User Reviews

Biopics are hard to sit through if you're tired of seeing drug addicts, hookers and mafia types mingle their way to fame and fortune. Luckily "Julie & Julia" is light entertainment that isn't about any of these things.

Amy Adams is Julie Powell, an underachieving nobody who moves to Queens with her husband in a small apartment above a pizzeria. Every day she sits at her cubicle coping with callers who are still sick with 9-11 trauma. While her more successful girlfriends are all VPs of their companies, Powell is a minute insect who longs to be someone at the age of thirty. Can we blame her? She's impending on a mid-life crisis and is stuck with a husband whose more dull then a stack of nails.

One night she decides she does have a talent- she can throw down in the kitchen like nobody's business. And the food she prepares is yummy and good! So she decides to blog about her cooking all 500+ recipes in "The Art of French Cooking" from Julia Child, the famous renown chef and Television personality. Adams, who has found a knack for her films roles (she's Australian but sounds perfectly Midwestern) falls right into home with her whiny character.

Enter Meryl Streep, who plays Julia Child. Director Nora Ephran ("Sleepless in Seattle") has merged these two women's stories together, and as Adams' storyline unfolds, so does Streep's. The Julia Child storyline is more fun, as we embark on a journey to see how Ms. Child came to be the robust, lively and 6'2 legend that she will remain today. Streep has the gusto to play her to, though sometimes her uncanny accent goes a little over the top ("Ohhhhh yessss, I knoowwww"). Still, there's a lot to like in the performances, contrived from Streep like a Saturday Night Live sketch with more stuffing, and plenty of imminent chemistry with co-star Stanley Tucci, as her patient husband.

"Julie & Julia" is a fun time in the theater (and it makes you hungry), but what lacks from this two-character tale is tension and plot. What really happens? Julie has a few meltdowns in the kitchen and keeps dropping her boneless chicken on the floor. Julia can't pass the exams to get her cooking certificate? Where's the savage villain? Where's the subplot involving Child and her distaste of Powell later on when she found out about the blog? Now THAT would be something to boost the structure of the plot. There's never a dull moment in the movie (except maybe in the final fourth), but there certainly was room for MORE concise paranoia in which we could see the two women really tackle their issues. Another critic made a good point about the Adams character- where's her supportive gay work friend? Is her bland husband the only source she has to lean upon- and feed? Streep lost the Oscar for Best Actress last year to Kate Winslet in "The Reader". While I highly supported a win for Streep in "Doubt", there was no 'doubt' Winslet was past due for her subversive work in Daldry's masterpiece. However, is "Julie & Julia" really going to win Streep her third Oscar? She's charming as Julia Child, and nails the characterization- but there isn't a scene that truly depicts her as a woman (minus perhaps the breakdown in the kitchen, but that's nothing to hoohah about). A tasty morsel that's best described as a prominent appetizer.

FINAL GRADE: B-

Julie & Julia is essentially two films about how passion and food can change peoples lives. Although in Julia Child's case, the bon vivant American cook with French sensibilities changed the lives of a whole nation used to eating convenience food in post war America and beyond. The other Julie of the title is Julie Powell. The only life she is changing is that of her own and she represents the vanity of everyday bloggers who are looking for instant fame and attention. Originally conceived as two separate movies, director-writer Nora Ephron decided that Julia Child's memoir, My Life in France and Julie Powell's blog memoir, Julie & Julia, didn't have enough meat to sustain a 90 minute feature on their own. This is a shame because Julia Child's other life in France is not only thrilling reading, but with Meryl Streep's performance as the passionate lover of life Julia Childs, the film is absolutely riveting and laugh out loud funny. Unfortunately, Julie Powell's life is hardly the stuff of legend and hardly changes lives. Comparing her contemporary life as an unfulfilled writer in NYC to Child's talent, hard work, and genuine need to teach others, is nothing short of insulting. Nora Ephron is no stranger to juxtaposing lives in her work in films such as You've Got Mail (1998) and Sleepless in Seattle (1993). Her trademark comic timing and direction will not disappoint Ephron fans. But my heart sank every time Ephron returns to the story of Julie Powell. Amy Adams, Streep's co-star in Doubt, fails to ignite any sympathy or even much care from audiences as her portrayal of Powell as nothing more than an under achiever who is jealous of her friends successes and embarks on a project that she at least hopes she will finish. Adams' Powell is not cooking for the greater good or writing a self-help book, she isn't even teaching herself the fine art of cuisine. But maybe this is Ephron's point all along about how blogs and the internet as a whole, validates our existence, or at least goes to prove that with as little effort as possible, a blogger's mundane life can be pitched against the life of one of the most influential people in America. How many of us rushed to write blogs on hearing of Julie Powell's book deal? How little of us want to put in the hard graft, the real work into being another Julia Child. Ephron's second and by far less interesting story of Powell makes the biggest statement of our 21st century lives. Julie Powell works as temp middle manager in a New York government office, answering calls from distraught 9/11 victims and families. The work is full time strain on her emotions. Living in Queens with her loving editor husband Eric (Chris Messina), she cooks in their tiny kitchen and uses the time as her only escape from the day. Powell is approaching thirty and is constantly aware of her unfulfilled life. Her husband suggest she start a blog about cooking and Powell, with Child's cook book in hand, Mastering the Art of French Cooking, embarks on a year long project to cook up all 524 recipes and blog about her adventure. Back in 1948, Julia Child and her husband Paul, dashingly played by Stanley Tucci, are brought to Paris because of Paul's job as a cultural attaché at the American embassy. The couple's liberal outlook and enjoyment for life and French food, give Julia a reason de'tair. Julia's hobby turns to passion after she becomes the first American to study at the Le Cordon Bleu culinary school. She meets fellow foodies, Simone Beck (Linda Emond) and Louisette Bertholle (Helen Carey) to co-write Mastering the Art of French Cooking. There's no contest as to whose life is more appealing and Streep and Tucci's chemistry, united again after their starring roles in The Devil Wears Prada, is a joy to watch.

Julie & Julia should be call Julia & Julia, because I just couldn't stand for the other character in the film, Julie Powell (Amy Adams). I think if the movie was just about Julie Child's (Meryl Streep) life, it would have been better. The movie felt like a stalker- wet dream. Julie & Julia is a comedy-drama film written and directed by Nora Ephron. The film contrasts the life of Chef Julia Child during her early years of her culinary career trying to finish her book 1961's 'Mastering the Art of French Cooking' with the life of young New Yorker Julie Powell, who aspires to cook all 524 recipes in Child's cookbook in 365 days and read it in a blog. While, all the scenes with Meryl Streep are enjoyable; the scenes with Julie Powell are just contempt to ruin the film. Don't get me wrong, I love Amy Adams, but this role is probably one of the worst roles she ever took. I just found her character to be so self-absorbed narcissistic. She looks like a little boy whining and complaining. Having major break downs over cooking no less. She is a young writer with an unpleasant job at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation's call center, where she answers telephone calls from victims of the September 11 attacks and her friends happen to be unlikable rich business women. Rather than quitting and getting new friends, making her life better, she decide to ride on Julia Child's coattails to riches and fame. She invest so much of her life to working on knowing Julia Child's cookbook that she started to seem like a stalker. She started dressing like her, and acting like she know her in a personal level. She even talks about dreaming of Julie Child's talking to her in her sleep. Now, they is a small line between being a fan, and being obsessed by the woman. She clearly obsessed by her. While alive, Julia Child obviously recognized this. Julia Child had to struggle and worked many years to undertake what she did, and a year after she dies; this opportunist publishes a book about herself linking herself to Julia Child. Even the title stinks of self-importance: Julie and Julia not Julia and Julie. Just who is the famous person here who worked many, many years?! Certainly not the insecure Julie. That takes extreme nerve since Mrs. Powell has admitted not completed anything in her life. She was a bloodsucker leech of a woman. Ephron's screenplay is adapted from two books: My Life in France, Child's autobiography written with Alex Prud'homme, and a memoir by Powell call the Julie/Julia Project. The film is the first major motion picture based on a blog. I read the blog for research, and found it shallow and stupid. No wonder Julia Childs disliked the author so much. The two ideas of telling Julie's life story with a blog of cooking her receipts don't really mash well. The storyline is somewhat boring, incongruent, and haphazard. Yes, the two stories are kinda relate in a way; but it's really hard to watch the movie when it jumps from one time period in Paris to the other time period in Queens, NY. When scenes with Julia Child get interesting, it cut to Julie Powell's story, so you have to wait until Powell's is done with her scenes before going back to Child. It's so badly cut up movie that you lost interest right away. Why can't this be two movies? I love Julie Child plot line because it highlights similarities in the women's challenges at the time. What is Julie Powell's problems? She has to cook all the recipes and blog. Sorry, but Julie Child's story is more interesting and has depth. Streep is over-the-top here cartoony caricature of Child's, but it was close to it. I do like Stanley Tucci as the Child's supporting husband. Their love story really did seem very cute. This movie is not Nora Ephron's best work. The continual narrative by Amy Adam describing everything we were watching was beyond annoying. It was like watching a cooking commercial. Talking about television, the movie even have the nerves to be lazy, as they just reused an old The Saturday Night Live skit to add minutes to the film by playing the whole 5 minute skit out. At 123 minutes there are 30 minutes that could have been cut out. What was with all the hate for the Republicans? We already know that Hollywood mostly dislike conservatives but is it really smart to alienate half of your paying audience by insulting them continually throughout the film. It just comes off as childish and immature, like bullies at a playground. What type of boss would say a Republican would fire you? I can honest understand voicing your opinion against McCarthyism because I, too thought it was wrong for Senator McCarthy to black list people, but why is this topic in this type of a movie? We came to see food, not politics. I did a little research and though Paul Child was sent back to Washington for an investigation, I found nothing that stated he was the subject of the investigation. In fact, he came back to Washington and was promoted. McCarthy was mentioned several times and there were a couple of republican jabs just because the director felt like it. It wasn't needed! It took us away from the main plot about the cooking. Overall: Had this been a movie simply about Julia Child, it could have been great. Instead, more than half of the movie is given to a crazy fan. I know there really are people like this, but I don't need to pay money to watch movies of fans falling head over heels over celebs. Stop thinking of making yourself into the next Julia Child, and start making yourself the next you. I say.

Film intercuts story of Julia Child in the 40s writing her first cookbook with Julie, a present-day New Yorker writing a blog in which she cooks each dish from a Child cookbook over a year.

The Julia Child scenes themselves are excellent. Terrific evocation of the France of the era, and some wonderful scenes.

The modern-day Julie scenes, however, are difficult to watch. Julie is a character without, as far as I can see, any particularly redeeming or even interesting characteristics. She is selfish, dishonest, and whiny. Other than fetishes for profanity and self-pity, it's not clear to me what's interesting about her.

Had the Julie scenes been cut out entirely, the movie would have been better; had they been replaced by scenes with Julia Child, it would have been an excellent film.