Julia et Julia

Julia and Julia has an interesting and well-developed plot, so I'm afraid to say that Sting's naked body isn't the best part of it! (sorry girls) The movie has some weak points (seems to be video/35 mm and the mix is a bit strange; the incidental music is a bit cheesy) but its strong points (original and thrilling story, smart structure and, most of all, the ending) help Julia & Julia to become a strange and enjoyable movie -something like David Lynch's flicks ancestor (Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, eg).

At the heart of the story is Juliet's gliding back and forth between parallel realities and parallel destinies. The script resolves the ending very elegantly, when I'm a bit lost as to which version of life we are in. This is typically a story that inspires me, makes me think. I wonder if the other Juliet experienced things in a similar way on the other side? Or: I should write a novel in which the two characters leave a diary to each other, and help each other this way.

Another thought: Sting plays a very aggressive character. It's very odd today, repulsive, but I don't think the metoo has done away with this male type as an ideal.

The film doesn't delve into anything deep, but maybe that's why it manages to remain inspiring. It leaves room for the imagination.

This movie is so great, kind of independent European movie. The plot is mesmerizing, it's like Julia goes back and forth between two real existential dimensions and she has little control about her fate. Kathleen Turner and Gabriel Byrne are amazing in this movie and Sting performs great as well. A high psychological thriller, which leaves us in doubt about what really happening. Highly recommended.

Strange - and strangely uninvolving - psychological drama that plays like a dragged-out "Twilight Zone" episode. The most distracting thing about it is its "TV-ish" look; not everyone will mind it, but personally I just couldn't get over it. The second problem is that the script makes no sense, even in its own terms (just an example: what's up with the boy saying "You're not my mother"? Who IS his mother?). And the third is Gabriel Byrne's lifeless performance: he resembles a walking corpse (then again, that may be exactly what he's playing). The basic idea, Turner's committed performance and a few steamy sex scenes are what this film has to offer. (**)

Shooting an entire feature on high-definition (circa 1987) video may have saved the producers a few bucks, but you get what you pay for: in this case a technically shoddy, low-key melodrama with little to recommend it besides an offbeat cast. It was presented at the time as a technological breakthrough, but it's safe to say there were still a few bugs to be worked out of the process: in the late 1980s high-definition video still equaled low-definition film, and the eyesore of too many blurred movements distracts attention away from the story itself. Which may be a blessing in disguise, because the story is just an extended Twilight Zone episode, portentous to the point of self-parody, about a widow of six years who shifts between her lonely life and an alternate reality where her husband is alive, along with the child she never had. Has she suddenly awakened from six years of retroactive amnesia, or is she only hallucinating? The film (can we call it that?) was a big hit in Italy, so maybe it suffers in translation.