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.

I think this was the first Julia Roberts film that I ever hated. I wanted to leave the theater before she left Rome, but was with my wife. After the film I found out she hated it as much as me. We did chat a little and thought it would make wonderful parody film--- picture Will Ferrell as a husband who is fed up and decides to travel to three cities... and visit The New York Yankees; The Dallas Cowboys; and the Los Angeles Lakers, as a way to get in touch with his inner man. Along the way there could be lots of drinking, cheering and preying on women in bars and cheerleaders. My favorite seen in the film was the end photo where it showed her former husband looking happy in his new family!

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!

I usually have a tough time with chick flicks, and it was with great chagrin that I learned that the Friday rental of the house would be Eat Pray Love starring (arguably the chick flick queen) Julia Roberts. I thought I would hate it, I expected to see a sappy tear-jerker with Roberts playing her usual character.

Exactly what I got. Roberts almost cruelly and certainly suddenly/without warning leaves her husband (Billy Crudup) to travel the world, visiting Rome to Eat, India to Pray, and Bali to Love. During her adventures she meets Javier Bardem, Richard Jenkins, and many others.

Won't lie, I enjoyed quite a bit of this. A lot of the film is Julia Roberts being Julia Roberts, treading no new ground and playing her usual boring role. But, I suppose, that was the point. The character she plays is boring and normal, and even when she travels across the world Roberts does little to show the changes her character experiences. Can't say I really liked her character, which provided a bizarre feeling for the entirety of the movie. Was I supposed to root for Julia? Who knows.

EPL has some remarkable cinematography that deserves noting. I was surprised it wasn't nodded towards at the Oscars this year; shots of all these countries are beautifully represented. The script lags the most in Rome, but really picks up in India and Bali. As I said, Roberts is an unsympathetic character, but each travel experience brings interesting characters. Richard Jenkins, undoubtedly the most underrated actors ever, shines in his role of Richard from Texas in India. Bardem is good as well, but that's not a surprise. These two are the bright spots here.

If you've seen the trailer you've seen the movie, but if you're not looking for that much I think you'll be as surprised as I was. Worth it for the cinematography and characters. Plus, for that Friday-night chick flick your girlfriend picks out, you could do worse.

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.