The Young Victoria

I have been waiting probably about a year to see The Young Victoria. It finally opened around here on Christmas Day, and I went to see it with two friends on New Year's Eve. It was well worth the wait. It's costume drama and spectacle at its finest. :) When I was in college I went through this phase where I was really interested in Victoria and Albert. This was most likely spurred by the broadcast of the Victoria & Albert miniseries in 2001. That miniseries is a much more comprehensive look at Victoria's reign, and stars the aptly named Victoria Hamilton as the Queen (she's appeared in everything from Pride and Prejudice as Mrs. Forster to Lark Rise to Candleford) and Jonathan Firth (brother of Colin Firth!) as Prince Albert. However, for a shorter but equally enthralling glimpse at the early years of Victoria's reign, The Young Victoria can't be beat. :)

Emily Blunt gives, I think, one of the best performances of her relatively short career, transitioning easily from the teenage princess to young monarch and bride. Not being too far removed from the actual age Victoria was at the various points depicted in the film probably helped, too. Blunt is by turns spunky, vulnerable, and perfectly regal. Victoria's childhood is really incomprehensible to view, by today's standards or any other, really. Coddled in the extreme and sheltered from all outside influences by her mother the Duchess of Kent (played here by Miranda Richardson) and her mother's confident/probable lover Sir John Conroy (played by the delish Mark Strong *wink*), Victoria was raised in a bubble and it's really quite a testament to her character that she turned out as well as she did IMO. As the only heir of her uncle, William (wonderfully played here by the talented Jim Broadbent), Conroy and her mother made numerous futile attempts to get Victoria to sign papers authorizing a regency should the king die before she comes of age. Thankfully, the young princess withstood the tremendous pressure being brought to bear against her. I've got to say, the role of Conroy is probably the most distasteful bad guys I've seen my beloved Mark Strong play. The man is presented as so utterly amoral, so politically calculating and cold-hearted, the scenes showing his attempts to manipulate Victoria are rather chilling.

Rupert Friend's performance as Prince Albert was probably the surprise of the movie for me. I didn't know the guy had it in him, acting-wise. (Anyone think he's a dead ringer for Orlando Bloom?) He first gained notice in the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice where he played Wickham. I have to confess, I placed him in a pretty-face-but-no-substance acting "box," and goodness I was wrong. The man has some serious potential. He and Blunt have terrific on-screen chemistry, which certainly helps and is needed when portraying a classic love story like Victoria & Albert's. This film drove home the point once again what a miracle, really, their love story was considering the restrictions and manuevering that their lives endured. The were pawns in the chess game of European politics, and there's a great little scene in this film that takes place shortly after Victoria and Albert first meet, where he urges her to find a husband who will play the politics game with her. And indeed that's what the pair of them did eventually - joined forces, mastered the rules of the game, and became formidable players in English and European politics.

Besides Mark Strong, another old favorite of mine makes a fantastic appearance in this movie - Paul Bettany does a fantastic job playing Lord Melbourne, Victoria's first prime minister. Melbourne was apparently quite a character, obviously adept at manipulating people in order to see his ends met. It's interesting to see how this works negatively when a young and very loyal Queen Victoria refuses to accept new election results that see Melbourne thrown from power. This leads to the first really tumultuous period of her reign when she falls drastically out of favor with the British people. It's a harsh lesson, and her subsequent marriage to Albert sees his influence helping her learn to better walk a political tightrope. One of my favorite scenes in the movie is when Albert confronts Melbourne about his rather condescending attitude towards him - not only is it historically interesting, but it's a very well-played moment between Friend and Bettany (the former really holding his own against the latter). This is followed by one of Bettany's strongest scenes in the film, when he admits that Albert could prove to be a valuable ally and partner in Victoria's reign. For a character like Melbourne, such a moment was humbling I'm sure, and Bettany played the scene really, really well.

The Young Victoria is sure to be a lock come Oscar nomination time for costumes and set design. Every little thing about the movie just looks spectacular, it's a positive visual feast for the eyes. Speaking of feasts, the banquet scene early in the film celebrating King William's birthday is an amazing spectacle. The richness and opulence in that scene alone is mind-blowing, even more so when you think of the traditions and discipline and planning that would have gone into such an event. I've also got to give a nod to the gorgeous score by composer Ilan Eshkeri. He's responsible for Stardust, one of my favorite film scores. And while TYV doesn't have quite the unique themes and flourishes appropriate to a fantasy film, it's a beautiful work nonetheless.

This is a movie that definitely leaves you wanting more - more story, more of Victoria and Albert's lives. I love their love story, and this movie more than delivers beautiful, heart-stopping look at the beginning of their legendary love affair. Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend both come out of this movie winners, delivering strong, memorable performances. This is particularly the case for Friend - Albert was, I think, really a Renaissance man, and a man of character and deeply held moral convictions. In many ways he is responsible for the advancements for which the Victorian Age is known. For Friend to be able to portray that in such a compelling way speaks well of his talent and acting future. Oh, this reminds me - another of my favorite moments in the movie is when we get to see Albert ever-so-gently engineering a tentative reconciliation between Victoria and her mother. Really, after the way she's treated by her mother it would be easy to understand if Victoria never wanted to see her again. But this effort on Albert's part, and seeing Victoria and her mother come to terms with each other is quite well done and moving. It was a powerful reminder to me of how much easier it is to hold on to grudges and wrongs, but the strength it can take to just come to terms with the past is another thing entirely.

Two books I highly recommend if you're interested in learning more about Victoria and her family are Victoria's Daughters by Jerrold M. Packard and Queen Victoria by Lytton Strachey. Packard's book is especially interesting because you get a look at how Victoria engineered her children's marriages and gained the moniker "Grandmother of Europe." For someone who so resented being a manipulated "chess piece" in political dealings, she and Albert apparently had no qualms about doing the same thing to their children, sometimes with quite tragic results. It's a fascinating book.

The Young Victoria is a wonderful film, beautifully executed on all levels, and well worth seeing whether you're interested in the history or just in the mood for a great love story. :)

Upcoming Movies...

(The sappy romantic edition.)

Don't know how many of these I'll get to see in theaters, but I'll definitely be viewing them at some point. First up is Leap Year, starring Amy Adams and Matthew Goode. I heart Matthew...and this may be his ticket to bigger & better roles. He's appeared in Marple, My Family and Other Animals, and was the only interesting thing in the abysmal Brideshead Revisited.



Coming later this month is When In Rome, which really reminds me just a bit of Three Coins In the Fountain (only with a magical twist).



Next up is Letters to Juliet. I have to admit this trailer...was it the trailer or Vanessa Redgrave's fabulousness?...actually made me tear up. This movie also has the added draw of starring Christopher Egan, who played David in the all too short-lived TV show Kings (moment of silence for a truly great show...okay, thanks).



And lastly, Dear John, based on the Nicholas Sparks novel, comes out in April or May. I'm not a huge Sparks fan, but every once in a while he comes out with something that really gets me, like the whole soldier angle here. Doesn't hurt that in the movie Channing Tatum plays the soldier. :) It's not like he's a great actor or anything, but oh. my. WORD!! Have you seen Step Up?! ;-)

Happy New Year!

I shared this video on Facebook a few weeks ago, but I love it so much it deserves to be shared on the blog too, IMO. :) David Tennant and Doctor Who fans, enjoy!

Sherlock Holmes

Possible spoilers…

I have to confess, I went into the new Sherlock Holmes movie with relatively low expectations. I’m an inveterate Jeremy Brett-IS-Sherlock Holmes fan, so the news that Robert Downey Jr. would be taking on the role was greeted with a healthy dose of skepticism. No one else can seriously compare to Brett in my view, end of story, period, the end. I’d say I was intrigued by the idea of the movie – I like Robert Downey Jr. well enough, and Jude Law is, well, JUDE LAW, but the movie was being directed by Guy Ritchie. I mean the guy married MADONNA for goodness’ sake (that does not gain one points in my book, just sayin’). However, color me shocked on all fronts – I loved this movie. Downey may not be “the” definitive version of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous creation, but his take on the iconic character is the most fun and entertaining that I’ve seen in, well, ages. And I loved Law’s take on Watson – refreshingly, here Watson is mind-blowingly competent for once, and the movie gives you a good sense of the Holmes/Watson friendship, particularly the sacrifices Watson had to make in his personal life in order to make that friendship work. Downey and Law have a really wonderful best friends chemistry on-screen, and seeing that friendship play out is a big part of what made the movie so enjoyable for me.

The look of the film is spectacular. I loved every single thing about the way Ritchie presents his darkly foreboding vision of Victorian England. He gives the atmosphere of the movie a real gothic flair. I also loved the costumes – Downey and Law each wear their respective suits really well. And it’s nice to see Sherlock sans the deerstalker hat that’s become such a part of the character thanks to previous films. Here Holmes is a somewhat more bohemian dresser which fits with the character’s somewhat slapdash personal habits from the stories. Mark Strong’s costumes give his character, the villainous Lord Blackwood, a suitably Dracula-like flair. The only real punches of color in the film as regards costumes belong to Holmes’s muse, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams). The shocking bursts of color in her costumes represent well, I think, what her character does for Holmes in the film (that is, shakes him up terribly!). Oh, and the Hans Zimmer score is just fantastic - definitely one of my favorites by him, full of cool themes and Holmesian flourishes. Probably my favorite work by Zimmer since the Pirates films.

This version of the Holmes story returns much of the character’s energy to the screen that’s lost or “toned down” in earlier film adaptations (like Basil Rathbone’s take on the character). Brett’s take on Holmes does a good job of balancing the more refined, aristocratic points of the character’s personality with his tendency towards rather manic bursts of energy, particularly in the middle of a chase. This is seen especially in the early Brett films, since as the series progressed the actor’s health grew progressively worse and the effects of those health problems can be seen on-screen. In 2009 much of the gentlemanly veneer Holmes has worn for the past 100 or so years is ripped away, and we get to see all of the character’s energy and brilliance on full display.

Which brings me to Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes – I LOVED every second of his performance. Downey’s Holmes is brilliant, eccentric, energetic, manic, selfish, mannerly, sensitive, and hopelessly inept at personal relationships. He’s extreme in all respects, but in the best possible way. One of the best aspects of how Holmes is portrayed in this movie is that you get to see how the detective thinks. Credit for successfully pulling off this not inconsiderable feat goes to both Downey's acting and Ritchie’s direction. Seeing the way the great detective’s brain views the world is not only fascinating, but it goes a long way towards explaining why he finds “normal” (haha) people so frustrating to deal with (and vice-versa). In addition to the really extraordinarily well-done depiction of Holmes’s mental acuity, this take on the character doesn’t shy away from any of Sherlock’s more sensational habits and skills. We get Holmes the drug addict, the fighter (fist-fighting, plus he’s quite handy with a cane), the amateur scientist, the disguise expert, and the violin aficionado.

Holmes’s ever-present friend and roommate is of course, Dr. Watson, whose film portrayals have ranged from the buffoonish to the competent (but never, ever approaching Holmes’s equal!). Jude Law’s take on Watson ranks as one of my favorites, not because of how it relates (or not) to the source material, but because it gives you such a great sense of the genuineness of the Holmes/Watson friendship. This movie comes at a rather trying time for the long-time residents of 221B Baker Street, since Watson is planning to get married. Of course marriage is going to alter some of Watson’s priorities, and that’s a change that the rather narcissistic Holmes is loathe to accept, which leads to some really funny scenes. I really liked how Law’s Watson is really competent, kind, loyal, and conscientious – he knows he’s not as flashy or quick-witted as Holmes, but he’s also not going to be taken advantage of (not without a fight, anyway!).

When I first saw the previews for Sherlock Holmes, I had somewhat mixed feelings toward the apparent steampunk direction of the storyline. It seemed as though Holmes was going to go all Van Helsing-like in this story, fighting baddies who can apparently raise themselves from the dead. The baddie in question is Lord Blackwood, played by the fantastic, fabulous, oh-my-gosh-his-voice-is-so-amazing-I-could-listen-to-it-all-day Mark Strong. Love him, in case you couldn’t tell. Strong is just terrific in this film – he’s scary, intense, evil, and wickedly smart, all in all a worthy adversary for Holmes. (He’s also gorgeous, weirdly crooked teeth notwithstanding. But that’s neither here nor there.) ;-) To speak to Blackwood’s methods – yes, he’s into all sorts of wonky spiritualism which fits well with the dark, gothic atmosphere of the movie. But the final confrontation at the end of the film neatly brings things back into Holmes’s most beloved area of expertise – that of a case solved through logical, well-ordered, scientific reasoning. I thought it was nicely done, and a touch I didn’t quite expect given the apparent tone of the movie. While I enjoyed the entire film, the concluding scenes are what really sold me on Downey as Holmes.

Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) is the one ever-so-slightly missed opportunity in this movie in my book. Adler is such a fascinating character in the Holmes canon. She's the only woman who ever managed to gain the detective's genuine admiration. All other women were only interesting if they brought a fascinating problem Holmes's way, while Adler was the only one whose personality, mind, and capabilities fascinated him. This time around Adler is a little more than an American "adventuress," now she's a spy/thief for hire. When Adler and Holmes meet, sparks fly (I loved the moment when Holmes tries to hide her photo!), and it's clear that in this Holmesian universe the two have a passionate and complicated past. McAdams and Downey have some nice on-screen chemistry, and the characters' reunion raises tons of questions, like how did they meet, why were they separated, etc.? It's such an interesting premise, to place an iconic character like Adler on the wrong side of the law, but I just don't feel like the script did her justice. I wanted more context for her character, but perhaps that will be supplied in the promised sequel. The final scene between McAdams and Downey is very well-played, and I look forward to seeing the relationship develop in Holmes #2.

There's a few minor characters that I simply must mention. Eddie Marsan, last seen in Me and Orson Welles and earlier this year in Little Dorrit, is the perfect Inspector Lestrade to Downey's Holmes. He's Holmes's friend, but he's also enough of a by-the-books policeman to get aggravated with the detective's sometimes unorthodox methods. Kelly Reilly, who also made a brief appearance in Me and Orson Welles, plays Watson's fiancee Mary Morstan. She at first catches absolute hell from Holmes for "stealing" away Watson, but in a refreshing turn of events she very classily rises above this and recognizes not only how much Watson regards Holmes's friendship, but how much the too really need each other. The scene in the hospital was extraordinarly well played. Hans Matheson makes a brief appearance as one of Blackwood's cronies, the aptly named Lord Coward. Matheson is quit good at playing bad guys as he previously appeared as Alec D'Urberville in Tess on Masterpiece Classic earlier this year. James Fox also continues his practice of making a guest appearance in just about everything by playing Blackwood's father, Sir Thomas.

This is a seriously fun movie, was for me anyway. I may go see it again if time and finances permit. And I can not wait for the sequel this movie promises - the introduction of Moriarty (did I let that slip? *wink*) is beautifully done. Can. Not. WAIT. :)

Me and Orson Welles

Me and Orson Welles opened in my area last Friday, and I went to see it Monday night with my friend Lori. It is SUCH a treat. I wrote a bit about the storyline a few weeks ago in my review of the novel on which the film is based (you can read my review of Robert Kaplow's novel here). Suffice it to say Me and Orson Welles is one of the best book-to-film adaptations I’ve ever seen. I haven’t verified this, but I’m pretty sure whole passages of dialogue were transferred to the script, practically verbatim. I loved everything about this movie. I’m a movie nut, as long time readers of this blog well know, but it’s a rare thing that a movie comes along that caters so perfectly to my tastes. This story is a love letter to the golden age of New York theater, when another world war probably seemed like an impossibility to anyone not deeply interested or involved in politics or foreign affairs. Nostalgic and funny, Me and Orson Welles is not only one of the best book-to-film adaptations I’ve ever seen, it’s also got to be one of the best theater movies ever made. All of the backstage drama makes the scenes showing the actual performance that much more powerful. You can’t help but stand in awe at the magic that’s possible on stage, and it’s such a treat to see it unfold.

The runaway star of the film is British actor Christian McKay as Orson Welles. The man deserves every single accolade and award thrown his way. His performance is absolutely spectacular. Now, remember that I’m not a Welles-ian scholar by any means, but having read the novel and seen several of Welles’s films multiple times, McKay doesn’t just play Orson Welles, he is Orson Welles. He manages to capture at the very least the public persona (and that is no small feat!), the essence of the man and the magnetic quality of his personality that comes through on screen. McKay’s performance is the center of the film, and deservedly so. McKay deserves every acting nomination possible IMO.

Zac Efron also rises above his High School Musical roots to deliver a surprisingly strong performance as the teenage Richard. While Richard’s role is of course prominent in the novel (it’s told from his point-of-view), you lose a little of that on screen. The movie is a little less heavy on Richard’s coming-of-age angst and school drama, choosing instead to focus on the backstage theatrics that ensue in the frantic days prior to the Mercury Theater’s first performance of Julius Caesar. He nails the role of Richard perfectly, balancing the character's bravado and uncertainty, a perfect foil for McKay's rather overwhelming Welles. Efron "fits" period roles really well - this and his turn in Hairspray being favorites of mine. Would love to see more of this type of work from him in the future.

The rest of the cast is chock-full of notable acting talent and strong performances - just want to mention a couple. Eddie Marsan, who was so wonderfully funny as Pancks in Little Dorrit earlier this year plays Welles's long-suffering business partner John Houseman. It was a real treat to see him on the big screen. :) Claire Danes was pretty good as Richard's crush, Sonja Jones. She fit the time period well, and delivered a good sense of Sonja's take no prisoners attitude towards achieving her goals that comes through in the novel. James Tupper really impressed me as Joseph Cotten, not only because he's cute (LOL) but because he's such a dead ringer for the real Joseph Cotten, in my opinion anyway. I must also mention Kelly Reilly as Muriel Brassler, one of the lead actresses in the Mercury Theater troupe. She's becoming something of a familiar face, since I've now seen her in Poirot, Mrs. Henderson Presents, Pride and Prejudice, and Sherlock Holmes (review of the latter forthcoming). I was also very impressed with Zoe Kazan's turn as Richard's more *ahem* age-appropriate love interest, Gretta. Kazan happens to be the granddaughter of Elia Kazan, which I thought was an interesting piece of trivia. She also had such a great "look" about her, not your typical Hollywood look which was rather refreshing to see. I could mention a laundry list of other enjoyable performances, but I'll leave it at that. Suffice it to say, the film is packed with top-notch work.

The success of the film rests in large part on director Richard Linklater's pacing and world-crafting, both of which are superb. This story covers just one short week in Richard's life, and due to that time constraint, the pace never lets up. The film practically hums with energy and life. And the movie's depiction of 1930s New York is just fantastic - I could've stayed in that world for ages. :) Also, the costumes and set pieces just scream authenticity - everything on-screen represents period drama at its finest. I also adored the music - both the original score pieces, and the use of period songs, the latter so important to Richard's character in the book. It's all very, very well done. Loved the movie, can't wait until it comes out on DVD. It's backstage drama at its finest. :)

Merry Christmas!

Because I'm exhausted from cooking all day, and because I'm watching Doctor Who Christmas specials on BBC America, and because I'd really send Doctor Who Christmas cards if I could find them, here's my virtual Christmas card. :) Merry Christmas, everyone, and may God bless you in the coming year!

Review: Silent in the Sanctuary by Deanna Raybourn

Silent in the Sanctuary (A Lady Julia Grey Novel #2)
By: Deanna Raybourn
Publisher: MIRA
ISBN: 978-0-7783-2603-8

About the book:

Fresh from a six-month sojourn in Italy, Lady Julia returns home to Sussex to find her father’s estate crowded with family and friends. Much to her surprise, the one man she had hoped to forget – the enigmatic and compelling Nicholas Brisbane – is among her father’s houseguests…and he is not alone. Not to be outdone, Julia shows him that two can play at flirtation and promptly introduces him to her devoted, younger, titled Italian count.

But the homecoming celebrations quickly take a ghastly turn when one of the guests is found brutally murdered in the chapel. Lady Julia resumes her unlikely and deliciously intriguing partnership with Nicholas Brisbane, setting out to unravel a tangle of deceit before the killer can strike again.

Review:

Deanna Raybourn suffers from no sophomore slump with her second Lady Julia Grey novel, Silent in the Sanctuary. This thoroughly engrossing, humorous sequel ranks even higher in my view than its predecessor, Silent in the Grave (which I absolutely loved!). Lady Julia’s second foray into the world of detection and mystery is just as un-put-downable as the first, and I was compelled to carry it with me everywhere until I finished it. This time, Raybourn gives readers a stronger, more self-assured Lady Julia, though she’s still learning to balance between societal expectations and her own new appreciation of independence, and an even more compelling, wonderfully and frustrating enigmatic Brisbane. When the two are reunited even more sparks fly, and you could cut the romantic tension with a knife, it’s that palpable. But of course nothing is going to come easy for two individuals whose strong wills and temperaments constantly put them at odds with convention and each other.

Following her brush with death in Grave, Lady Julia went to Italy to recover her health, and though she’s reluctant to admit it to herself, to forget inquiry agent Nicholas Brisbane. Though the connection between them is undeniable, when six months pass with nary a word she resolves to move on. When she and two of her brothers are recalled to the family estate for Christmas, she’s shocked and somewhat peeved to discover that Nicholas is in residence as well – with a completely unsuitable fiancée. However, her annoyance is pre-empted by the brutal murder of one of the houseguests, and her father charges her and Brisbane to work together to discover the culprit and minimize the scandal’s impact on the eccentric March family. Isolated by a snowstorm in the historic Abbey/family home, the pool of suspects is limited, casting a pall of suspicion over family, friends, and acquaintances alike. The truth must out before the snow melts, allowing a murderer to go free – or they may strike again.

One of this book’s greatest strengths is that Raybourn allows readers to spend more time with Julia’s delightfully eccentric family. They’re funny, sarcastic, irreverent, and fiercely loyal to each other, even the more questionable of their relations (like Aunt Dorcas, the ancient kleptomaniac). Sanctuary is rife with as much intrigue, misunderstandings, and hidden secrets as its predecessor. The storyline is multi-layered and fascinating, with enough twists and turns and red herrings to give a person whiplash. The fact that the family home was once an ancient Abbey adds to the atmosphere of the story – it’s as though anything is possible in a location where the very stones seem imbued with history and drama. At the center of it all lies Brisbane and Julia’s maddening relationship. Their relationship is like the ebb and flow of an intricate dance – just when events throw them together, something tears them apart. Raybourn excels at developing the romantic tension in this installment. Lady Julia’s world is one I love getting lost in – completely and utterly absorbing, and loads of fun to boot, Raybourn’s storytelling always leaves me wanting more.

So, in the comments section of my review of Silent in the Grave, there was some fun discussion about who should play Nicholas Brisbane, should this series ever be filmed. I bring you two other actors for your consideration:

First, Tom Hardy as Heathcliff in the 2009 version of Wuthering Heights. I honestly don't know why I didn't think of him first, as I am a big fan of his performance here. An added bonus in his favor is that Heathcliff and Brisbane share a very similar heritage...and that's all I'm gonna say about that. ;-)

My second choice today is the absolutely fabulous Richard Armitage. *swoon* I think Richard is a smidge too...hmm, aristocratic in his looks to perfectly fit the role of Brisbane as he's described in the novels. HOWEVER...Armitage's turn as Guy of Gisborne proved that he's a master at playing a dark, tortured, compelling leading man. If he played Brisbane on screen, I have no doubt he'd own the role. Happy thought. :)

So, to anyone who's read the books, please chime in with your opinion. Or, based on my reviews, which actor would you most like to see in the role?

*I have to say, while I don't like these "new" covers nearly as much as the first run designs for book one, I do appreciate how the cover artist nailed Julia's grey pearls - the necklace is exactly as described.

Julie & Julia

This is going to be relatively short since I watched this last week and never got around to blogging about it in a timely fashion. If you’re like me and maybe weren’t in the mood to blow $10 on a theater ticket when Julie & Julia was around, I recommend renting the film now that it’s on DVD. I really liked it. I absolutely loved 50% of the movie, the other 50% was just a little mehhh. But that's not a bad thing necessarily, just trying to be honest about my take on it. As I’m sure everyone knows from the film’s trailers, the movie is based on two true stories – Julia Child’s life in France and how she came to author her famous cookbook (and became, you know, Julia Child for goodness’ sake!), and Julie Powell, a dissatisfied cubicle worker who sets for herself the challenge of cooking through Child’s cookbook in one year and blogging about it. First off, I have to say I really admire Julie’s ability to set her goal and stick with it. Me? I’m lucky to still be blogging after all these years. But as for joining all of those fun and unique challenges that crop up in the blogosphere – well you can forget about that. My percent of successfully completed blogging challenges is woefully low.

Anyways, this film does quite a masterful job of interweaving Julie and Julia’s respective journeys. Though the two women are separated by time and wildly varied circumstances, their stories are remarkably similar. I suppose if you boil it down, the creative outlet of cooking provided the impetus for both women to find a renewed passion and focus for their lives. It’s here that I have to admit that I just wasn’t all about the Julie storyline. Amy Adams was her usual sweet self here, and while I really enjoyed her performances in films like Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day and Enchanted, she just didn’t do much for me here. Maybe it’s because I just don’t buy her portrayal of the combination of saccharine-sweet yet borderline bitterly dissatisfied wife & cubicle worker? I don’t think it was the character necessarily; more that I just didn’t really connect with Adams in this specific role. Not that she was bad, but I just didn’t really care about her one way or the other. When the moment comes when Julie discovers that Julia knows about her blogging venture and doesn't approve, and with a DEADLY SERIOUS look on her face she asks her husband if it's because she "occasionally uses the f-word," it's absolutely laughable. Because NOTHING in Adams's portrayal of hints at that. I know that's a trivial thing, probably, but it took me out of the film, you know?

Now the Julia portion of the story – that, my friends, was fantastic. I’ve never been what you might consider a huge Meryl Streep fan, but oh my WORD, she was wonderful as Julia Child. Every scene that showed Julia’s story, every scene that showcased Paris, made me want to live in that world. It was breath-taking and wonderful. I loved every single thing about those scenes. Not only was it a fascinating glimpse into Julia Child’s life before she became the Julia Child and unleashed that juggernaut of a cookbook on the world, but it was also a refreshing, sweet look at the Childs’ marriage. Stanley Tucci did an excellent job opposite Streep playing Paul, Julia's husband. The film offers some nice glimpses into his character & work, but the real jewel of his presence in the film is seeing Paul and Julia's devotion to each other play out on screen. It's got to be one of the most refreshing, positive portrayals of a "seasoned" marriage that I've seen in the movies in I don't know, ages. Love, love, loved everything about their relationship. In fact those scenes were so good, so absorbing to watch for me everything else paled in comparison. I rather wish the entire movie had been a Julia biopic. Oh well, c'est la vie. ;-)

Julie & Julia has all the hallmarks of a Nora Ephron film - sweet, romantic, and funny. I thought she did an excellent job navigating between Julia & Julie's worlds, particularly, of course, in bringing mid-20th century Paris to life. I've also got to mention Alexandre Desplat's absolutely lovely work on the film's score. It's light, airy, and gorgeous. Oh, and I seriously hope Streep is nominated for an Oscar for her work here, it's just that good IMO. This is definitely a movie I'll enjoy watching again & again, but perhaps the biggest thing I can thank this film for is that I now want to learn more about Julia Child's life. Off to track down a copy of her memoir... :)