Julie & Julia (2009) - Biography, Drama, Romance

Hohum Score

9

Engaging

Julia Child's story of her start in the cooking profession is intertwined with blogger Julie Powell's 2002 challenge to cook all the recipes in Child's first book.

IMDB: 7
Director: Nora Ephron
Stars: Amy Adams, Meryl Streep
Length: 118 Minutes
PG Rating: PG-13
Reviews: 52 out of 289 found boring (17.99%)

One-line Reviews (209)

"Julie and Julia" is glossy, entertaining fun.

Despite the slightly distracting jumping from story to story, I found it quite engaging.

It's engaging, heartwarming and even funny at times.

Overall, 'Julie and Julia' is a pleasant but bland and uneventful drama.

I actually found it to often times be quite boring and slow, which I suppose makes sense when you think about it since there really isn't much of a plot.

Nora Ephron patronizes the audience with what became a trite formula, post-Sleepless in Seattle.

Equally enjoyable is Amy Adams, who is developing into a welcome presence in all the films she appears.

In a cute but ho-hum film she completely shines in this role.

It leaves you with a warm feeling in your heart and an empty stomach.

Unfortunately, I find cooking a tedious chore so I couldn't fall under the spell of Julia or Julie or share their joy in following recipes.

Bored that she is with her job and life, she takes on to the Internet trying French cooking recipes, arduously written in English, by her idol Julia (Meryl Streep) in the 1950s.

Unfortunately, the story that inspired the film, that of Julie, is uninspiring and boring.

Sure, I enjoyed Child's part, but Powell was a much deeper and more engaging character, so her parts were a real treat.

She nailed her character so well, and her story was all the more intriguing to watch because of that.

Objectively, this is Julie Powell's story as without her the story of Julia Child is irrelevant in this film, but Child is a compelling figure and Streep playing her makes it even more so.

Once you get past an annoying voice of Child's and the winning from Powell this film is quite enjoyable to watch.

The film leaves that matter unresolved and that's what I left the theater thinking about.

Enjoyable Nothingness .

Speaking of which, contrary to common opinion, I found Julie Powell's section of the movie to be much more engaging than Julia Child's.

The Julia Child part is as entertaining and fun to watch as you could expect from the likes of Meryl Streep in the title role; no more, no less.

The writing and directing is fantastic, the storytelling riveting, and the performances superb.

because no one cares (which is ironic because the whole point of this movie was that Julie would get people to care about her uneventful life).

This movie is a mindless, but entertaining, dumbing down of what women need to do to catch and hold man's basic desires.

It's very easy, perhaps too much so, to be skeptical regarding Julie & Julia before watching it, all because of Nora Ephron's presence in the director's chair: as deserved as he Oscar nomination for writing When Harry Met Sally was, her subsequent career has been marked by a string of predictable, not very funny rom-coms, with clumsy TV remake Bewitched constituting her creative nadir.

I was engrossed by the story and enjoyed it thoroughly from its beginning in post-war Paris to the scenes with Julie in Queens, New York.

then you probably shouldn't watch this because you'll think it's boring.

Two topics that easily make for an entertaining two hours.

Yes, an excellent recipe for a waste of time.

she is the bored wife of an American diplomat (Stanley Tucci) discovering her passion for cooking...

Cooking is something that she enjoys in her otherwise boring, disappointing life.

I thought at the time he was talking about the incredibly dull series starring Diahan Carroll.

Amy Adams gives an enjoyable performance as Julie Powell.

10 stars for Meryl Streep for her truly entertaining portrayal of Julia Child.

The annoying character performed by Meryl Streep probably had that weird way of speaking and is boring.

Streep's chemistry with Stanley Tucci as Paul Child, Julia's husband, is breathtaking.

This caveman wisdom, and other harsh realities of the dating scene, are the core of this enjoyable chick flick.

Still, as enjoyable as she (and Stanley Tucci, who plays Child's husband) are to watch, the Julia sections don't really have any conflict.

Although it's not the best film ever made, it is still pretty entertaining, and you can't ask for more than that.

The two minor points with the movie I found completely short, but highly entertaining...

It is 2002 and in New York, Julie is approaching her thirtieth year with a feeling of boredom.

What Ephron should have done toward the end is to reemphasize how Powell's inability to finish anything of merit has come full circle with this accomplishment and would have provided a more compelling character development.

Instead, Ephron tries to turn Julie into a cute, bland Meg Ryan character, and it never works, not for an instant.

Julie and Julia, an American comedy, is an enjoyable film that doesn't require too much thought provoking effort and is simply entertaining.

Instead, the film should have focused entirely on Child, whose story, in contract, is fascinating, inspiring and certainly deserving of more than this inconsequential piece of fluff.

Plane crashes, car incidents, people incidents, unexpected betrayals, sinister health diagnosis.

But this is a perfectly entertaining movie in spite of it.

In addition, I found the Julie Powell sections of the movie nearly unbearable; whiny, petulant and boring.

Heck, if I were a Progressive Democrat, I would return the DVD with an ice-pick groove across the surface rendering this flick more unwatchable than it already is.

Nailing Child's braying tone and gawky manner, Meryl Streep is masterfully entertaining as usual, although there is a Looney Tunes-level edge to her mostly comic performance.

Full credit to Amy Adams and Chris Messina, then, for making us care about the half of the film that teetered on the edge of the perfunctory.

Two stories rolled up in one movie, proves to be quite enjoyable.

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.

'Julie & Julia' is beautifully filmed, especially in the Julia story, which also has very evocative and handsomely rendered period detail that feels like late 40s-50s France.

It's a light and entertaining treat, with winning performances, sharp writing and some happy surprises.

Boosted by her charismatic performance,the movie is a light, but fairly entertaining culinary comedy.

As enjoyable as a movie can get, especially if you like food and hate the right wing of the Republican party.

This movie is quite enjoyable and a boon to the cookbook reviewing crowd eager to see a movie to bite into (have they gotten anything special since Ratatouille, and before that, Chocolat?

An entertaining film, Adams and Streep are excellent, even though they don't have any scenes together, you feel the connection they share.

But maybe that is because she is trying too hard to make an uninteresting story (Julie's) into something it is not.

certainly it was a drab place.

The other person in the film was Julie Powell an uninteresting little cubicle worker who wrote a blog in Queens.

Flash forward four decades to 2002, Powell, tired of her mundane job, takes her cue from Child's 524-recipe book and decides to write a personal blog documenting her attempt to cook every recipe in the book within one year.

Always insightful, well filmed and edited, always revealing truths about human nature it is a two hour comparison of the parallels of two women capitalizing on something which fascinates them to escape from an otherwise unexciting and uneventful existence.

It's not too bad of a movie for others, either, honestly holding characters that are fun to watch (both of the husbands are great, too) and entertaining and humorous dialog.

The results, while not a five star meal, is certainly an entertaining, well acted drama highlighted by some amusing situations.

While you might expect some times of real drama, there are also some moments of genuine comedy that make Julie & Julia a wonderfully rounded and entertaining movie experience.

The wonderful settings from New York to Paris, with an enjoyable presence of Stanley Tucci as Child's husband are pluses.

But thanks to superb Meryl Streep (and to less extent, Stanley Tucci and Mary Lynn Rajskub) it is exciting and interesting to enter the world of culinary science and dainties -- I must say that this was quite new to me, I am not into cooking broadcasts or books.

Of course this wasn't the ambition of Julie Powell (Amy Adams) or Julia Child (Meryl Streep), two real life characters in which this film adopted from, where their passion stemmed from, well, boredom and the desire to occupy their time with something.

It's simply another bland romantic "dramedy" with additional subplots about celebrity, the internet and food, all treated as if they were disposable from the get-go.

Childs is an ever fascinating character & Streep really becomes her.

Entertaining biopics .

You feel how you waste you life by thinking about silly problems and concerns that most of us are making ourselves busy and disappointed everyday.

Along with annoying jokes to make it more intriguing, I just look past that and enjoy the point of the film at hand which is the perfecting of cooking shown by the actors Adam's and Streep.

Is her bland husband the only source she has to lean upon- and feed?

Totally enjoyable.

In Paris, the bored Julia decides to learn how to cook and later to write a book teaching American housewives how to cook French cuisine.

A delightfully good tale, a somewhat comedic escape, and a pretty wholesome movie; this movie is worth the watch.

As for the negative, the film moves kind of slow a bit in the middle.

I somewhat enjoyed the Child/Streep story a little more, but that's just degrees, it may be the French setting and time seem more intriguing than Powell's/Adams contemporary setting.

Pleasant but shallow and bland .

Save the liver and save your money!

I wasn't blown away by this movie, but at the same time I found it enjoyable enough.

In accordance with all my predictions, this movie is warm, entertaining and really tastes good, Meryl Streep never disappoints and is always a guarantee of very good interpretations (unfortunately, in this case "ruined" by the Italian dubbing, her voice is quite annoying).

Meanwhile, the blog was entertaining for a while, then soon forgotten.

Stanley Tucci, who played Streep's devoted associate in "The Devil Wears Prada", provides a blessedly low-key presence as Paul, but Chris Messina ("Vicki Christina Barcelona") is merely bland as Powell's non-descript husband Eric.

While I could identify with Julie Powell in her need to find an outlet to get away from what you do all day (hence similar rationales for the creation of a site like this one), I thought Julia Child's story was more entertaining, especially with Meryl Streep fleshing out the delightful role with camera angles and shoes bringing out that giant of a character in her, and that undeniable, distinct accent to mimic what the real McCoy would have sounded like.

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.

Refreshing and thoroughly enjoyable .

When a movie is this entertaining, it's easy to overlook the flaws.

The material is just so insipidly predictable that there's not much they can do with it other than act cute, warm, and fuzzy and try not to let it drag, which they don't.

The Powell scenes work because the food looks delicious and the cooking style is fascinating to behold.

empty calories.

" Chris Messina has the same relatively thankless position here as Adrian Grenier had in PRADA – the attractive but bland mate of the secondary actress who gets shuffled to the side by demands of the plot and can only annoy the audience by daring to occupy the screen during a Meryl Streep movie.

Why its good: Enjoyable plot, watchable at any time, funny at parts, great music and Meryl Streep is great.

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.

Julia, who is bored out of her mind as a housewife, goes to cooking school and eventually writes a cookbook.

It's an entertaining, enjoyable film, brilliantly combining two stories into one to demonstrate the influence and similarities between them.

I've seen chick flicks that other men found really bad,i even enjoyed some of them,but this is boring.

I began to suspect that it was because neither of the protagonists was appealing; here were two self-absorbed women, obsessed with their pet projects and supported by bland, indulgent husbands.

Did I really need to waste two hours of my life on this pretentious bore-fest when shoving bamboo rods under my fingernails would have been way more constructive?

Would it be a generic romantic comedy or a dull pre-mid-life crisis drama?

In any case they are elements that if left out would make the film better, kind of like the nudity in Schindler's List, self-indulgent and unnecessary.

Ms. Ephron takes a questionable step in choosing to toggle back and forth between highlights from the life of Julia child -- an American icon with a revolutionary effect on American sophistication about food, whose life in post-war France was glamorous and amusing -- and shots of the drab outer burough strivings of Julie Powell.

Ephron adapted the script Child's posthumously published 2006 memoir (co-written with Alex Prud'homme) "My Life in France" & Julie Powell's entertaining, soufflé-light memoir -- from which the movie gets its name -- a recounting of the year Powell spent cooking every recipe in Child's 1961 classic "Mastering the Art of French Cooking.

Of the two leading characters, I found Julia to be much more entertaining to watch, proving once again that Meryl Streep can do absolutely no wrong.

This is not a film with a high concept like "Benjamin Button" or great intensity like "The Hurt Locker", but it largely succeeds in what it sets out to do- provide an entertaining account of two lives that were intertwined in an unusual way.

The 'Julia' side of the story is far more fascinating.

Time and again, just as we're becoming intrigued by Child's evolution from restless housewife - living with her ambassador husband (Stanley Tucci) in Paris - to student at LeCordon Bleu to published author, we're suddenly thrust back into the infinitely less compelling world of our modern-day blogger, who often comes across as needy, self-indulgent, creepily obsessive and whiny.

One of the inherent weaknesses in the approach is that Meryl Streep so dominates the screen with her interpretation of Child that her side of the story all but steamrolls over the more contemporary side, where Amy Adams is stuck trying to add spice to the far more bland and flavorless Powell.

She's impending on a mid-life crisis and is stuck with a husband whose more dull then a stack of nails.

Julie has a boring job working as a call centre worker answering calls from victims of the Spetember 11th attacks and people who don't like the idea of rebuilding the World Trade Center.

But admittedly, the Adams part of the story, set in a drab apartment in 21st century Queens, lacks the color and excitement of Streep's, set in the lushly romantic Paris of the early Cold War era and centering on an eccentric and larger- than-life individual.

God bless Amy Adams, because, without her in that role, it might have been completely unwatchable.

The movie brings her fascinating story to life and if I had to put up with a few scenes of Julie Powell melting down, well ...

The movie dragged a bit, with a running time of just over 2 hours – I thought some scenes could have been trimmed down a bit.

Nora Ephron did what she could with what she had to work with, but 2003 and 1949 are really different planets - and one is inherently more fascinating than the other.

There were a couple of reasons this film was a let down to me: The pacing of the film was slow and did a poor job keeping me fully engaged.

What a totally tiresome book it was.

True, if both books had been fully adapted the film would have been AGES long, but I just wish we could've been treated to more from these two intriguing ladies, who are (after all) the sole interesting thing in the film.

When it comes to Julie, I found her story to be a lot more interesting but the first half of it is pretty much wasted as we have to deal with all sorts of boring aspects like a silly dinner date she has with three of her friends.

one enjoyable performance in a generally lackluster film .

Next to Cheri it will go down as one of my worst movies of the year...

If you like movies about the life and times of hair stylists or nail manicurists or body masseurs or other types that create careers catering to the self-indulgent, then this movie is for you.

Despite the film languishing slightly in the second half and a rather abrupt ending, Julie and Julia makes for thoroughly enjoyable viewing.

Even though the story was written by herself, she fails to inspire anything but a simmering hatred at the fact that a person can be so self absorbed to waste everyones time with this garbage.

The story merging the past and more recent true stories together is very clever, the preparation and presentation of the foods and meals are just as exciting to watch as the events play out, there are moments that will make you laugh, and it just enjoyably refreshing, a most worthwhile biographical drama.

We were essentially bored by the whole process – the only reason that I did not honor her request to fast forward was respect for the actors, hope that the film would redeem itself, and the perverse enjoyment of watching a car wreck.

Moreover, Ephron's obvious disdain for anything that smacks Red State is so severe, she has the Texas born-and-bred Julie speak with the most mind-numbing monotone this side of Kevin Costner.

It's unbelievable that a woman as bland as Julie would devote so much time and effort to cooking.

This was a quite enjoyable film.

It is a funny, entertaining date flick.

just ahead of Tuipan and truly that was dreary.

This is one of the most entertaining movies I've seen lately, or ever.

The other is her acolyte, Julie Powell, a bored call center worker for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation in the throes of 9/11, who also happens to be a failed novelist with a supportive husband in Queens.

Amy Adams somehow manages to make Julie Powell likable enough that we actually stay awake during Julie's story.

While, all the scenes with Meryl Streep are enjoyable; the scenes with Julie Powell are just contempt to ruin the film.

I kept wishing the parts devoted to Julia Child wouldn't end and go back to the very predictable story of Julie Powell, which was not really very interesting.

The very revolution that Julia inspired has given us thousands of cookbooks that take all of us into wonderful new ventures in nouvelle cuisine, new American, fusions and all the other exciting stuff that's happening in cooking.

However, Meryl & Stanley could do much with the undercooked mundane screenplay they were fed.

Worth Watching for the Performances .

Nora Ephron both directed & wrote this very uninteresting,boring movie.

By the way,i know how to cook,and i was still bored.

Meryl Streep as Julia Child takes over what could be an uninteresting story and injects it with glee and joy with a powerful and entrancing performance, an Oscar-worthy one.

Add to all that the fact that the film just goes on way too long and you have yourself a pretty lousy movie, with the one great thing about it, Streep's inevitable 16th nomination, almost entirely worth missing.

It's a pleasant yet bland biographical drama film that bores just as much as it entertains.

The story needed a closer approach to different offered situations but the overall product can be appreciated as good with an added value due to the presence of the three main players, who combined their talent –Streep's by large- to give us an entertaining and well presented movie that at least should be the winner of its nomination.

Oh and there is this secondary story staring the always compelling Amy Adams as a Queens blogger who, for reasons known only to the apparent masses with little better to do then read her blog about cooking Child?

Boring, monotonous lives, crappy places to call home, and personal conflicts: all of us have gone through this at some point (As a harried student, I am right now) Julie is one such woman.

" Julia Child I wonder if I don't use butter when I cook but overdo my olive oil, will I be capable of reviewing well the entertaining and almost spiritual foodie movie, Julie and Julia?

Julia Child is a typical, middle-aged American housewife full of humane characteristics and convictions; bored in the midst of France, she goes through various hobby classes to find her best suit just like trying on shoes.

While this movie is enjoyable, watching the extras, in which the real Julie Powell is interviewed, makes it clear that Hollywood is not comfortable with real-looking women.

Directed by Nora Ephron with breathtaking art direction that captures both time frames.

Charming and thoroughly enjoyable.

Imbalanced But Often Engaging Account of Soulmates on Parallel Tracks .

Overall, definitely worth watching somewhat enjoyable just make sure to eat before attending because some of the cooking scenes may make you hungry.

Good, But Disjointed .

And now comes the movie, and I'm thinking Nora Ephron will surely correct the book's biggest flaw, which was too much time (~90%) devoted to Julie's blog-slog and only a few fascinating pages devoted to Julia Child.

What the film lacks in plot it gains in cute, funny humor and is sickening sweet.

The main problem with the film lies in Ephron's inability to make both segments equally interesting: as fine a comedic actress as Amy Adams is, her character just doesn't have that extra spark required to elicit audience sympathy, and neither does the script, which manages to make the end look contrived despite being inspired by a true story and fails to convey any means of understanding just how iconic a figure Julia Child is in America (though that might just be due to my being Scandinavian and having never heard of the woman prior to seeing the movie).

However, it also runs far too long, doesn't follow the customary film recipe (no pun intended) because it doesn't really have a beginning, a climax and an end.

Amy Adams and her scenes were also very enjoyable, and while to a lesser extent, still worked.

i was pleasantly surprised by how thoughtful, charming and entertaining it was.

Stanley Tucci also is very good as Paul Child, he provides an intriguing character and a very entertaining portrayal.

It's a great cure for insomnia, I recommend.

She was completely fascinating and so enjoyable to watch.

Streep, like most biographic performances by an actor or actress, is cliché and unimpressive.

But that said, it was an enjoyable movie.

I am beginning to realize, from reading a lot of comments, that you are either going to totally love this movie, totally hate this movie, or like me, find it vaguely boring and so-so.

Julia Child on her most dull days was more interesting than Julie Powell.

Both find the process confidence-boosting and providing a structure and meaning to their otherwise somewhat boring lives.

That's what's so exciting about Julie Powell's contribution to the movie.

It was so weird: Paul is normal; Julia is an idiot, and Julie and her husband are bland, bland, bland.

Child becomes Powell's muse, and her entertaining posts attract quite a fan base.

The female blogger this story is about is so bland, self-centered and void of any personality or original thought, it is frankly painful to watch.

Meryl Streep was a fantastic Julia Child, who started out as a bored housewife in Paris looking to fill her time and ended up being a major influence on American cuisine.

The friend I was with (another woman) really enjoyed it, too.

I enjoyed the film a lot more than I would have thought, and it really is worth watching.

Entertaining it is.

what a dull affair.

A very enjoyable lighthearted film for 2009.

A wonderfully entertaining treat!.

Overall, I enjoyed it quite a bit and I'm sure I'll enjoy seeing it again sometime.

Viewing the world through two different women's experiences in different times is creative and entertaining.

Finally, she found herself more enjoyable spending time in the kitchen.

There is a failure in Ephron's pleasing but bland writing here too.

The McCarthyism issue bored me.

The central problem is that Childs' story is emotionally rich and more compelling, while Powell's comparatively trivial account is the one that provides the narrative framework.

The storyline is somewhat boring, incongruent, and haphazard.

Overall, definitely worth going to see and quite enjoyable just make sure to eat before attending!

Her bio is intriguing and, while watching the movie, you tend to forget that it is actually Meryl Streep acting and not the real thing!

She settled in post-war France with her diplomat husband (Tucci), became bored, and enrolled in the Cordon Bleu to "master the art of French cooking.

Julie is very bored of her life and wants a goal in her life so she can feel better about her life.

Excellent recipe for a waste of time .

Child is broad gestures and flamboyance, while Powell is introspective and intense.

Mastering the art of enjoyable movie making .

In any event, while both stories do inject a bit of sombreness at times (McCarthy and the Red Scare in the Child Story and the aftermath of 9/11 in the Powell story) they're both told in a mostly light-hearted vein, and it's all enjoyable enough, even if it isn't the most important subject matter you'll ever find.

The movie is worth watching just to see Meryl Streep being brilliant, as always.

) It was a little long—the middle third dragged on a bit.

If guys get dragged to this on a date, they should definitely get serious compensation afterward.

Overall an enjoyable dish – go see this movie with your mom, your sister, or your best friend.

Intermittent background music is bland and nondescript.

However, there is enough laugh-out-loud humor, enough charming dialogue, enough picturesque cinematography to carry the lack of plot.

The Julie part of the movie is frankly just boring and at times irritating, i found myself just waiting till they got to the next part with Meryl Streep.

Based on two true stories, movie combines six decades separated lives of Julia Child (Meryl Streep), wife of an American diplomat (Stanley Tucci) in post-WW2 Paris, discovering her passion for French cuisine, then introducing it to American amateurs, and modern era Julie Powell (Amy Adams), professionally reduced to a hot line counselling 'cubicle girl', desperately entertaining her unfulfilled literary ambitions via blogging about her attempt to try and finish all 524 recipes from Julia Child's cookbook in 365 days.

She realizes that she has to publish new book: "Cooking Brains of Rich & Famous - Mainly Empty Calories".

--I felt like I had consumed a bunch of empty calories...

I was pleased to leave the theater knowing more about Julia than I thought I did.

Watching him & Meryl interact is satisfying and engaging; I always love when acting pairs come back to do more work together - who didn't enjoy them both in "Devil Wears Prada?