JULIE & JULIA

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 5:26pm

Totally surprised no one has posted about this yet. Or maybe they have and I'm just drunk.

Eeeenyway, its a truly mixed bag with dazzling high points and teeth-gritting lows.

Basically, the general critical consensus got it right: Julia rocks and Julie is a pill. Streep's Julia Child is for my money the best comic performance of her career. This endlessly innovative performance somehow manages to capture the essence of that very unique personality and never descend into mere imitation. In her finest moments in the film, Streep seems to be indulging in magnificently inspired improvisation...awe-inspiring throw-away moments burst out of nowhere like fireworks. This is a flat-out brilliant tragi-comic turn.

Likewise, Nora Ephrhon seems to have upped her game taking on Streep and Child in one gulp. The Julia scenes have a sparkly fizz in the writing and the look of the film is elegant and even breathtaking at times. Who knew Ephron could be this good a director?

But oh, that Julie! The film fell apart for me with the Julie section big time. Is there any way to make an audience care about a character whose big heroic action is to write a blog? Let alone one who begins the film whining about moving to--horrors!--Queens and goes downhill from there? Throughout the film Julia is presented as a rather self absorbed, petty girl who is either whining, sniping, or throwing a tantrum...except of course when she's being "cute". This brings out the worst in Amy Adams as an actress. With her inexpressive, adolescent speaking voice and her thin lips forever pressed into an entitled pout, I spent the whole of the movie rather wanting to slap Adams' Julie. Hard.

The Julie scenes also bring out the worst in Ephron. The scenes with Julie and her husband play like an old Jewish woman's idea of how those cute goys act like when they're playing house. And the soundtrack gets all plinkity-plink playful whenever Adams enters the scene. Oh, and if you think Ephron has gotten over her montages set to old standards, you're dreamin'.

It's such a pity because the Julia scenes are so sublime, damn near perfect. So a very mixed review from yr buddy Borstal. The thing that pushes the whole endeavour into the realm of recommendation: The flawless supporting cast. Yeah...go see it.

[Luscious]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 5:40pm

Think I'll wait for the DVD and FF through the Julie scenes. Too bad they just didn't make a bio-pic with Streep as Julia.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 6:21pm

Sorry--I loved BOTH stories and the way Nora Ephron went from one to another.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 7:00pm

Julie Powell comes off whiny, annoying and unlikeable in her book, so it sounds like Nora Ephron got it right!

[bschneid76]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 7:51pm

I think all four performances by the lead actors are excellent and well worth seeing. I felt it was one of the best feel good movies I've seen in a long time. I didn't feel that Julie was annoying, but rather trying to find something of meaning in her life and that was cooking and doing the recipes in Julia Child's cookbook. It made her happy and gave her a challenge. I do think that Julia Child's story was more interesting but Julie's scenes were not that bad.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 8:18pm

I was watching the tv commercial and felt like I've already seen that movie. It seems so boring and repetitive, I will pay 10 bucks to see that...over my dead body.

[nygrl232]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 8:33pm

Haven't seen the movie, but I did watch a couple of interviews with the real Julie Powell, and she seems like a rather tormented, disturbed individual. However, I do admire the message--inciting change when your life has hit a low or stagnant point and finding a mentor even when the mentor isn't there in person.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 8:35pm

I enjoyed it far more than I thought I would. Perfectly paced, wonderfully acted, especially by Streep and Adams (in one of her most understated performances to date), and a love letter to cooking. Fantastic.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 8:55pm

I can't wait to see Meryl Streep as Julia Child. I'm truly excited, especially reading on here and in the critics' reviews that this is one of the best performances of her career (even though critics tend to say that about her). I'll be seeing it next weekend and cannot wait.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 9:01pm

I don't know if I'd call it one of the best in her career (I mean, can you top She Devil ?) but it's definitely her best mix of comedy and drama to date. There were times where I was sucked into Amy Adams' story more. Still, Streep is wonderful.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/9/09 at 10:54pm

I'm looking forward to seeing Streep giving her next oscar winning performance! I mean, only she can do Julia Child without making her into a cartoon.

[eponine88]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 12:03am

Dottie- you got it exactly right. While I did enjoy reading the book, there were a great many moments when all I wanted to do was slap Julie, burn her out of her kitchen forever, and be done with it.

That being said, I am looking forward to seeing the movie, if only to see if Julie is any more likeable as portrayed by Adams. And to see Meryl Streep as Julia Child OF COURSE. Praise be that there will be more Julia than there was in the book...

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 12:09am

To be fair, and what a lot of publicity hasn't mentioned, the opening credits say the film is based on the book "Julie and Julia" and Child's autobiography "My Life in France".

[eponine88]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 12:18am

Exactly why I am more excited about the movie than I was the book

[yay_gerb]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 1:15am

i am totally in love with Amy Adams so i might be biased but i loved both stories. my mom and my uncle kept talking about Streep's voice and how it was so similar to the real Julia Child's voice. i thougth they were both outstanding and they male leads fit in perfect. i take it the book isn't worth reading from the opinions of it on here?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 3:07am

I loved the film. I wasn't as frustrated by the Julie scenes. Though, I do agree that the Julia scenes were superior. Ms. Streep will definitely be nominated again and deservedly so. Great ensemble cast--especially Jane Lynch (as always in my book).

[Craig]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 9:20am

Loved the movie and loved the device. Yes, you could have done a movie just of Julia Child (so much I didn't know about her and her "beginnings") - but if, and only if, the initial idea was to take Julie's story and make it into a movie - then the idea of doing BOTH stories was brilliant. Because truth be told - Julie's story ISN'T all that interesting by itself. Maybe worthy of an article or two in the paper. But not a movie. But using Julie's story as a means to share with the audience, Julia's life was, as I said - a great device.

And I'm not sure you're supposed to "love" Julie. Or root for her per se. I think the movie is deliberately more interesting with Julia's story because Julie's story is very simple. She started a blog and chronicled her life as she cooked over 500 recipes in a year. There's not drama in that.

The performances were great - and I enjoyed seeing Stephen Bogardus and Brooks Ashmankas pop up as well.

And although not important - some random questions came to mind after the movie was over. If Julie and her husband were pretty tight on finances - how did they manage to afford all the ingredients for every dish (I don't know all the recipes - and certainly spices and such can be used throughout the year - but still) cooking 365 (ish) days gets expensive.

Anyway - I digress. Loved the movie.

[zepka102]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 9:48am

This movie proved once again Meryl is one of our most diverse actresses around. I don't think she can do any wrong.

This is going to sound dumb, but there was something that stuck out though. How many times does Julia say the word "do" in the movie? She is constantly saying something about needing "something to do." I just found it funny that she said the word "do" in the same tone every time. It just seemed to stick out to me. Weird, I know!

[StageManager2]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 11:56am

"And although not important - some random questions came to mind after the movie was over. If Julie and her husband were pretty tight on finances - how did they manage to afford all the ingredients for every dish (I don't know all the recipes - and certainly spices and such can be used throughout the year - but still) cooking 365 (ish) days gets expensive."

Craig: In the movie they showed her getting gifts of various ingredients from devoted readers. She also considers installing a PayPal account so that people can donate money (to fund her project, I presume). They never mention it again, but I suspect that's what she ended up doing. (I haven't read the book so I'm strictly going by what was said/shown in the movie.)

[Auggie27]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 5:27pm

I agree with those who enjoyed the dual focus. I actually think an entire film narrowly dramatizing the Childs career might seem too precious, and wear out its welcome (though friends shouted me down, town hall style, when I opined this over dinner...) I think the film's magic is built on its contrasts, the juxtipositioning of the two women at odds with their lives. Adams is winning, and stylistically, the Queens sequences are romantically set forth, with some of the same romanticism used to illuminate Childs in Paris. Unlike those who were offended by the supposed put-down of Queens, I thought Ephron created a glowing portrait of a young woman's evolving sense of self. The cooking was means to an end, after all. Cooking "saved" both lives, and I didn't feel the strain to make that very valid point.

It's a unique structure, but to me, an entirely winning one. And who didn't love Tucci? The marriage was glorious, vivid, real, and for once, a portrayal of middle aged people that neither condescended to nor pitied love after 50. Brava!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 5:54pm

I completely agree, Auggie.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 8:58pm

Nicely put, Auggie.

I identified with Julie. Especially when I moved to Queens.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 11:12pm

I think many people relate to Julie...feeling stuck in their day to day lives, looking for something to pull them out of their daily doldrums. Julie had fantasies and looked to a celebrity for some inspiration and diversion. I think most people have empathy for that. She wasn't always nice or likeable, but none of us are. That's life. I liked the contrast. The movie illustrated why we often look to celebrities for inspiration. They have often overcome alot.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 11:24pm

Word.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 8/10/09 at 11:36pm

I also just loved that everything did not have to be spelled out, that Ephron painted the women's stories with broad brushstrokes. I really was moved by the scene where Julia cried when she got word her sister was pregnant-there was no explanation or exposition. It just existed. I adored that.