Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: documentary, film, movie trailer, Paul Rudd, politics, Stanley Tucci

First things first, Meryl Streep did not deserve an Oscar nomination for this performance. Yes, Streep gives a fun, bouncy performance as Julia Child. She is a delight to watch, but it is certainly not a great work of acting. She mimics the iconic chef but she never manages to disappear into the role. No matter how approachable she is, it is always Streep dressed up like Child.

Perhaps Streeps' performance seems so grand because she's placed opposite Amy Adams. Adams portrays Julie Powell, an insecure, metro lib who begins a blog that covers her attempts to cook her way through Child's classic cookbook. Adams has enough ability to manage a chick flick where she needs to be slightly sympathetic and mildly pretty. Her skills are outmatched by Streep, just as in their last pairing as a couple of nuns in Doubt. Where Adams pale screen presence actually helped her in the subordinate role in Doubt, in this production it makes her scenes timid and unfulfilled.

It doesn't help that Adams' Jule Powell is one of the more insufferable characters I've seen. Ever see a child actor in a film (for example the kiddy Anakin Skywalker) and every time you see them you want to slap them around for being so obnoxious and grating? That is where Julie Powell left me. The woman portrayed here is a miserable, self-absorbed jerk who is as welcoming as a rug burn. By the time we would get a minute into one of Adams' scenes I was begging to see more of Streep doing her cocktail party impression of the manly matron of measuring cups.

Something that fascinated me about this film is the obtuse inclusion of potshots at republicans. Seriously. Even in a film centered on Julia Child, there are random insults at conservatives and a subplot involving Child's diplomat husband being hounded by HUAC. To give a flavor of the kind of nonsensical jabs that are shoehorned into the script, when Julie's boss discovers she called in sick when she really wasn't he explains "Anyone else would fire you. A Republican would fire you!" If that line doesn't make any sense, don't worry, proving more context won't help. I assume poor Nora Ephron, who wrote the script, has some kind of political tourettes where she can't help but belch out invective against the Right-wing conspiracy hiding in the cupboards.

To sum the film up, there are some pleasant scenes involving Child as she works to bring her cookbook to press. These scenes are sprinkled among a stinking bog of post-modern feminist "me, me, me, more me now" scenes where Amy Adams does her best to be perky but only reminds us she's no Meryl Streep - even a Meryl Streep phoning it in because she knows she just has to show up to get the Oscar nod.

This is not a bad movie but it is more flawed than many will admit.




Related Reviews:
Meryl Streep movies
The Devil Wears Prada (2006)
The Manchurian Candidate (2004)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Movies for the Masses
Pajamas Media

Labels: Amy Adams, film, Meryl Streep, movie review, Nora Ephron, Stanley Tucci

Short Review: It’s a Über-chick flick and I really enjoyed it. Don’t worry, when I was done watching I killed a bear with a knife, mangled things with a chainsaw and left the toilet seat up all night to recalibrate my masculinity.


This is a well-built film. Oh, it’s a chick flick supreme, but ultimately it is a darn good movie. The piece is about Andy, a smart but naive young woman from Ohio, who finds herself assisting a cruel fashion magazine editor in New York City. Basically this is the mother lode of chick flicks. There are clothes, boy trouble, girly politics and more clothes.

Sex In The City and Entourage director David Frankel deserves great credit for his work. The movie is sharply paced providing some great moments. Frankel and screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna (27 Dresses) do a fantastic job of making the elite world of fashion accessible and interesting. They smartly know that the casual haughtiness of the citizens of that world is not only annoying, but also seen as undeserved by the average person. Actually, the haughtiness is undeserved regardless of how it is seen. Frankel and company offer enough explanations of why fashion is taken so seriously by so many that it gives a pass to what could have been the film’s biggest hurdle – getting people to care.

Much has been written about Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Runway magazine’s editor Miranda Priestly. Miranda is a cold, dismissive woman and Streep obviously enjoyed the role. She commands her scenes managing the role with an overbearing presence. She comes across as a snootier version of Cruella De Vil. Beyond Streep’s great performance, I think lead Anne Hathaway deserves more credit for the success of the film. As Julia Robert's heir apparent, Hathaway has now shown she is capable of extending enough charm and ability to handle a large role. She doesn’t throw down an Oscar worthy performance, but she threads the piece nicely and provides a sympathetic lead against Streep’s stronger character.

The only serious flaw in the film is that it doesn’t know what to do when not concentrating on Streep and Hathaway. Mostly in the first third of the film, Andy (Hathaway) hangs with her “normal” friends that have been inserted into the piece so we can see her roots. These friends are likable enough and their brief scenes do the job, but the scenes are inserted just the same. On the other end of the film, Andy gets embroiled in a needless sex romp with Christian (Simon Baker), an elite guy who’s supposed to represent her new life. Christian is also inserted in the film to fill a hole in the plot. These scenes, while not disastrous, do feel like distractions from the main event. They feed Andy’s growing discomfort with joining the ranks of the fashion hierarchy so they do have a purpose. The transformation of the character of Andy from Ohio girl to fashion fancy pants is so complete that by the time she has to decide if she should stay with the fashion hierarchy or go back to shopping at The Gap, it seems stupid for her to turn back. She’s sacrificed everything, gained a great deal, and her old life seems troubled and petty. Granted, the fashion world is the sham, but it is sold in the film as being better than hanging with the grunts of the world.

I didn’t want to like this movie. I have a natural aversion to both fashion and chick flicks. This movie overpowered my disdain. This is a good movie. The performances are wonderful, the writing is great, and the direction is thoughtful. I highly recommend this film.



Related Reviews:
Meryl Streep movies
The Deer Hunter (1978)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Screen It!
Fresh Film Reviews

Labels: Adrian Grenier, Anne Hathaway, chick flick, film, Meryl Streep, movie review, Stanley Tucci

Peter Jackson personally bought the rights to the novel, so we can assume he made this as a labor of love. I'm mixed on what I'm seeing. While it is certainly pretty but the source work is dark and incredibly devoid of any theology. Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), a teenage girl, is raped and murdered. Her body is dismembered and hidden by her killer. Susie's soul watches the events that follow her death from her "personal heaven". She narrates as her family suffers grief and the long search for her killer continues.

For a tale that centers on a character who is dead and watches from the afterlife THAT AVOIDS THE ISSUE OF GOD is a huge cop out. I understand this isn't a treatise on God but to not even broach the subject? Its like having a story take place in the White House and avoiding the subject of the Presidency.

I'm willing to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt. Although his casting of Mark Wahlberg is puzzling. Weren't there any actors available for the role?







Screenwriters: Fran Walsh (King Kong), Philippa Boyens (Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers) and Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring)
Director: Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King)
Actors: Saoirse Ronan (Atonement), Mark Wahlberg (The Happening), Rachel Weisz (The Mummy), Stanley Tucci (The Devil Wears Prada) and Susan Sarandon (Bull Durham)

Labels: adaptation, film, Mark Wahlberg, movie trailer, Peter Jackson, Rachel Weisz, Saoirse Ronan, Stanley Tucci, Susan Sarandon

Screenwriter: Nora Ephron (Lucky Numbers)
Director: Nora Ephron (Michael)
Actors: Amy Adams (Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby), Meryl Streep (Doubt), Jane Lynch (The Hammer) and Stanley Tucci (The Devil Wears Prada)

Labels: Amy Adams, film, Meryl Streep, movie trailer, Stanley Tucci

A very good trailer for a very good film. This may seem like some mindless chick-flick...well, it is a chick-flick but it has some brains.

Labels: Adrian Grenier, Anne Hathaway, film, Meryl Streep, movie trailer, Stanley Tucci

Short Review: It’s a Über-chick flick and I really enjoyed it. Don’t worry, when I was done watching I killed a bear with a knife, mangled things with a chainsaw and left the toilet seat up all night to recalibrate my masculinity.


This is a well-built film. Oh, it’s a chick flick supreme, but ultimately it is a darn good movie. The piece is about Andy, a smart but naive young woman from Ohio, who finds herself assisting a cruel fashion magazine editor in New York City. Basically this is the mother lode of chick flicks. There are clothes, boy trouble, girly politics and more clothes.

Sex In The City and Entourage director David Frankel deserves great credit for his work. The movie is sharply paced providing some great moments. Frankel and screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna (27 Dresses) do a fantastic job of making the elite world of fashion accessible and interesting. They smartly know that the casual haughtiness of the citizens of that world is not only annoying, but also seen as undeserved by the average person. Actually, the haughtiness is undeserved regardless of how it is seen. Frankel and company offer enough explanations of why fashion is taken so seriously by so many that it gives a pass to what could have been the film’s biggest hurdle – getting people to care.

Much has been written about Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Runway magazine’s editor Miranda Priestly. Miranda is a cold, dismissive woman and Streep obviously enjoyed the role. She commands her scenes managing the role with an overbearing presence. She comes across as a snootier version of Cruella Deville. Beyond Streep’s great performance, I think lead Anne Hathaway deserves more credit for the success of the film. As Julia Robert's heir apparent, Hathaway has now shown she is capable of extending enough charm and ability to handle a large role. She doesn’t throw down an Oscar worthy performance, but she threads the piece nicely and provides a sympathetic lead against Streep’s stronger character.

The only serious flaw in the film is that it doesn’t know what to do when not concentrating on Streep and Hathaway. Mostly in the first third of the film, Andy (Hathaway) hangs with her “normal” friends that have been inserted into the piece so we can see her roots. These friends are likable enough and their brief scenes do the job, but the scenes are inserted just the same. On the other end of the film, Andy gets embroiled in a needless sex romp with Christian (Simon Baker), an elite guy who’s supposed to represent her new life. Christian is also inserted in the film to fill a hole in the plot. These scenes, while not disastrous, do feel like distractions from the main event. They feed Andy’s growing discomfort with joining the ranks of the fashion hierarchy so they do have a purpose. The transformation of the character of Andy from Ohio girl to fashion fancy pants is so complete that by the time she has to decide if she should stay with the fashion hierarchy or go back to shopping at The Gap, it seems stupid for her to turn back. She’s sacrificed everything, gained a great deal, and her old life seems troubled and petty. Granted, the fashion world is the sham, but it is sold in the film as being better than hanging with the grunts of the world.

I didn’t want to like this movie. I have a natural aversion to both fashion and chick flicks. This movie overpowered my disdain. This is a good movie. The performances are wonderful, the writing is great, and the direction is thoughtful. I highly recommend this film.


Related Reviews:
Another Meryl Streep movie
The Deer Hunter (1978)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Screen It!
Fresh Film Reviews

Labels: Adrian Grenier, Anne Hathaway, chick flick, film, Meryl Streep, movie review, Stanley Tucci