racy Chevalier’s novel “”Girl with a Pearl Earring”” is intricately beautiful in its descriptions of artist Johannes Vermeer’s world through the eyes of his maid, Griet. The movie “”Girl with a Pearl Earring,”” on the other hand, completely fails to bring this beauty to the screen.

The film tells the story behind Vermeer’s (played by Colin Firth) famous portrait, of a chambermaid named Griet (Scarlett Johansson) who inspires the portrait and the ramifications that come along with it.

Starring two usually wonderful actors, it’s hard to figure out where this film went wrong. Johansson portrays Griet with apathy, turning her into a character that seems unaffected by the events she is involved in. Meanwhile, Firth depicts Vermeer with consistent deer-caught-in-the-headlights looks. However, blame cannot be placed entirely on the actors. It seems that the writers completely forgot to include character development when they wrote the script.

The movie does not give you the background that the novel has, nor does it truly explore the characters. The viewer doesn’t understand the significance of specific details that were glossed over in the film yet integral to character development in the book.

The film briefly explores Griet’s feelings of apprehension toward Pieter, the butcher’s son, but the audience is left without a clear understanding of why. Without the necessary information, the viewer is left feeling confused as to why Griet acts the way she does towards different characters. Even more confusing is why Vermeer suddenly decides to hire Griet, as his assistant. The character’s are two-dimensional, flatly moving across the screen with no real purpose about them.

The film is extremely choppy. Each scene is one to two minutes long before abruptly cutting to the next scene. It’s almost as if the director was trying too hard to include as much as he could, but forgot to make the film concise. None of the scenes really push the story forward; instead they almost grind it to a halt. It’s quite the paradox: a movie with scenes that move too quickly yet completely slow the movie down.

Truly, the only masterful thing about this film is the visuals: The sets, the costumes and the cinematography are stunning. While everyone is screaming “”Oscar!”” for this film, the only part of it that truly deserves a nomination is the cinematography. Each scene is set beautifully, with camera angles capturing the action in a nontraditional way. The sets put you into the time period of the 17th century, and almost make you smell the turpentine and oil paints. Moreover, the costumes are wonderful and add to the realism of the sets (though Firth’s wig needed some work). Most remarkable, however, is Johansson’s resemblance to the actual painting.

If you’ve been wanting to see this film, the best reason would be for its artistic merit. The cinematography, costumes and sets are visually amazing. Meanwhile, the acting and plot leave much to be desired. Go see this film if you’re in the mood to be disappointed.