Dan Aykroyd as Julia Child.
Not much different from Streep's vocal impersonation.
Why?
I don't know. I like all the actors and I found the DVD at Target for the price of a small coke at the theater, so I thought, 'Why not - TV sucks anyway.' It's a women's film, isn't it. Damn! Fooled again.
I was so bored I almost started to blog instead of watching it. Haha! The film is about a blogger hitting the big time. [She went to Patheos! Kidding.] Anyway, I have to say this is Meryl Streep's worst film ever, and based on her over the top vocal impersonation of Julia Child in the film, I am so not going to watch her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher.
Anyway. J & J is about a woman and her blog. The story did help me to understand why people add a Pay Pal app to their blogs, and confirmed for me that blogging is not only sort of a 'job' we invent for ourselves, it is indeed an exercise in narcissism as well... The fight between Julie and her more than understanding hubby proves my point. Of course, at one time or another in writing about ourselves and what we think - online - we all want to be famous and have a film done on our lives - lives which have become blogs. But like the film - they're pretty boring - our lives/blogs, I mean.
But like the film - they're pretty boring - our lives/blogs, I mean.
ReplyDeleteMakes you wonder why so many blogs have such huge followings, doesn't it?
Not really. People like to gossip and argue about stuff. The Follower app is just another way to get noticed and 'linked in' anyway.
DeleteWhat? I thought Streep was excellent in this film. It's too bad about the Julie part though, it made the film horrible.
ReplyDeleteProbably because she was a self absorbed blogger, which is totally cheesy.
Julie comes off much tougher in the book. She is too suger coated in the movie. But anyway Bon Apetite!
ReplyDeleteI really liked Julie in the film - I love Amy Adams anyway. I also think that Julie made a legitimate mark on the world of blogs and showed the best side of how to do it - even more than that, she essentially demo-ed Julia's work for contemporary women and men - not only popularizing it but proving it to be practical as well. Julia Child should have praised her for that.
DeleteJust to be clear, my criticism of Streep's performance was about her voice impersonation - but Streep's worst performance is always better than the greatest performance by any other best actor. Perhaps it would have been more fair of me to describe her work in this film as more of a parody, since what she was really doing is portraying Julia as Julie imagined her to be.
But honestly - the movie bored me - too long - and I have to say, I was never really interested in Julia Child nor French cooking.I'm more an Italian regional cooking guy.
So don't be mad at me.
Actually, I enjoyed the movie. But then I also loved the book, A Year in Provence -- must be the food. I thought Streeps imitation wasn't half bad. Guess it all depends on your perspective, eh? But, after all, it was a chick flick.
ReplyDelete"TV sucks?" You're kidding, right?
ReplyDeleteBreaking Bad, Justified, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire . . .
Aw, see! I don't have cable.
Delete+JMJ+
ReplyDeleteYes, but how long will we consider this narcissism?
In a world where everyone has a blog (even if it's "just" a Tumblr), a Twitter account, or even a Facebook account, will telling the tale of your life--in real time, as it unfolds--to an online audience still be narcisistic?
Last week, I read a similar question on a (non-religious) dating blog about whether certain behaviour by women was still "slutty." The rationale was basically, "If it's socially acceptable and mainstream, it can't still be 'bad' or we'd all be bad, too!"
Well, then, I guess we're all bad now! ;-)
Only the top blogs and bloggers with the most hits and followers are narcissists - we nobody's are just nothin'. Nothin' ain't bad. LOL!
Delete