a sweet love story with likable characters, then you might just enjoy this film.

I was really looking forward to watching this movie - although, my expectations were not very high - but it turned out to be worse than I expected. I knew Channing Tatum was not the greatest actor - although, he is gorgeous - so I wasn't expecting very good acting. It was decent but I just didn't feel the chemistry between the two actors. The "twist" which I won't mention was where I thought the movie went completely downhill. It was very poorly executed and if you've seen the movie, you'll probably agree. Throughout, the movie was very slow- moving and not very exciting but there were a couple emotional parts! So far, the only people I've asked that did like the movie, seem to be the younger ones (12-15).

This movie is definitely NOT comparable to "The Notebook" like some people have been saying. It was nothing special, so I wouldn't watch it again, but I'd say it's good for a chick flick night. Another one of those movies like that looked SO much better on the commercials.

I had mixed expectations when I was going in to see Dear John. I had never really given any thought about how good or bad it might be, because it was a night out with friends and I was unconcerned at the moment. Eventually, we started to watch the movie. At first, it was just dull. I mean, I know it was trying to build up the characters and establish a good story line, but I was a tad bit uninterested, just because the characters were so plain at the time. Though it does set up things rather well, it lacks in any really high appeal from the moment it comes on the screen, if that makes sense.

Anyway, on to the rest of the movie. Though there were times when I was very interested, it just overall was nothing special. The performances by each individual actor were extremely questionable. For instance, Channing Tatum was unable to display any real sense of emotion except for maybe two scenes in the entire movie, and Amanda Seyfried seemed like it was just too big of a role for her to play. While they both didn't do so hot separately, I have to say the chemistry between them when they were on set together was believable, intense and undeniably noteworthy; Certainly the best thing about the movie, in my opinion.

I do give Dear John a decent and satisfactory rating for it really strived to be a poignant and strong film, even though it fell a little short, and I was moved at times by the feelings Channing and Amanda expressed into their characters, though all together their performances were eh. It was interesting and entertaining, and I enjoyed it... lightly. With all that said, it again falls short of being rewatchable with it's extreme dullness throughout and lack of powerful, independent, likable performances. Not anything special, but certainly not anything bad, and I recommend you don't watch it with high expectations, because you'll be very disappointed, but if you're not an extreme critic and you're just looking to blow some time, or are extremely hard up for Channing Tatum shirtless, you can and will enjoy this in some way.

Lasse Hallström, the Swedish director who gave us Chocolat (2001), Gilbert Grape (1993) and Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009) is at it again - making chick flicks for guys. This means, unlike your stereotypical chick flick whose leading man is a hollow beefcakey stud with as much personality as the scenery, here we get a complex beefcakey stud whom the chicks can swoon over whilst the bros say "duuuuude he's cool."

In this case the protagonist is "John" (Channing Tatum) who plays an Army Special Forces character who can kill you with a toothpick but has total control over his emotions. Until, of couse, he meets "Savannah" (Amanda Seyfried) over his 2 week furlough before going back to war.

As you might guess, the story explores the ultimate long distance relationship as John completes his 1 year tour as a soldier while Savannah waits at home. Sounds boring? Well wait, there are complications. John's father is autistic and his mother abandoned them years ago. So John is forced to be the responsible one, but the whole war/love thing throws him out of whack.

Meanwhile Savannah has a few secrets of her own (and I gotta admit I totally didn't see it coming). And on top if it all, 9/11 hits and this forces John to make a decision whether to stay with his platoon and most likely get his butt blown off, or retire once his initial tour is over. Oh, and the movie begins with John getting blasted by gunfire, meaning the story unfolds in a huge flashback leaving us wondering the whole time if John dies or not.

This is a very sentimental flick, much like the other Hallström movies I mentioned, but it doesn't get sappy or predictable. In fact at least 3 plot twists took me by total surprise. And I'm talking like "whoa duuuuude I never saw THAT coming" surprise.

"Dear John" focuses on interpersonal relationships when duty comes into play - and I'm not just talking about duty toward your country (a cleverly woven parallel), but duty to parents, children and those who need help. This is juxtaposed against selfish happiness, or the storybook love. Pay close attention to the characters' choices & sacrifices, and how these choices are based on duty/selflessness rather than "getting the girl". I think that's what makes this a unique romance. Whereas most Hollywood romance flicks focus on the problems of 2 lovers, "Dear John" presents us with an ideal love that is complicated by external loyalties.

The trademark of Hallström movies is some other issue (not just love) driving the characters, and that's why these films aren't sappy or predictable. Another trademark is is use of gorgeous scenery, in this case the beaches of Charleston SC. He achieves a very nostalgic beach feeling, even for those of us who have only been to the beach once or twice in our lives (see also his film "Safe Haven" filmed in Southport, NC).

"Dear John" is a quiet, sentimental film, so don't expect action, car chases & robots. But it delivers a few tricky plot twists, so it's never boring. If you're not familiar with Hallström's style, I'd say it's artistic without being over-the-top artsy. Think of Kieslowsky (Blue, White, Red trilogy) or Wim Wenders (Paris Texas, Wings of Desire) or possibly even Steven Soderbergh (Sex Lies & Videotape, Solaris, Magic Mike) and you'll have a general idea of how this film feels.