Eat Pray Love

Altogether, the topic, the locations, the atmospheres, the acting made me enjoy the movie more than the book. I read the book and found it OK, but not like fantastic (almost like the Alchymist by Coehlo; sort of simple enough for anyone to understand, but deep enough for a lot of people to feel intellectual or in touch with new thoughts). But for the movie I had low expectations, based on the reviews - nonetheless I was positively surprised, though left wondering if most critics are just a bunch of sheep following a path (made by an old sheep who left decades ago)? And hence, obliged to hate any woman prioritizing herself?

The movie deals with a topic that very few (American) movies actually deal with - our inner lives and pursuits for balance and happiness. Maybe because it is difficult, as it is a somewhat stand still, internal journey. But EPL has made it possible by wrapping it into an external journey too.

But my main point adding to the other reviews: Some of the criticism of the movie is that the main character doesn't seem to have a good reason to be unhappy, and to leave her husband. However, what is dealt with in the book, but not comes across in the movie, is that she and her husband are to trying to have a baby, as is expected by "people" (and by her husband). EG discovers in this process that she is still not ready for children, in fact she never will be. She doesn't feel cut for it at all, and if she has a child, she feel she'll lose herself (her new husband got himself fixed before he met her, so there was never a question about it). To choose away what many women view as a deed to validate their existence; having children, is tough and scary. One will be judged. Also, she knew her husband's expectation of building a family was not unreasonable, making her feel ashamed and different. This is one of the key reasons for her to start praying; to be able to follow her own instincts, breaking the conventional norms. By excluding from the script this realization for the main character, the viewer is left puzzled with what is wrong in this marriage, there is something that doesn't make sense here. Too bad, leaving this issue out, as it would've added another dimension to the movie and increase the viewers understanding of why EG and her husband should split.

I can't help wonder why they chose to eliminate it from the story, whether it is because it would not appeal to conservative American women who after all are the majority of the box office customers for this movie? Or whether the movie creator thought it wouldn't make a difference? After all it made the whole lot of difference to the marriage, and was a impetus for her entire journey.

When I read the book last year, I had just lost my job, was looking for a new one and eating everything that was bad for me, so I enjoyed Liz's misery and newfound joys. But now that I'm content, in this new phase of life, I find myself annoyed by people who create their own drama and then whine about it. So I would not have enjoyed the book if I were to read it now. Although everyone does a good job in this film, and the scenery is breathtaking -- now I want to go to Rome!!!-- I really couldn't stand Liz. She has everything but whines about how "I don't even know how to be HERE!" I meet people in my new job who are fighting cancer every day -- they deserve the opportunity to whine (and few do, I might add). But pretty people who have everything and think they deserve more just tick me off. And it was a long painful sit. I do love the men in this movie -- each one of them is so good. And Julia Roberts does what she can with this selfish character. I just don't want to spend any more time with spoiled Liz. The time I spent watching her only ticked me off. I cannot recommend it, unless you're self centered, indulged and rich -- this could be your inspiration. Phoo!

Eat Pray Love is not the appealing romantic comedy it's being sold as. It's a dark character study of how someone loses themselves. Julia Roberts the queen of romantic comedies (another way to sell the film) is front and center as Liz, and she deserves a Best Actress nomination.

Roberts really brings Liz to life in both the enchanting ways and the dark ways. It's not the typical Julia Roberts performance you'd expect. The scene early on in the film where she prays for the first time is chilling. What makes Roberts so good is the fact she's a movie star, but a movie star with talent and range.

Javier Bardem and Richard Jenkins also play roles in the second and third act. They both have a magnetic connection with Roberts. Jenkins has so much fun playing his colorful character. He's the old guy you want to have long talks with. His character has a surprising arc during the last minutes of India. Bardem's Phillippe is charming, handsome, and emotional. Bardem yet creates another memorable character and a great supporting performance.

The story didn't sell me at first. As Liz feels confined, I felt confined and uncomfortable in the NYC scenes. They aren't bad, but a term I've used to describe this film before: dark. But, when she goes to Italy, lets go, and frees herself, I felt freed too. From there until the credits roll, the film doesn't have that problem but it's a big problem. I personally hold the director at fault there. He could've smoothed it over.

The cinematography is gorgeous, Roberts is beautiful with support from two stand-out men. What more could ya ask for? Be warned: this is a darker movie then the trailers may imply so it's not for everyone; 8.

I love travelogues and I'm a fan of Julia Roberts but, what happened here? I'm not sure in what period, time wise, it this set. The only turmoil seems to be in this very selfish forty-something. What about the rest of the world? She goes for a sort of journey of discovery in a world that doesn't really exist. Did I miss something? No wars, no economic crisis, no nothing, only the intimate qualm of a woman who I, personally, cannot feel represented by. I grant you I'm from another generation but, please! What is this. I loved the food and Javier Bardem and it is in fact the Bardem episode that brings some kind of recognizable something to the proceedings. So, let me recapitulate and ask you if we've seen the same movie...A woman facing an existential crisis and moves out from her marital abode without even having a discussion about it with her husband - a scrumptious Billy Crudup - then she has an affair with James Franco - who wouldn't, right? - but the Franco in this movie is just a plain reflection of the Franco from "Milk" just to name one title. The Naples presented here seems out of the mind of someone who's never been to Naples. I don't know what to say. I'm a bit puzzled and, I should confess, a bit annoyed.

I loved the book. I thought Julia Roberts as Liz was fantastic casting. The trailer looked awesome. I smiled every time I saw it. Turns out, I loved everything about this movie except the movie.

Long story short, it's all of the arc of the book, without any of the passion. While never horrible, this film simply made me feel nothing.

I found the book soulful, moving, even transformative at times. The greatest emotion I felt from the film was hunger (for Italian pizza), thirst (for Italian wine), and an occasional dizziness due to director Ryan Murphy's apparent recent discovery of how to "pan." It was laughable camera-work throughout the first 45 minutes, and occasionally throughout.

The first 1/2 hour of the film was almost unbearably bad, even though the first section of the book was amongst my favorites. Perhaps someone who did not read the book could enjoy this movie, but I somehow doubt it. One time Liz made a joke, that was a nice break from the feeling of being in a lukewarm bathtub for 2 1/2 hours. Not unpleasant, just meh.

Instead of finding Liz intelligent and thoughtful, she seemed selfish, boring, and obsessed with men. Instead of finding spirituality, she seemed vapid. When the character becomes shallow, a film centered around that character becomes a throw away. Maybe I'll just watch the trailer again.