Wild Thing? Wish You Made My Heart Sing

Where The Wild Things Are (2009). D: Spike Jonze. DP: Lance Acord. W: Jonze & Dave Eggers. Starring: Max Records/Catherine Keener/Mark Ruffalo/voice talents of: James Gandolfini/Paul Dano/Catherine O’Hara/Forest Whitaker/Chris Cooper/Lauren Ambrose/Michael Berry Jr. (NOTE: Based on Maurice Sendaks’ (also a producer on the project) 1963 children’s classic of the same name).

Starting off the fall film schedule is the much anticipated live action adaptation of Where The Wild Things Are. And as most adaptations do, it might leave you with wanting just a bit more, but certainly sets the bar high for this season’s cinema schedule.

One of the most important elements of this film was the casting of the illustrious Max who must be as tempestuous as he is inventive with his imagination constantly in full force. The film’s Max (ironically also Max Records) instantly commands the camera’s attention with enough spunk and charm to last the entire film. And thankfully Records is the sort of young kid who looks like he plays outside just as much as inside. With the necessary sweet innocence to him, Records embodies the spirit of Sendaks’ Max without warping him into a Hollywood sugar coated stereotype.

This of course must also be attributed to director Spike Jonze. Jonze, who sports a random yet eclectic resume, grounds his Where The Wild Things Are entirely within Records’ point of view. The audience watches, discovers, and plays right along with Records on screen, never leaving his side through his wild rumpus. A rumpus that although may be beautiful and charming, lacks enough dynamic to pull the audience on all levels. Yet this point of view allows Jonze’s color palate, soundtrack, and camera use to feel sporadic and fresh just like Max’s imagination and at moments overcome its parts of disengaging quietness.

Part of this imagination, and one of the more risky elements of adapting this childhood classic, are the on-screen creations of the creatures or wild things that Max encounters. Jonze personalizes them by giving them all names and distinct personalities that build a complicated environment in which Max becomes their king. Most notably are Catherine O’ Hara as negative and nagging Judith and delightful James Gandolfini as fiery yet loyal Carol. Fortunately, none of these voices are lost behind their human sized puppet equivalents that are able to give a sense of softness and childhood nostalgia to creatures and the film as well. In fact, the decision to not use CGI allows these creatures to appear more of an extension of the soft toys and fort world Records builds in the beginning of the film.

Also, thankfully, Where The Wild Things Are never attempts to ground Records’ adventure in reality or reason. There is never a single moment of disenchantment in the film, so regardless of how you think Records’ gets to his island you will surely realize that the how and why simply do not matter. And it is this sentiment, the prowess and value of imagination, that allows the film to capture the essence of its source material.

Therefore, hopefully despite your age you will be drawn in and quietly delighted in the magic of childhood that begins with a pair of footed pajamas, but ends with so much more.

…Still Waiting to be Whipped Into a Frenzy…

Whip It (2009). D: Drew Barrymore. DP: Robert D. Yeoman. W: Shauna Cross (based off her novel). Starring: Ellen Page/Kristen Wiig/Alia Shawkat/Marcia Gay Harden/Drew Barrymore/Jimmy Fallon/Juliette Lewis/Landon Pigg/Eve/Zoe Bell/Ari Graynor/Daniel Stern.

Well, let’s face it. When you live in a small town, all that exists is football and beauty pageants, right? Oh yes, and don’t forget mommy issues! Well, at least, according to the movies…

Whip It, the newest “hip” young indie film to hit theaters leaves much to be desired and yes, whipped, as the film has little to offer other than a refreshing premise, cute details, and girls in roller skates. The film is only all that it claims and appears to be: a sweet coming of age story where the non-typical girl finds her stride, a boy, stands up to her parents, and yes, finds herself. But, at least it has a clever sheen? Sadly, no. Unfortunately, Whip It never hits its stride and oftentimes drags along despite high speed and female fun time at the roller derby.

With of course, ever endearing Miss Page stepping up to the role of Bliss, a girl who evokes as much sweetness as her name suggests. Yet Page seems all too easy in this role as she shimmies along being the wallflower with the usual secret spice and personality. One has to wonder where her career is headed as her ethereal youth will eventually pigeon-hole her, if it hasn’t already, into the Juno-esq roles that won’t lead to stardom, but rather to trapped genre talent (a la Molly Ringwald).

Yet her cohorts work hard to not appear trapped, with Wiig’s Maggie Mayhem (and other derby members) donning fake tattoos and skimpy outfits that don’t actually hide their similar vocal delivery. But then again, what isn’t broken doesn’t need to be fixed? No, but it would be refreshing to see and hear something out-of-bounds from these strong female actors. Harden ends up on top in this respect, delivering Bliss’ mother’s role with as much uncertainty, stubbornness, and vulnerability as her cigarette secret.

Helming this slowness is Barrymore, also an actor and producer on the project. Marking Barrymore’s directorial debut, one has to wonder where Whip It will lead her and if her future projects will deliver more than this film was capable of. And although nothing was strikingly awful about the film’s direction, the story’s lack of rhythm and true narrative arc suggest that although she might know how to handle her actors well, Barrymore has a lot to learn about the camera’s role in her story. Yet credit must be given for one scene shot entirely underwater, as it not only appeared genius against the rest of the film, but executed a scene tenderly, seamlessly, and beautifully.

But of course no one can resist a little girl power, and why not? Shake it, baby, shake it! (And snag it on DVD!)

An Evening of Television

The 61st Annual Primetime Emmy Awards (2009). Host: Neil Patrick Harris.

It was an evening of toasting and awarding the best and brightest in primetime television, hope you tuned in, but if not here’s the rundown.

Apparently, the way to be a good host is to sing. And sing it LOUD. Whether it’s Hugh or Billy at the Oscars or anyone who hosts the Tony awards, the singing opening monologue is a sure crowd pleasure and a classy way to start the evening. That being said, Harris’ was nothing but class and smooth sailing, but wasn’t anything particularly memorable. And although being joyous and lightly clever throughout the evening, Harris was just merely enjoyable.

The Emmy’s design also took a similar approach to this past Oscars in March, by explaining the mechanics behind a part of the industry. Like the Oscars breakdown of the production process, the Emmy’s and Harris took a tour of the night’s stage, pointing out the parts of the show and the inclusion of the media/production room on stage. Even after each commercial break was over there were split screens of in the moment production shots of the evenings festivities. This marks new media’s continuous attempts to break down and reveal the mechanics behind the industry. Something the Tony’s shy away from as theater rather attempts to keep it all behind the curtain.

The evening was split up into 5 genres: comedy, reality, movie/mini-series, variety, and drama while saving the big series awards until the end. Instead of the usual flow of the evening, this division actually provided easy bookmarks for the show and allowed the night to move smoothly. These bookmarks and their introductions also gave more for Harris to do amidst his introductions of award presenters. With his gag of introducing people, mostly actors, using obscure and unknown jobs/performances they did, never getting old. What also does not get old is Ricky Gervais. Witty and wry as ever, his presentation begs the question, why hasn’t he hosted an award show yet?

The night’s winners held only a few surprises. Right out of the park Miss Kristen Chenoweth won for Pushing Daises, a show previously on the Emmy radar, but canceled by the ABC network. Also, Toni Collette’s win for HBO’s The United States of Tara, a show that was straining to be picked up, was a surprise despite her apparently being prepared with a “piece of paper.” Mostly it was also just nice to see Tina Fey not win for NBC’s 30 Rock. And although Alec Baldwin walked away with another award, it was just simply refreshing to see the awards passed around in comedy. However, both reality and variety genres stayed true to previous winners with the movie/miniseries category honoring some newbies.

It was also significant and refreshing to see some women receive awards for other than acting. However, they were predominately British or Irish women, most notably four women representing the BBC project Little Dorrit based on Charles Dickens novel of the same name. This is wonderful and illustrates how television can and should cross borders, cultures, and provide opportunities without sacrificing creativity and identity. Creativity that is more poignant each year with the “In Memorandum” section. Sarah McLaughlin lent her haunting vocals to the standard slide-show and was able to provide such atmosphere rather than distraction as everyone was reminded of the shortness of life and who has been lost both personally and creatively.

Speaking of Lost, Micheal Emerson’s supporting role win for the ABC hit was much deserved and will satiate fans like Cherry Jones’ win will for Fox’s 24. And with Glenn Close (FX’s Damages) and Bryan Cranston (AMC’s Breaking Bad) wins for best actress/actor in a drama, the evening was full of repeats. And what better repeat than 30 Rock and Mad Men for best comedy and drama, proving that good television can sustain interest and appeal. So although this didn’t make for an nail biting end of the evening for the television watchers, it certainly was a reinforcing one for those in the industry.

And as award show season officially kicks off and films start vying for nominations, be thankful that television will quietly continue for the rest of the year!

Pretty PG-13 Thing

9 (2009). D: Shane Acker. W: Pamela Pettler (story by Acker). Starring (voice): Elijah Wood/Christopher Plummer/John C. Reilly/Jennifer Connelly/Crispin Glover/Martin Landau/Alan Oppenheimer.

The fourth feature computer animator release to be given a PG-13 rating, 9 pushes boundaries and visual concepts. But what’s the use of that when your still begging for more?

Boasting an impressive voice roster, the film is well balanced between the characters and gives enough time for each rag doll to illustrate its role and place within the group. Wood does well at 9, he has enough young timbre left in his voice to pull off the blind braveness that rules 9’s actions. Plummer’s voice is lent to enigmatic leader, 1, and is just as impressive as he was earlier in the summer in Disney’s UP. Connelly is rather unremarkable and has less to do as 7, with John C. Reilly’s recognizable voice rounding out the major dolls as 5.

But what is central to this film is Acker’s visuals, created by his art, animation, and visual effects teams with art director, Christophe Vacher and editor, Nick Kenway. With notable producer, Tim Burton, on his team, Acker is able to generate a post-apocalyptic world that embraces the gray, the shadow between the dark and the light.

His desecrated world holds beauty in its disgrace, but not because of a memory for what it was, but rather the complexity of its destruction. The detail on the rag dolls and their desolate is not only brilliant, but memorable. Proving that 9, also based on Acker’s 2005 short of the same name that garnered Acker an Academy Award nomination for best short film (animated), is only the beginning.

However, this film is an impressive example of how visual effects, style, and design cannot carry a story. Since, although, the audience discovers the world and its tragic state alongside Wood’s 9, he is not on his own long enough for a bond to be created or an investment to be made with him. The argument could be made that investment in character is not intrinsic to a successful film. Yet, while agreeing with that, it must be noted that 9 also treads on familiar thematic ground: man vs. machine, one vs. many (group), fear vs. bravery, and, of course, purpose. And it is the coupling of the two faults that holds the film back from its true potential.

A potential that is also squandered through the predictable use of music to enhance the images on screen. Further reinforcing the current reign of Pixar that will hopefully last well into the next decades.

Little Stories, Little Movies, Little Bits of Love

Adam (2009). D/W: Max Mayer. DP: Seamus Tierney. Starring: Hugh Dancy/Rose Byrne/Peter Gallagher/Amy Irving/Frankie Faison/John Rothman.

Writer and director, Mayer’s, newest piece proves to be bigger in purpose than both its budget and actors. Such that despite it being a film whose central character has a disorder, Adam is more a film about a young man finding his way who happens to have Asperger’s syndrome, rather than a film about having a disorder.

Asperger’s syndrome, in basic terms, is a high functioning type of autism that oftentimes despite brilliance, makes people (on a certain spectrum) have difficulty with social interaction, empathy, and clumsiness. Yet there is not any clumsiness in this filmmaking. Although it may not be necessary to see this story on a large screen, Tierney gives Adam fresh rhythm and perspective on familiar New York City.

Dancy finally shines as Adam, a role that allows him to explore quietness and detail in his acting, something not seen before. Mostly relegated to fluff roles and the occasional British historical piece, Dancy can be seen on stage in both London and New York City, but has never shouldered a film project on his own. He is refreshing throughout the film, especially due to his restrained chemistry with Byrne’s Beth.

Byrne, an Australian actor who, for most, has been flying under the radar until her recent role in the television series Damages. But, once again, holds her own as a young woman figuring out her life just as much as Dancy’s Adam. Their chemistry, although not warm, has a certain sweetness that is essential to the story. And Gallagher’s turn as her slick and sleazy daddy rounds out the narrative well.

One might think, mostly from previews, that Adam is simply a love story, and a tender one at that. But in fact Adam delves more into personal journeys than anything. And not simply that young people are always trying to figure themselves out, learn who they are, but also the role parents and friends have in one’s very perception of how to go about discovering oneself. But in the end it is the path, which we forge ourselves, that creates our life. So no matter what you take away from Adam, at least remember that no matter where we belong our stories matters.

Glorious! Glorious! Glorious! It’s Always Better to be a Basterd!

Inglorious Basterds (2009). D/W: Quentin Tarantino. DP: Robert Richardson. Starring: Brad Pitt/Christoph Waltz/Diane Kruger/Mélanie Laurent/Daniel Bruhl/Michael Fassbender/Eli Roth/Til Schweiger/B.J. Novak/Gedeon Burkhard/Mike Myers/Julie Dreyfus/Martin Wuttke.

For almost the last twenty years, Tarantino has been able to cultivate an intense following of film fans, but also an impressive amount of respect within the modern cinema community. The sheer amount of ’special thanks’ he receives on numerous projects is evidence of not only his influence, but his involvement in the direction of modern storytelling. Since Reservoir Dogs (1992) and Pulp Fiction (1994), his sparse writing and directing credits reinforce his focus on projects and a specific vision he incorporates into his work. And his most recent work proves, without a doubt, his vision’s prowess in this industry.

Filmed entirely in Germany and France, there is not a frame of Inglorious Basterds that isn’t rich. Tarantino and Richardson, along with production designer David Wasco, give such attention to their use of color, detail, and texture. Making it difficult to not forget say a lost shoe or red dress as each new setting generates enough electricity to catapult the story. Which also allows long shots or speeches to be even more noticeable and frankly, entertaining.

Aiding in this entertainment is editor, Sally Menke, who not only adds texture and rhythm to Tarantino’s film, but also gives it a focus and seamlessness that allows the two hours and thirty-three minutes to fly by. Tarantino again enlists the use of chapters, to introduce segments of his story and break up the narrative flow. Despite the fact that this tactic continuously reminds the audience of the construct of the film, making everyone acutely aware of the filmmakers hand in his work, this segmentation actually allows this film’s subject matter to feel fresh.

And fresh is necessary as Inglorious Basterds returns to familiar film ground. Set in Nazi occupied France during World War II the film follows a group of American soldiers, all Jewish except their leader Lieutenant Aldo (Pitt), attempts to kill and scalp as many Nazis as possible. This vagabond group keeps the film centered more on the difficulties and craziness of survival in World War II than politics, military strategy or genocide. Of course, the group’s purpose culminates on one specific event, which forces the film to rework itself. And although all three of those themes are there, they thankfully take a backseat to a more character driven story.

But what does not take a backseat is violence. In classic Tarantino form, Inglorious Basterds gives the audience the shots it doesn’t want to see. And Tarantino’s ‘ew factor’ is in full form here with more than just guns a blazing. However, this violence is predominantly targeted at Nazis, the offensive group, which keeps the violence light, almost comical and revengeful. Not only does this go against genre, but also emphasizes the amount of violence that did go on in this period and the amounts of it that were purely excessive. And it is both the Germans and the Basterds who participate in this excess, with Pitt’s Aldo leading the way like a proper cowboy.

Pitt is delightfully audacious and crass, but thankfully isn’t the center of the story as his role, if given too much, would become hackneyed and tiresome. But Pitt is flanked by competent actors as the Basterds, with Kruger (Bridget van Hammersmark) finally hitting her stride in a film where she can use her native German. Yet, let’s be frank, playing a movie star isn’t all to challenging, but she provides a nice contrast to the sweet-faced French Laurent (Shosanna) whose American debut here is nothing short of memorable. Although no one outshines Waltz’s Colonel Hans Landa. Fluent in English, German, French and Italian, Waltz uses them all here and steals every scene he’s in as the sparkling yet devious head of security for the Third Reich.

And one must note the important and wonderful use of languages here. Not only does Tarantino use actors fluent in multiple languages, but forces his audience to deal with and subsequently enjoy hearing the German and French languages, which adds a certain authenticity to his convoluted construct of a war film. Also, his use of modern music at key scenes allows this WWII setting to be seen and re-invented using contemporary concepts without diminishing it’s historical placement.

But history is not what is important in Inglorious Basterds. Rather it is an exploration of that which cannot be re-written, but only re-told in a version of history that satisfies curiosity and a thirst for, well, revenge. So go out and get your taste. You will not regret it.

Seasonal Overview: Summer 2009

As August rolls away from us, school (for some) begins, summer silliness subsides, and we see the dawn of a new September upon us, it is time to look back and unpack our summer cinematic experiences. And as fall film season begins let us move past our disappointments and gripes. Because there is always another movie to see as they’re fishes in the sea…

Most of the anticipated big studio releases of this summer proved to be more of a chance to throw around some cash rather than bring something innovative or cleverly entertaining to the table. Among these, Wolverine, Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen and G.I. Joe lead the pack as most audience members left the theaters feeling the stories could have been presented in a much tighter, calculated and satisfying way.

What was surprisingly satisfying was the re-invention of the Star Trek series, which gives hope to the prospect of more new films within this franchise and future feature J.J. Abrams projects. Also, among these surprises was the quality and availability of smaller budgeted films seen at mainstream/larger theaters this summer. If you missed Away We Go, (500) Days of Summer or Moon, netflix them now. And if you don’t have netflix, join it now. And I mean now…netflix.com…

Now that you’ve done that, also remember that this upcoming fall is a chance to rent those films that did not need to be seen on the big screen. Character films that are important for learning about actors’ repertoire, but structurally and as a whole will not be as significant. Lumping Julie & Julia (Streep), Terminator Salvation (Bale), and even Time Traveler’s Wife (McAdams) into this group, I would urge these to be seen at some point.

Unfortunately, this summer, a season normally plagued with exhilarating highs and horrible lows, was rather unbalanced with only few highs and so much that was middle ground and almost forgettable. Because, of course, no one forgets a disappointment at least. The winner of the film that lived up to all expectations would have to be UP. If you missed this in 3D, you missed a gem and an experience that will not be the same in a home theater or laptop. And of course, I cannot even tackle Mr. Potter as it would be pretentious of me to categorize this film as it must be taken within the context of the previous films in which it follows.

Alas, another summer escapes our grasps. But do not be downhearted. The wild rumpus has yet to begin…

All Hail The Internationality of Science Fiction

District 9 (2009). D: Neill Blomkamp. DP: Trent Opaloch. W: Neill BlomKamp & Terri Tatchell. Starring: Sharlto Copley/Jason Cope/William Allen Young/Nathalie Boltt/Vanessa Haywood.

The sleeper hit of the summer has finally landed. Or in District 9’s case, hovered ominously over the box office causing people to wonder where it came from, how it could have been missed, and finally understanding why everyone at TriStar Pictures is out celebrating…

District 9 jumps right into its story, sans any smooth, glossy introductions. Rather it switches between mock-documentary style and another camera that actually acts like a bystander through most of the action and lets the audience still see the main man, Wikus (Copley) when others cannot. This style supports the film’s suggestion of reality that constantly surprises and parallels current politics and military protocol as District 9 asserts it’s relativity in today’s current international climate.

And Copley is entirely engaging, from bubbling MNU field agent, stricken prisoner and so on. He is the centered piece of the film, allowing the alien encounters to remain believable, his situation plausible, and the film disturbingly pertinent. This should recognized as a solid achievement, within a narrative that moves away from an initial alien encounter and instead illustrates the effects of a seemingly random alien habitation. Despite many questions being unanswered, District 9 keeps up a steady pace so that its loopholes and almost video game like moments are lost amidst the frenzies in the narrative. A narrative that is also strong enough to withstand the aliens being visible most of the film, making it impossible for the story to rely on their reveal or surprise.

Set in Johannesburg, South Africa, the film also reinforces the necessity of international perspectives within cinema. Such that, although historically the American studio system was cultivated and illustrative of the United States, and specific areas of the U.S. at that, Hollywood does not need to remain that way. Helmed by South African Blomkamp, the film’s distribution thankfully offers the chance for a chunk of American audiences to get a glimpse at international storytelling.

Yet at the same time. the film’s impact should not be singularly quantified and qualified by its effect on American audiences. Yes, District 9’s relationship to the science fiction genre, alien encounter narratives, and mock-documentaries within American cinema is important, but its function within South African cinema must be significant as well. So that despite the recent fervor around District 9, audiences must also remember its parallels to reality and notions of standards within cinema.

That being said, grab your ticket and get in line. Because invariably there will be a sequel to be seen…

Yes, There is an Original Way to Fall in Love. The Answer = Time Travel

The Time Traveler’s Wife (2009). D: Robert Schwentke. DP: Florian Ballhaus. W: Bruce Joel Rubin. Starring: Rachel McAdams/Eric Bana/Ron Livingston/Tatum McCann/Hailey McCann/Stephen Tobolowsky/Arliss Howard/Michelle Nolden. (NOTE: Based on Audrey Niffenegger’s novel of the same name).

Seriously…what is a world without books, but just a series of almost compelling, yet not truly amazing movies?

The next member of this group of ‘almost-theres’ is Schwentke’s The Timer Traveler’s Wife. A fairly inexperienced director for an adaptation of this magnitude, Schwentke ’s attempt to bring Niffenegger’s novel to fruition lacks, ironically, a clear direction. This is apparent in an obvious miscasting of Bana as special collections librarian, Henry De Tamble. Hardly even seen at his job or in his life on his own, Bana barrages through the film with a ruthlessness that simply does not work. And regardless of the physical disparity between Bana and Niffenegger’s Henry, Bana lacks depth and the offbeat personality that makes him so attractive to his Claire, played by McAdams.

McAdams, just as stunning as ever, drives the narrative although her storyline is not fairly balanced with Bana’s. And although they clearly have chemistry let’s not forget both novel and film are titled The Time Traveler’s Wife! Yet unlike the novel, the film is unable to balance the histories of the couple and lacks a clear concept of how their two worlds keep colliding. For an audience member who has not read the novel, the first half of the film would appear random and confusing as sharp cuts simulate Bana’s time traveling, a condition not really explained until later on in the film.

And even then, since the film chooses Bana’s narrative as its framework, somehow a build-up to the couple’s romance and eventual life together is lost. The film practically begins with them already in love, and the rest of the film merely exists to explain why. These issues are rooted in Rubin’s script, a script that relies heavily on verbal explanation rather than visual clarification, both for the time traveling and romance. Which turns out to be hardly a compelling storytelling method as it also allows other aspects of the narrative to be forgotten.

But what is not forgotten, is Niffenegger’s novel’s emphasis on family and parenting as well. Without divulging important plot points, it must be noted that both the film and novel are both able to remind an audience and reader of the scariness of circumstances and the significance of parental/child bonds. No matter your background, childhood or current romantic situation, The Time Traveler’s Wife will sadden you with its complications, losses, and struggles. So bring the tissues, but be on your game as Schwentke has not fully executed this story and your attention and interpretation is vital.

Forget About Cooking, Let’s Master The Art of Storytelling

Julie & Julia (2009). D/W: Nora Ephron. DP: Stephen Goldblatt. Starring: Meryl Streep/Amy Adams/Stanley Tucci/Chris Messina/Linda Edmond/Mary Lyn Rajskub/Jane Lynch. (Note: Based on Julie Powell’s  book of the same name and Julia Child and Alex Prud’homme’s book, “My Life in France”).

One point for the blogasphere! This first feature film about blogging follows a hapless woman’s cooking inspiration into the computer and into her life. And look, she even scored a book deal from it…there is hope!

Well-known writer, director and producer, Nora Ephron’s, newest venture joins her catalog of hits and misses, a list that clearly indicates her talents as a writer outweigh her talents as a director. But this film should be placed in the middle of this list. Julie & Julia joins this nebulous middle area with Ephron’s conventional romantic comedy genre films that provide entertainment, but don’t deliver anything entirely fresh. And fresh is what Ephron attempts to do here, and does at moments, but can never really provide a focus for her dual-narrative that relies entirely on the talent of one Meryl Streep.

Streep’s Julia is full of restrained vivaciousness with a touch of grace and spice that brings the cooking sensation alive in Streep’s own way. The chemistry between her and husband, Paul (Tucci), is palpable and is developed enough to engage the audience in the narrative, without distracting from it.  Adams’ Julie is not a match for the French cooking master’s vivid character and the Julie storyline is not a match for Miss Adams. Having already established herself as a clever, engaging young actor, Adams’ is forced to pout, vex and mope for a good two hours. And poor Eric (Messina) is given little more to do than react to Adams and remain underdeveloped within their relationship. Leaving one to wait for Streep’s scenes while privately plotting what you will be eating once the film ends.

However, despite Ms. Streep’s usual excellence Julie & Julia ends flatly, without any climax or even a crescendo in the narrative. Drama or trauma is not necessary, but the film leaves you wondering what was left out. The structure of the film is refreshing as it is not a typical biopic form since it allows the audience to see the aftermath and influence of the biopic subject on our modern culture and consciousness. But even Miss Adam’s can’t save her storyline from being well, boring, and merely padding between Streep’s scenes.

And yet the film’s focus on food, the joy and focus that can be achieved from cooking is inspiration, especially in the age of microwaves and fast food. So, if anything, get yourself to the kitchen, turn on Julia and have a little adventure of your own.