Columbia Pictures | Release Date: August 7, 2009
7.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 174 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
125
Mixed:
32
Negative:
17
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
5
EliasCAug 21, 2009
I wish I could split this vote; 8 for Julia, 3 for Julie. The problem with this film is Nora Ephron. She took 2 interesting books and reduced the plot to a Cliff Notes version and managed to make both stories uninteresting. But even Nora I wish I could split this vote; 8 for Julia, 3 for Julie. The problem with this film is Nora Ephron. She took 2 interesting books and reduced the plot to a Cliff Notes version and managed to make both stories uninteresting. But even Nora Ephron could not hide the potential of a truly great film based on the life of Julia Child. I found myself wanting more. More story, more character, more drama. A bio flick about Julia Child would have been fascinating. Tell us about her days in Ceylon. Tell us about her TV days. Tell us more about her relationship with Paul Child. All we get is snipes and tidbits here and there delivering in an incomplete story. The performances by the great Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci stand out as a testimonial of what could have been. However such a film is apparently not within the capability of the writer/director. Instead we get a side story with Amy Adams as Julie playing a typical Ephron character - obsessive, depressing, and tiresome. Collapse
2 of 2 users found this helpful
6
2GUI2Jan 5, 2011
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
NickWAug 30, 2009
Of course Meryl is a marvel; she could probably play Hitler or Genghis Khan and pull it off....But the movie ultimately seemed rather flat, missing something crucial. And it could have been 10-15 minutes shorter. One friend said -- after Of course Meryl is a marvel; she could probably play Hitler or Genghis Khan and pull it off....But the movie ultimately seemed rather flat, missing something crucial. And it could have been 10-15 minutes shorter. One friend said -- after we'd just made a huge, fabulous French dinner before the film -- that with all the cooking, you never saw a single dish being cleaned up! And one thing I noticed -- and would love to know if anyone else saw it too -- was at the end when Julia's book arrived in that padded envelope, I swear that it was padded with bubble wrap, which wasn't invented until decades later....I know it's nit-picky, but a movie of that scale should never have that kind of mistake. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChadSAug 8, 2009
At its very foundation, "Julie and Julia" is about old and new media, so for the traditionalists, the title itself might rankle their antiquated sensibilities, since the title gives equal weight to the writer and the blogger. According to At its very foundation, "Julie and Julia" is about old and new media, so for the traditionalists, the title itself might rankle their antiquated sensibilities, since the title gives equal weight to the writer and the blogger. According to the film, Julia Child did not give Julie Powell's blog a fair shake. The chef said it wasn't "respectful". On one hand, the moviegoer sympathizes with Julie Powell(Amy Adams) because as is so often the case, an artist's voice, or persona, may not necessarily be the artist him-/herself. Child(Meryl Streep) might have not been the perfect woman who lived in Julie's head, or for that matter, the filmmaker's head, as well. Crushed by her hero's negative on-the-record statements to the press about "The Julie/Julia Project", the post-9/11 cubicle worker and her husband stay up late in their one-room apartment, guessing at what angered the then-living icon of French cuisine. Was it Powell's use of the f-word? It's a probability, since Child added that the blog wasn't "serious" either. Another probability, the one that "Julie and Julia" seems unaware of, suggests itself in the juxtaposition of both women's lives within the dual narrative framework. While Child's first manuscript went through countless drafts and multiple publishers over a pretty good chunk of time, Powell had a literary agent and book deal before a full calendar year was up. Although "Julie and Julia" works hard to paint an imperfect picture of Powell's personal and professional life(due to the time-intensiveness of her project), there's something almost obscene about how fame is ascertained these days. Are enough dues paid; especially if you're essentially amalgamating somebody else's work? Powell was like the Danger Mouse of culinary blogging. Adapted from her own bestselling book, naturally, neither the author's diegetic counterpart nor her husband, broach the possibility that copyright issues might be the reason behind Child's ungenerous spirit. Undeniably entertaining, there's a dishonesty about "Julie and Julia". It needs a dissenting voice(a dramatization of Child's voice at 90), a dialectic; a voice to counter the filmmaker's notion that bloggers are indeed the professional writer's equal. By retaining the title of Powell's book, "Julie and Julia" endorses the new media, which merely collates and/or comments on first generation sources, rather than starting off from scratch. For the sake of humility, the film should be entitled "Julia & Me". Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MarkMAug 8, 2009
The Julia Child half (delightful, fun, smart) gets an 8/10 and the Julie Powell half (cutesy, sickly-sweet) gets a 0/10, which averages out to 4/10. And the best thing about Julie Powell
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
dmcAug 11, 2009
Flawed in the up and down of performances as well as a technical embarrassment of microphones in the screen and glitches.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JamesRAug 18, 2009
Julia, good. Julie, not so good. If I could, I would've skipped the whole Julie side of the movie. The acting on the Julie side just doesn't compare to that of the Julia side.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
moviemongerAug 28, 2011
Meryl Streep has been the unopposed Queen of the Screen for 3 decades - the interest in her movies is as much to see her sculpt a character as it is to see the movie itself. Julie and Julia did not disappoint, with regard to Meryl - she wasMeryl Streep has been the unopposed Queen of the Screen for 3 decades - the interest in her movies is as much to see her sculpt a character as it is to see the movie itself. Julie and Julia did not disappoint, with regard to Meryl - she was fantastic, as always. Instead of a movie intertwining two separate plots, I viewed two completely different movies. Ironically, I rooted for Julia Child, already knowing her life's outcome and really could not have cared less about the Julie Powell, the Amy Adams character, I knew nothing about - the whiny, somewhat unlikeable character. The movie boils down to, simply, a tribute to a beloved "character" for generations....Julia Child. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
marcmyworksJun 16, 2016
This film could have been so much better as just a portrayal of the life and times of Julia Child. Amy Adams portrayal of Julie Powell (which is the centre of this film) is flat, boring and lifeless.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews