Posted by: hydro033 | February 21, 2010

Dear John Review

by Hydro033

Oh, Nicholas Sparks, how you win over the women of this country with your overly dramatic romances. I was dragged to see this film, like most men, by my girlfriend As I entered the theatre I was not surprised to see teenage girls, middle-aged women, and the occasional couple that provided the only sets of testicles in the audience. I owned one of those set of testicles, and I can say that when I left, I had to check that my testicles were still there. I’m not saying Dear John was awful because it was a romance. I’m saying it is just a downright awful film.

Channing Tatum is John Tyree. A badass? A softie? Even after the movie, I am still unsure. Tatum seems to lack the ability to change emotional states. He is the most stoic actor I have seen and it was actually painful to watch him. My eyes became sore because I was rolling them so often. His co-star, Amanda Seyfried played a much better role as John Tyree’s lover, Savannah Curtis, but even her performance was less than stellar. She is quite attractive though and I think she may be able to develop her skills and become a successful actress.

John Tyree is this big, stoic, loner soldier who falls in love with Savannah Curtis during a short summer at the beach. Curtis has to head back to school and Tyree is off to serve his tour in the United States Army. The plot consists of the couple missing each other and writing very sappy love letters to each other while they are apart. The story continues at an agonizing slow pace and it is only slowed more by Tatum’s atrocious acting abilities. In fact, the story is so basic and lifeless, that it is almost non-existent. Dear John barely had a plot. It certainly lacked the raw emotion that a romance demands. I was waiting for the film to end rather than anticipate the conclusion.

The plot does take an unexpected twist. Although Dear John is very cliché, this small twist is the reason why I scored the film as high as I did. Otherwise, it would have received a 5/5 (i.e. a zero). The best element to the story involved coins. Richard Jenkins as Mr. Tyree, John’s father, was the most emotional character of the film. I always looked forward to scenes that included him, but sadly Tatum’s acting ruined these good bits as well. There was a struggle in the relationship between John Tyree and his father, who had a mental disorder. This relationship could have been so much, but sadly Tatum could not flesh it out, even as Jenkins did his best. The two used to collect coins, but John Tyree grew up and grew away from his father. If Tatum could act, this may have been moving and had some meaning, but it did not.

"Shirts are for losers and I'm not one."

I just want to stress how bad Channing Tatum is as an actor. He is a soldier, but he walks like a thug. His character is portrayed as having a “dark” past that is never touched on. He pretends to be such a former badass. It is a joke. He displays the same face when he is angry, when is sad, when he is nervous – just every emotional state. His smiles are fake, his anger is not convincing. The man just needs to stop acting. Without Richard Jenkins, this film would have been worse than a zero. It is too bad that Henry Thomas was not utilized more. Although he had some bad moments, his acting stood out in a film that lacked some good performances.

My Cheers: The only redeeming quality was some of the poetic narrations that seemed like they were taken directly from Sparks’ source material. It is too bad that the movie did not consist of this entirely, it would have been much better off. Richard Jenkins as Mr. Tyree was a shining light in a pile of filth. Also, Henry Thomas put forth a valiant effort as Tim (a character whose identity would be a spoiler).

My Jeers: Channing Tatum. He is one of the worst actors I have ever seen in major releases. He needs to stop and go back to modeling, he is terrible. The film did not utilize the military aspects to its advantage. So much of the film was focused on the junky relationship between Tyree and Curtis, that other elements that are required to build a plot were overlooked. Sadly, Curtis put forth an effort to make the relationship emotional and worthy, but Tatum is just that bad that he ruined it.

Overall: Do not see this movie. It is a waste of your time. You know how I know? My girlfriend even said it was terrible and when a girl says that a romantic movie like this is terrible, you can pretty much be assured that it really is terrible. Let us pray that Channing Tatum stops making the world cringe with his awful performances.

4.5/5 Chezwicks – We have a loser!

chez, rating icon, chezwick, the chez, chezez, chezzes, chezi, chezzichez, rating icon, chezwick, the chez, chezez, chezzes, chezi,  chezzichez, rating icon, chezwick, the chez, chezez, chezzes, chezi,  chezzichez, rating icon, chezwick, the chez, chezez, chezzes, chezi,  chezzi



Responses

  1. Coach Carter is the only movie with Channing Tatum in it worth seeing.

    • Wasn’t a fan. He sucked in that too, but his limited role didn’t bring the whole film down. Although, he played the stereotype well, because the white trash fellows are rather stoic and emotionless douchebags.

  2. You know, not that I would have been the least big intrigued to see this film anyway (I respect my gonads far too much to put them in harm’s way), I have to say – I really enjoyed reading this review. There are some films that I will avoid, precisely because a particular actor is in them. For example: anything with Brendan Fraser in it. (Ok he might have been ok in “Blast from the Past”, but I see that as an aberration, probably enhanced by a damned good director)

    At any rate – I’ll avoid any movies starring Channing Tatum. So thank you for that.

    • Wise decision.


Leave a response

Your response:

Categories