‘Julie & Julia’ Misses Some Ingredients But Still Goes Down Smoothly

Printer-friendly versionE-mail page to friendPDF version

Rating: 3.5/5.0

CHICAGO – Like a long meal at a good restaurant where no one can agree on the best course of the evening, Nora Ephron’s “Julie & Julia” with Amy Adams and Meryl Streep will have different highlights for different viewers.

For some, it will be Streep’s pitch-perfect performance, while others find Adams lovable. Thematically, some will latch on to the “do what you dream” message of the film. For this viewer, “Julie & Julia” works best when it focuses not on how we make something of ourselves but the fact that no one does so alone. There is no “Julie” without “Julia” and even the women at the core of the film succeed mostly through the support of the men in their lives.

Amy Adams as Julie Powell.
Photo credit: Jonathan Wenk and Columbia Pictures

Julia Child found her passion through cooking. Julie Powell found it through writing. The fact that one passed along her drive to break out of her dull lot in life through the decades and allowed the other to escape her cubicle drudgery makes for a cinematic and arguably inspirational story. Ephron doesn’t do much more with the material (and two great actresses) than push it along like a TV movie director and there’s a ridiculously unecessary conflict added to the final act, holding “Julie & Julia” back from potential greatness, but there’s still more than enough to take a bite of this cinematic meal about two women with similar names.

Julie Powell (Amy Adams) tried to break free from her boring life and rekindle her passion for writing with “The Julie/Julia Project” in 2002. The goal was to cook all of the 500+ recipes in Julia Child’s “Mastering the Art of French Cooking” in one year in her tiny Queens apartment and blog about it without losing her job or her husband (Chris Messina).

Ephron intercuts Powell’s story with a mini-biopic of Child (Meryl Streep), drawing loose parallels between the two. Both had supportive spouses (Child’s is played by Stanley Tucci). Both set about trying something unique and refused to give up in the face of adversity or even just the interference of real life.

One of the flaws of “Julie & Julia” is that there’s more than enough dramatic material in the life of Child, especially when played by the best actress of all time, to warrant its own film. Child challenged preconceptions in the male-centric world of French cuisine and inspired countless people to follow their similar dreams. It’s not Adams’ fault to say that every time that “Julie & Julia” switches from “Julia” to “Julie,” it loses a little steam.

Meryl Streep as Julia Child.
Photo credit: Jonathan Wenk and Columbia Pictures

The screenwriting decision to flash between the two comes not because Child didn’t have enough dramatic material to justify her own film but because Powell did not. As is always the case, watching someone cook and write doesn’t have the tension-building drama necessary for film. And even the cooking is more underwhelming than it should be. The recipes are used as a device, a plot point, instead of passionately, lovingly recreated like great foodie films “Big Night” or “Babbette’s Feast”.

Despite the directorial flaws of “Julie & Julia” and the relative weakness of the storytelling, there’s enough to admire in “Julie & Julia” to warrant a look. I can’t help but get behind the film thematically given my own awareness that inspiration and the support of a loved one are major ingredients in the recipe of my own life.

On a performance level, Streep is great and everyone else is good (although Messina falls victim to an underwritten character that adds conflict to a climax that doesn’t really have one).

“Julie & Julia” may not be the perfectly-cooked cinema confection that it could have been with some more passionate, inspired direction, but it delivers something tasty enough that you won’t send it back.

By BRIAN TALLERICO Content Director HollywoodChicago.com brian@hollywoodchicago.com