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

Hohum Score

10

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: 59 out of 323 found boring (18.26%)

One-line Reviews (231)

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.

Pleasant but shallow and bland .

what a dull affair.

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.

Enjoyable Nothingness .

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.

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

Amy Adams gives an enjoyable performance as Julie Powell.

The storyline is somewhat boring, incongruent, and haphazard.

empty calories.

Was it an enjoyable movie that I would recommend to a couple of friends, it isn't something that I would recommend to everyone.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

'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.

The film is charming and entertaining enough to watch on a lady weekend day.

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

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

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.

What a totally tiresome book it was.

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

Both stunning actresses playing powerful real-life models turn this movie into a memorable watch!

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.

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.

Of course, tastes differ, but even if it is boring for somebody, it would worth watching.

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

Worth Watching for the Performances .

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.

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!

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

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

Excellent recipe for a waste of time .

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

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.

In the end, this excessive duration takes away from Streep's captivating and highly enjoyable performance which is a huge shame.

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

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.

" 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?

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.

Charming and thoroughly enjoyable.

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

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

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

Imbalanced But Often Engaging Account of Soulmates on Parallel Tracks .

I also like how she turns to blogging to find a purpose for her seemingly boring life, as I am trying to be a blogger myself.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

So the general, tone of the movie is extremely comforting, sometimes even in a confusing manner.

It is a funny, entertaining date flick.

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.

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

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

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

Soft light and warm colors together with retro cars, old film cameras and glossy postcards work as a time machine leading you through the early 1950s, especially while backuped by slow american jazz perfectly matching the light mood of the scenes.

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.

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.

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.

"Julie&Julia" requires no attention whatsoever, because nothing happens at all, besides cooking another dish and another...

Entertaining it is.

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.

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.

Meryl Streep delivers a stunning performance, creates something for many to enjoy and I think she is the main reason why Julia Child's side of the movie remains so entertaining instead of being dramatic.

It took me a few scenes to accept Streep's falsetto voice and accent and while Adams as Julie had won me first, there came a point where she gets so wrapped up in her own ego that she becomes unbearable, and so does Julia.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

If you just wanna see a lovely feel good movie, it might get boring half way through, because there literally is NO drama at all!

Two topics that easily make for an entertaining two hours.

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

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

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

Julia Child's segments are visually impressive and super pleasant to watch, Julie's ones are lame and uninteresting and I wish she wasn't included since I never cared about her or her stupid blog.

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

Totally enjoyable.

A very enjoyable lighthearted film for 2009.

But that said, it was an enjoyable movie.

Intermittent background music is bland and nondescript.

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.

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

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.

Mastering the art of enjoyable movie making .

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.

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.

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

Sometimes it was really boring to watch it.

Julie and Julia: worth watching, worth rewatching .

Yes, an excellent recipe for a waste of time.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

A wonderfully entertaining treat!.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

So the general, tone of the movie is extremely comforting, sometimes even in a confusing manner.

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

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 ...

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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.

" 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.

one enjoyable performance in a generally lackluster film .

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.

This was a quite enjoyable film.

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.

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

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.

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.

Good, But Disjointed .

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

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

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.

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

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

Entertaining biopics .

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?

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

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.

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

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.

certainly it was a drab place.

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

She was completely fascinating and so enjoyable to watch.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

"Julie and Julia" is glossy, entertaining fun.

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

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.

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

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.

And mixing 2 true stories is a way of trying to cover up the fact that really nothing happens in this picture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I expected to be bored out of my skull.

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

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

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

The McCarthyism issue bored me.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

An entertaining watch .

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

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

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

just ahead of Tuipan and truly that was dreary.

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?

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

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

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.

Intelligent, Funny, and Entertaining .

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

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Interspersed in her ridiculous, uninteresting "adventures" are snippets of Julia Child's life.

Save the liver and save your money!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Because nothing happens.

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

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.

But it lasts way too long.

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

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.

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.

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

Meryl Streep delivers a stunning performance, creates something for many to enjoy and I think she is the main reason why Julia Child's side of the movie remains so entertaining instead of being dramatic.

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.

Refreshing and thoroughly enjoyable .