I just couldn't stand the extremely slow beginning, I guess I saw about an hour of it and when nothing really happened I turned it off. I don't understand how anyone could got through the hour of boring crap at the beginning and somehow the second hour made it a film worth watching. How it got nominations for awards is beyond me. But any film that has "the nazis were evil and did bad things" as a premise usually gets academy attention.
shareIt's not an action-adventure film...it's a meticulously crafted character study of an amazing friendship between two amazing women. I loved this film from beginning to end. Jason Robards and Vanessa Redgrave won richly deserved supporting Oscars and I have always been of the opinion that Jane Fonda was robbed of the Oscar for Best Actress. This was, arguably, her finest performance (it's a horse race between this and THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON'T THEY?), an articulate, intelligent and beautifully crafted performance that filled the movie screen. One of 1977's very best films.
shareThis is one of my all-time favorite films. It's an exquisite film that's haunting and evocative. It's one of the best female friendship films ever made. Zinneman really captured the period. The direction was simply flawless. As was the acting. Hal Holbrook in a small role was masterful. And Meryl Streep made the most of her film debut. Vanessa won deservedly, but I agree, this was one of Jane's best performances. Filled with subtlety and nuance. She really captured the heighten sense of emotionalism for a very deep and profound friendship.
shareI think it got better. After about 45 minutes I was debating about whether or not to even finish watching the film. I did watch all of it and the second half was better than the first half.
shareOh, the MTV-Generation and its limited attention span...
"I don't use a pen: I write with a goose quill dipped in venom!"---W. Lydecker
Why does everyone automatically shout things like "MTV Generation," "Pauly Shore," or "Vin Diesel" whenever someone accurately comments on the tedium of an extremely slowly paced movie? My favorite kinds of movies are gripping character studies and I think this one was about 45 minutes too long to be just that. From the moment Lillian gets on the train, the pace of the movie slows to a crawl...unnecessarily so. It felt like the train scene was being shown in real time and it added nothing to the movie, not in its current form at any rate. As for the performances, Robards and Redgrave were superb and both deserved their Oscars. Jane Fonda, on the other hand, was annoying and over-the-top and wasn't in the same league as the subtle greatness of Robards and Redgrave.
shareAgreed BigGoon
I am 50 years of age and am not really into the all action movies, although sometimes they can be entertaining. I like all movies and can appreciate a character study as well as James Bond.
I found this film to be very slow, and unlike some who have commented here, I don't think it improved in the second half. The long train scenes, where things were 'supposedly' supposed to get exciting, were tedious, and the subsequent Berlin and child hunting scenes were barely interesting.
As an aside, my biggest problem with the whole move was plausability. As has been discussed on other threads, the whole thing probably didn't happen, and NO wonder, 'cos if it did, the resistance or whoever they were would never have got anywhere. I could rattle on and on about this but the Cafe scene with the two leads at the end sums it all up.. After much clandestine operation and 'secret squirrel' lapel lifting, we arrive at the Cafe. Julia is very discreet and firm about what Lilly should do with her hat etc - oh so secretive. Then she starts to tell Lilly in an un-hushed voice how much good the money will do. We could save n 100s with this money etc.. In a well populated Cafe with goodness knows who listening from the next table...
Enough said.
Slow, overlong and totally implausable. From a mature (and serious) film watcher.
Is it just me or do Jane Fonda and Sigourney Weaver look remarkably alike?
Had a problem focusing on the fact that it was one and not the other.
[deleted]
Actually, I found the two hours went by very quickly. That tends to happen with extremely well-made, perfectly played films.
shareI like all kinds of movies and I can enjoy long well crafted movies "Dances with Wolves" "The Last Emperor" "Kundun". My point is that after an hour the audience should have some idea of the plot or the characters. If there was a point to the first hour of the film I guess it was one girl was very rich and was best friends with a girl that grew up to be a writer that was in love with Dashiell Hammett and the Nazi's were really mean people. The first hour was a bunch of loosely connected scenes that were either pointless or repeatedly made the same point over and over.
shareI like slow paced movies but those when something actually happen. Like most Ingmar Bergamn films who perhaps are some of them even slower than "Julia" but they have a tremendous psychological and philosophical charge to be boring.
"Julia" is not only slow but seems that has nothing important to say neither. I reckon that it's a very well crafted movie, well acted as well, but good direction and acting is not enough, "sometimes" a good plot is neccesary as well, IMHO.
Some movies are dialog- and character-driven - JULIA is and certainly most of Bergman's are - that doesn't make them [/i] bad[/i] - they just require a somewhat different, more patient approach - I usually find much to enjoy in these films that compensates for the lack of action - ATONEMENT will probably affect some viewers the same way JULIA did.
"I don't use a pen: I write with a goose quill dipped in venom!"---W. Lydecker
[deleted]
it was very slow and boring at times but not bad at all
6/10When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
Just watched it for the first time. It's a vastly overrated film that underdevelops the most interesting character, Julia, jumps around pointlessly in its chronology, and never really goes anywhere. It's only the star power of its actors that makes it interesting, and only the Nazi theme that makes it seem important. If this were an indie film with no-name actors no one would think anything of it. While that says a great deal about how good these actors are (and they are), it also attests to the overall weakness of the film. Not bad, no, not bad, but all the same not equal to its reputation.
share"Just watched it for the first time. It's a vastly overrated film that underdevelops the most interesting character, Julia, jumps around pointlessly in its chronology, and never really goes anywhere."
The "jumping around" is not pointless. When this movie came out in 1977 I went to it with the intention of sitting through it twice. I'm glad I did because the second time I realized that it was brilliantly written and edited to mimic the way memory works. You think of something and it reminds you of something else and before you know it you've remembered 20 things that would only make sense to you. If you watch it looking for a linear storyline, or deeply developed characters other than the leads, you will be confused. I watched it again for the first time in 32 years last night and I'm still amazed at the meticulous consrtuction - and the incredible performance of Vanessa Redgrave.
Those of you criticizing the slow pace fail to understand that this story is a memory story. The slowness is deliberate in the way a person evokes a memory. Hellman wrote Pentamento in her later years, long after most of the key people were long gone. The screenplay is a very adept adaptation of the novella in that she evokes the memory of her friendship in the way an old person would, slowly, to re-experience it. BTW, it's only in this country that we have no patience to allow a story to develope. Some stories are not about cutting to the chase. The point of this movie was to get to know the characters through childhood flashbacks, intercut with the time period that the story took place. Ultimately, as Hellman remembers it, the whole story is a flashback. The goal is allow us to experience the growth of a friendship into womanhood, as well as experience the challenging time period during the growth of fascism and Nazism juxtaposed against the artsy, rich and privileged lifestyle of Americans. I just watched it again last night and enjoyed every slow-moving moment of it. It's a rich cinematic experience meant to be savored.
shareby mtmv » Tue Apr 7 2009 13:51:59 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since February 2006
Post Edited: Thu Apr 9 2009 11:18:55
"Just watched it for the first time. It's a vastly overrated film that underdevelops the most interesting character, Julia, jumps around pointlessly in its chronology, and never really goes anywhere."
The "jumping around" is not pointless. When this movie came out in 1977 I went to it with the intention of sitting through it twice. I'm glad I did because the second time I realized that it was brilliantly written and edited to mimic the way memory works. You think of something and it reminds you of something else and before you know it you've remembered 20 things that would only make sense to you. If you watch it looking for a linear storyline, or deeply developed characters other than the leads, you will be confused. I watched it again for the first time in 32 years last night and I'm still amazed at the meticulous consrtuction - and the incredible performance of Vanessa Redgrave
I agree with that "jumping around" isn't trivial. It's relevant to the plot.
I also agree that one memory can help you recall "20 things." That happens to me all of the time!
I enjoyed the beginning. It allowed you see see what a low-life her character was. Still the movie it was too long. Could've easily been 2 hours.
shareStill the movie it was too long. Could've easily been 2 hours.
I just watched this movie, for the first time, this past Saturday night. It may have been a little slow-moving at first, but for me it's all about the actresses. There are several, past and present, that have these amazing, wonderful voices and speech patterns. You might have to see more of their movies to get what I'm talking about, but I feel like I could listen to Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave speak for hours, just because I like the way their voices sound.
Just another example ... somebody earlier had mentioned Atonement. I loved the very end of the movie where Vanessa Redgrave comes in to give her interview. I just loved the way she sounded.
I hope that makes sense. Maybe it's just a me thing.