I want to follow Alex’s post of movies that Rotten Tomato thinks are shitty that he thought were better, with movies that I think are shitty and somehow got a good rating. Julie and Julia somehow received a 76% but when I saw this I had trouble keeping my eyes open. Now don’t get me wrong, I can be a sucker for a feel good chick flick from time to time but this was down right boring. Yes, Meryl Streep is a good actress, but when you look at her other performances (Fantastic Mr. Fox, Deer Hunter, Doubt, Adaptation, etc.) this movie seems to be curiously lacking. It seemed to be half a good movie and half a crappy movie, which unfortunately doesn’t really make it a good movie. The Julia Childs parts were interesting however the modern day Julie parts were not exciting what so ever. Maybe I don’t cook enough to truly appreciate a ‘culinary comedy’ but he way I see it, an actor can carry a movie when given the right role, but I don’t think that this was that role.
-
Recent Posts
- Escape to a Galaxy Far, Far Away
- Jaws Continues to Clamp Down on Society
- Movies I thought were shitty but got a good Rotten Tomato rating: Julie and Julia (2009)
- Movies I didn’t think were as shitty as Rotten Tomatoes said they were: I Am Number Four (2011)
- Harry Potter – Something for everybody or nothing new? Part 2
Archives
Blogroll
Links
- 'Hunger Games' Book Trilogy Planned as Four Movies
- 2012 and beyond in film
- 5 Hollywood Blockbusters that Changed the World
- Books vs. movies: does Hollywood ruin novels?
- Get Your Own Damn Ideas, Hollywood: A Musing
- Guardian's top 50 Book to Film
- Movie Pool's 20 Best Book to Film List
- Steven Spielberg: Father Of The Blockbuster: Jaws
- The "Blockbuster" Era in Hollywood
Categories
Meta