Skip to main content

The truth is, no one knows about me. I feel like I’m just sending things into this giant void.


Julie and Julia
(2009)

Writer-director Nora Ephron’s final film, and third collaboration with Meryl Streep (she wrote the scripts for Silkwood and Heartburn), Julie and Julia is so insubstantial dramatically it would barely register if not for the quartet of performances that fill-out its time-shift narrative.

Julie Powell (Amy Adams) is a would-be novelist working in a call centre. She happens on the idea (suggested by her long-suffering husband Eric, Chris Messina) of blogging an attempt to cook her way through former TV chef Julia Child’s (Meryl Streep) book of French cuisine recipes; in only a year. And, lo, her blog is a huge hit. Giving hope to millions of bloggers across the globe that somehow, some way, fame and recognition awaits them too. Obviously, this doesn’t have enough dramatic heft to warrant an entire film, so we intercut with the story of Child writing the cookbook while based in France with her diplomat husband Paul (Stanley Tucci).

The problem is, while the film is utterly inoffensive, none if it is hugely involving. And, at over two hours in length, that’s a long time to be relying on audience goodwill. Julie, despite the efforts of the adorable Adams, is so bereft of characterisation that she is reduced to high-fiving her co-worker when she discovers people are reading her blog, And indulge in further high-fives for other, assorted reasons. She has an argument with Eric. She drops a dish on the floor. She doesn’t get to meet Julia Child. 

Most problematic are the blog posts themselves, which may have been a winning read for the original devotees but read aloud they are, more frequently than not, irritating. Seriously, Adams can only do so much; the rest is beyond her to repair. And Messina lends sterling support (it shows there’s a fundamental problem with a script when characters are required to sit watching television and react to it for several minutes, and this happens at least twice during the film); I recently saw him in Ruby Sparks and he delivered just as charismatic a supporting turn there.

So it’s left to Julia to keep you watching. And this story strand sort-of works. But for all the wrong reasons. It has little more substance than the Julie sections, but the performances of Streep and Tucci are so likeably out-there that you’re won over. Streep, in particular, delivers more of an impersonation than a rounded characterisation. But Childs was clearly so dottily eccentric that there probably wasn’t much way round it (I had never heard of her prior to this). 

I’m not saying it’s not a good performance, but it’s as batty and OTT as the Dan Aykroyd SNL version of her we're compelled to sit through at one point. There isn’t much in the way of a living breathing person to get to grips with. Tucci is great too, inhaling her every utterance as if it’s his life force. There’s an incredible chemistry between the two of them, which very nearly compensates for their quasi-sitcom personalities. We're treated to an occasional scene, such as Paul being investigated for potentially un-American activities, which threatens to become engrossing. But this soon passes.

Julie and Julia is harmless mélange of two plots that don’t intersect, so to make that work even vaguely is something of an achievement. It’s certainly better than Ephron’s other writing and/or directing projects in the ‘00s, but unfortunately a significant way short of the ‘80s scripts that made her name. Nevertheless, worth a look for Streep, Adams, Tucci and Messina.

**1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You killed my sandwich!

Birds of Prey (and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020)
(SPOILERS) One has to wonder at Bird of Prey’s 79% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I mean, such things are to be taken with a pinch of salt at the best of times, but it would be easy, given the disparity between such evident approval and the actually quality of the movie, to suspect insincere motives on the part of critics, that they’re actually responding to its nominally progressive credentials – female protagonists in a superhero flick! – rather than its content. Which I’m quite sure couldn’t possibly be the case. Birds of Prey (and the Fanatabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) isn’t very good. The trailers did not lie, even if the positive reviews might have misled you into thinking they were misleading.

Afraid, me? A man who’s licked his weight in wild caterpillars? You bet I’m afraid.

Monkey Business (1931)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers’ first feature possessed of a wholly original screenplay, Monkey Business is almost brazenly dismissive towards notions of coherence, just as long as it loosely supports their trademark antics. And it does so in spades, depositing them as stowaways bound for America who fall in with a couple of mutually antagonistic racketeers/ gangsters while attempting to avoid being cast in irons. There’s no Margaret Dumont this time out, but Groucho is more than matched by flirtation-interest Thelma Todd.

Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honour – which is probably more than she ever did.

Duck Soup (1933)
(SPOILERS) Not for nothing is Duck Soup acclaimed as one of the greatest comedies ever, and while you’d never hold it against Marx Brothers movies for having little in the way of coherent plotting in – indeed, it’s pretty much essential to their approach – the presence of actual thematic content this time helps sharpen the edges of both their slapstick and their satire.

You’re a disgrace to the family name of Wagstaff, if such a thing is possible.

Horse Feathers (1932)
(SPOILERS) After a scenario that seemed feasible in Monkey Business – the brothers as stowaways – Horse Feathers opts for a massive stretch. Somehow, Groucho (Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff) has been appointed as the president of Huxley University, proceeding to offer the trustees and assembled throng a few suggestions on how he’ll run things (by way of anarchistic creed “Whatever it is, I’m against it”). There’s a reasonably coherent mission statement in this one, however, at least until inevitably it devolves into gleeful incoherence.

Bad luck to kill a seabird.

The Lighthouse (2019)
(SPOILERS) Robert Eggers’ acclaimed – and Oscar-nominated – second feature is, in some respects, a similar beast to his previous The Witch, whereby isolated individuals of bygone eras are subjected to the unsparing attentions of nature. In his scheme of things, nature becomes an active, embodied force, one that has no respect for the line between imaginings and reality and which proceeds to test its targets’ sanity by means of both elements and elementals. All helped along by unhealthy doses of superstition. But where The Witch sustained itself, and the gradual unravelling of the family unit led to a germane climax, The Lighthouse becomes, well, rather silly.

To defeat the darkness out there, you must defeat the darkness inside yourself.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Easily the best of the Narnia films, which is maybe damning it with faint praise. 

Michael Apted does a competent job directing (certainly compared to his Bond film - maybe he talked to his second unit this time), Dante Spinotti's cinematography is stunning and the CGI mostly well-integrated with the action. 

Performance-wise, Will Poulter is a stand-out as a tremendously obnoxious little toff, so charismatic you're almost rooting for him. Simon Pegg replaces Eddie Izzard as the voice of Reepicheep and delivers a touching performance.
***

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…