Julie & Julia
Directed and written by Nora Ephron, starring Meryl Streep and Amy Adams, from Sony on 8.2.09. Streep’s vocal impersonation of Child sounds pretty good. Plus she somehow looks like she’s Child’s height of 6’2″, even though Streep is only 5’6″ or thereabouts. Which means it’s one of those noteworthy physical transformation roles a la De Niro in Raging Bull, which means she’s an automatic Oscar contender. Unless the film is a shortfaller.
Trick photography is a transformation? Apparently I’m in a small percentage of those watching this today, but I think it looks like a piece of shit. Stanley Tucci should consider crowing his hair out again, I miss the PELICAN BRIEF/KISS OF DEATH era look. And is that the fiance from VICKY CRISTINA? He was such a natural douchebag, are we supposed to pretend he’s not now?
My brain hurts.
I saw this story a while back where streep talks about it here. http://www.hollywoodoutbreak.com/2008/11/24/meryl-streep-on-playing-julia-child/
It looks like Nora doesn’t worship food enough for this project. Where are the loving Ratatouille/Big Night shots of gastronomic goodness?
Why is it that every actress who works on a Nora Ephron movie transform themselves vocally into the same sounding character? Amy Adams’ cute/timid inflections sound exactly like Nicole Kidman in “Bewitched” who sounded exactly like Meg Ryan in “You’ve Got Mail.” Ephron’s dialogue and direction of her female leads strikes me as similar to actors who try to “do Woody Allen” when they’re playing one of his surrogates. Where’s the spark?
Just give Streep her 3rd Oscar for anything.
i try to stay away from absolutes but i just hate everything nora ephron does…that said, i’ll see this because i liked the book…..
Commerically, as a director Ephron, bats .500. Usually following a stinker – “This Is My Life” (92), “Mixed Nuts” (94)) with a hit – “Sleepless In Seattle” (93), “Michael “(96) – Since “Bewitched” tanked, “Julie and Julia” should be a hit.
The trailer is slick and “didn’t suck”.
My wife and daughter watched it and said, “We got to see that.” BO Prediction 65-75 mil….
Looks like shit on a stick.
I would rather eat at Popeyes
Me watching this trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm81LSKJC2k
Two Girls, One Cookbook.
Won’t she be an automatic Oscar contender just because, well, she’s Meryl Streep?
I agree about that fiance from Vicky Cristina Barcelona. I wanted to punch him in the face every time I saw him. Who is he? How did he get famous. As Jeff would say, every time I saw his face “I instantly recoiled”.
Why would anyone watch a movie about cooking? You got the food network, don’t you? Now I have to endure the ‘Is Meryl Streep going to get an Oscar for this movie’ shit again. I said it before, her percentage of being nominated vs. winning isn’t great. Hillary Swank has 2 oscars, so is she as good as Streep? If you’re a great tennis player, and you’ve competed in wimbledon 10 times, and you only win once, how good are you?
A bunch of women sitting around a lunch table complaining about their lives? In a Nora Ephron movie?
I did NOT see that coming!
I know that when Gloria Swanson (who was quite tiny, even by 1920s standards) was in her heyday, set designers would s;ightly scale down furniture to make her appear taller.
Now if this film’s producers wanted a really “noteworthy physical transformation,” they should have cast Kristin Chenoweth as Julia Child.* Of course, the trickery would have not only been making Kristin appear 25 percent larger, but lowering her voice an octave or so.
*I was being facetious.
I’d rather watch the Costanza favorite ‘Rochelle, Rochelle’.
how does nora ephron get work? she hasnt had a hit since ‘The cook, the thief, his wife and her lover’.
An endless parade of comic book movies is OK, but any movies by and about women are not? Dr. Freud, do you have any analysis to offer?
I filmed a couple of friends watching the trailer. Big mistake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA
“An endless parade of comic book movies is OK, but any movies by and about women are not?”
Please tell me then you’re going to see and support movies by such filmmakers as Nicole Holofcener, Tamara Jenkins, Kimberly Peirce, and Jill Sprecher. All of them (and others I’m sure I’ve forgotten) are women filmmakers who have made movies about women (though not exclusively, as STOP LOSS (Peirce) and 13 CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ONE THING (Sprecher) can attest), and all are honest explorations of character and story, giving actresses three-dimensional roles to play. All Ephron does is give us cutesy films, and the women roles pretend to be three-dimensional but are merely a collection of tics and stereotypes. How does that advance the cause of women in Hollywood? The fact that Ephron and Nancy Meyers (who is just as bad) continue to be thought of as viable “woman’s films” directors, while Holofcener, Peirce, Sprecher and others all have to struggle (Holofcener, to be fair, is up to her fourth film now) is just another demonstration as to how seriously screwed up our attitudes towards women are in Hollywood today.
Quality is not the point. Too many commentators here pitch hissy fits at the very idea of movies aimed at women. I believe Freud said something about the flaccid fanboy phallus.
Man, I loves me some Nicole Holofcener. Lovely & Amazing was wonderful.
“Quality is not the point. Too many commentators here pitch hissy fits at the very idea of movies aimed at women.”
The second part of your statement is undoubtedly true, but I’m sorry, the first part isn’t. As I’ve said before, what passes for “chick flicks” these days are either so-called romantic comedies that depend on tired stereotypes about both women and men, or the noble-suffering women films that basically say “men suck, but it’s a woman’s duty to live with them.” If more women – and men – supported the quality films about women made by women (and, to be fair, some men), instead of the hacks like Ephron and Meyers, and those films became more prevalent, maybe it’s naive to say so, but don’t you think there would be less eye-rolling and macho posturing at the idea of a “woman’s film”?
Few things in the entertainment industry make me as happy as the fact that Meryl Streep, who is nearing 60, is one of the top female box-office draws in the world.
That’s like finding a thread where DZ doesn’t post 18 unrelated links. It’s like hugs wrapped in rainbows dipped in chocolate!