I get a feeling J & J will end up like Prada in terms of critics' love and US box office potential. Worldwide is iffy because no many people know Julia Child outside of the US.

My guess is that it might be bigger than Prada - three years later there is an even a greater paucity of films for older female audiences than there was when Prada came out, and Julia Childs is better known that Anna Wintour.

They're predicting a 20m opening.

I saw this last night and it is going to be a BIG hit with box office legs. It's a wonderful film. It's absolutely hilarious, delightful and inspirational. Meryl Streep is Oscar worthy and Amy Adams is fantastic. The whole preview audience was eating it up (and yes, it does make you really hungry). It's very clever and I couldnt recommend it anymore. LOVED IT!
Grade: A

~predicting a 35-40 opening and somewhere in the 140-160m final range.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jbboy,

If this film is a box office hit in the range of Streep's recent comedies I believe the Oscar is hers.

A quite reasonable guess, but for me it makes sense to wait until early December to assess this or any race. The rare case where a race can be called early (Mirren/The Queen) - even those were late September guesses.

Her chances will increase if the three major critics groups divide among more indie/lesser seen performances (or Streep might be the surprise winner from one or more of them), but again, we have no idea at this point.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
A quite reasonable guess, but for me it makes sense to wait until early December to assess this or any race. The rare case where a race can be called early (Mirren/The Queen) - even those were late September guesses.

Her chances will increase if the three major critics groups divide among more indie/lesser seen performances (or Streep might be the surprise winner from one or more of them), but again, we have no idea at this point.

Agreed, it is rare to have an obvious frontrunner this early. It's not unprecedented, though - back in '00 Julia Roberts' win appeared to be ordained when Brokovich started to rake in the cash after opening to glowing reviews - in March.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Edwin Drood,

The differences in the Roberts case though were

1) she was in an acclaimed film, which always helps (and was an eventual 1 of 5 best picture nominees) (EB of course was also a big hit)

and most importantly

2) she was a previously nominated actress who had not won (as well as being the biggest female star at the time), whereas Streep has two Oscars

and third, not a precedent or a determining factor, but still not unimportant

3) she was in a serious drama; you have to go back to Glenda Jackson/A Touch of Class to see where a 2nd or more time female lead Oscar went to someone in a lighter, somewhat comedic movie.

If someone put a gun to my head and said, who's going to win best actress this year, I'd probably say Steep, because even at a 20% chance she's ahead of the rest of the field. But the rest of the field would still be 80%, so it's an easy prediction to say she won't win (though she quite possibly could of course.)

And it would be better still if there is no category fraud and Amy Adams is also nominated and Streep still wins.

Katharine Hepburn was the last woman to win a second lead Oscar when she was over 50. Meryl Streep likely will be the one next to do it. The only reason she was competitive last year despite the very problematic and flawed performance in Doubt was because she is "due." J&J could indeed be the film. Had she already won her second lead Oscar at any point, I doubt many people would be seriously considering her. That alone makes me wonder, though once again, I do expect her to be competitive, and possibly a winner.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

But do ya think her 2nd best actress oscar win could come from this? Julia and Julie doesn't seem to be getting great reviews in its early stages from the more known critics like Variety & Hollywood Reporter... and aren't each women's stories separate, meaning less screen time. Course, this didn't stop Kidman winning in a similar situation in The Hours where her story comprised approx one third of a movie that was less than 2 hours long.

This just taint screaming oscar to me... now maybe if Streep as Childs in a more serious full fledged adaptation maybe.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ETHELCHARLES,

Here's an interesting article I found about Streep, which suggests among many other things (like that she's the most awarded, prestige actress with the longest career ever) that she's going to be very wealthy when all is said and done...

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – A partial list of this summer's best box-office bets: Optimus Prime, Manny the Woolly Mammoth and Meryl Streep.

It's understandable if that prompts a double take, but the actress most synonymous with Oscar quietly has become one of the most reliable warm-weather draws at the multiplex. Streep, who turned 60 in June, drummed up nearly $1 billion in worldwide revenue from her previous two summer outings: Fox's "The Devil Wears Prada" in 2006 and Universal's "Mamma Mia!" in 2008.

She puts that streak on the line next weekend when Columbia's "Julie & Julia" opens opposite Paramount's testosterone fest "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra."

The female- and food-friendly pic, tracking to open in the $20 million range domestically, with older females driving interest, could solidify her status as the industry's only serious veteran actress who, in the right vehicle, can carry a midbudget movie to blockbuster status.

With movie-star reliability continuing to buckle and such younger male actors as Eddie Murphy, Will Ferrell and Jack Black recently receiving the back of the hand from audiences, Streep's success in nontraditional summer fare is delicious indeed. It was enough that Forbes recently listed her among the industry's top female moneymakers. By the magazine's estimation, Streep placed behind only Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston in 2008 with income of $24 million.

"Isn't that magnificent?" Sony Pictures Entertainment co-chairman Amy Pascal says. "It's just awesome. It makes us all really happy."

ACADEMY ACCOLADES

Sony (Columbia's parent company), which has fielded some notable underperformers this summer, is banking on an actress who has been nominated for 15 acting Oscars -- 12 lead and three supporting. On average, that's one every other year from 1979 ("The Deer Hunter") to 2009 ("Doubt"). She won statuettes for supporting turns in "Kramer vs. Kramer" (1980) and for her lead performance in "Sophie's Choice" (1983).

But critical kudos often means bupkis at the box office. Such talented actresses as Kate Winslet and Hilary Swank -- both of whom are building impressive, award-winning bodies of work -- have, with one titanic exception, managed only modest returns at theaters. Although there are a handful of younger actresses who can get a prestige project off the ground, none approaches Streep's ability to trigger a green light for a nongenre, mainstream Hollywood movie.

Some forget that big box office is not new to Streep. "The Bridges of Madison County" grossed $176 million worldwide in 1995; "Death Becomes Her," $149 million in 1992; "Out of Africa," $240 million in 1985; and "Kramer," $106 million in 1979. Without much fanfare and with an old-school lack of celebrity-tabloid gamesmanship, she has been drawing wide audiences to theaters for decades, often in (gasp!) challenging dramas.

"There's never quite been a career like this," says "Julia" writer-director Nora Ephron, who remembers "Silkwood" director Mike Nichols predicting Streep's success in 1983. "It's hard to think of any woman who not only kept working after a certain age but didn't have to do character roles. This thing of hers, where she is as hot as Will Smith, it's hilarious, and it is such amazing news for those of us who write movies that she's perfect for."

Streep's longtime colleagues have their theories as to why she's capable of commanding interest on such a wide scale. "She plays people who we identify with or wish we could identify with," Pascal says. "And she's completely authentic."

Ephron explains it this way: "For a great many people, there is such pleasure in watching her hit another one out of the ballpark. That's the expression that the focus groups will say. They start talking about her as if she's a ballplayer who's hit (for) the cycle or something."

"Prada," in which Streep played a no-nonsense fashion-magazine diva, was released June 30, 2006, and grossed an unexpected $324 million worldwide. By contrast, "The Break-Up," an anti-romantic comedy released a few weeks earlier with Aniston in the lead, grossed $205 million.

When Streep sang, danced and flirted in the 2008 musical adaptation "Mamma Mia!," the film grossed $603 million globally, the fifth-highest-grossing release last year -- ahead of James Bond, "Iron Man" and "Sex and the City."

Streep certainly isn't above a bomb; such pics as "Dark Matter," "Evening," "Rendition" and "Lions for Lambs" have failed to resonate. But she remains in that increasingly rare position in Hollywood: She gets a movie green-lighted based solely on her interest.

"I'm sitting here knowing that I got a picture made because she wanted to do it," Ephron says. "How lucky is that for all of us who like to make movies about women?"

STILL THE LOVE INTEREST

Remarkably, Streep's star is still rising, with a major assist from a shrewd team at Creative Artists Agency led by Kevin Huvane, her rep since 1991. She recently finished filming an untitled romantic comedy for writer-director Nancy Meyers that Universal will release Christmas Day. In the film, as in "Mamma Mia!," she plays a woman who whose affections are sought by several men -- in this case played by Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin. It's as if the industry still sees her as an ingenue.

For this role, her recent successes have pushed her paycheck to $7 million-$8 million (she was paid about $5 million for "Julia").

Streep has achieved all of this and somehow maintained a home life with four kids. That her youngest is off at college might free her to do even more work and perhaps even produce, something she has never pursued.

Streep is a walking rebuttal to the persistent ageism that sidelines so many actresses. As Nicole Kidman, Julia Roberts, Naomi Watts and Sandra Bullock wade into their 40s -- which conventional wisdom holds is a wasteland for actresses -- surely there is promise in Streep's longevity.

Pascal is optimistic about what Streep's success means for others, saying, "I think it eradicates every argument."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by seanflynn:
The differences in the Roberts case though were
QUOTE]

sean, obviously the factors involved in each and every Oscar win vary. The reasons for Roberts' win varied from those for Maclaine's win, which varied from those for Jessica Tandy, which varied from those for Halle Berry, ad infinitum. Should Streep win for this performance it will be because of a set of circumstances unique to the situation - and right now those circumstances look damn good to me. Let's see how the film does at the boxoffice, though - if this one doesn't draw in the dollars like Prada and Mamma! I'll be considerably less enthusiastic regarding her chances...

ETHEL - the article you so kindly posted alludes to many of the reasons I feel Streep is so strong this year - that entire "My God, here's the world's greatest actress having the greatest box office succes of her career at the age of SIXTY!" kinda vibe... Basically, barring a performance from one of the other contenders which rivals the strength of Streep's work in Sophie's Choice - in other words, the arrival of a NEW Meryl Streep - I think it will be impossible for the Academy to resist giving her her third [CAVEAT: Julie has to be a moneymaker]...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Edwin Drood,

I agree with all the positive factors you list as working for her, and I agree that she is at least the nominal frontrunner.

But I also think this race is at least two months from even really starting in earnest, and four from being clear. And Streep is not without negatives (previous wins, older actress, more lightweight role). None of these remotely rules her out. She is likely competitive. But they are factors specifically related to this year, this race.

I wonder if her being nominated time after time just doesn't give voters an excuse not to give her the win - they assume she'll be around again, and again and again.

I said last year in December that Streep's best chance then was to be up against a divided field. But she ended up against a long overdue nominee, with a bit surprisingly her stronger role being nominated (and not being in two categories). That doomed Streep. I need to see the whole field before feeling comfortable calling her the likely winner.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
I agree with all the positive factors you list as working for her, and I agree that she is at least the nominal frontrunner.

But I also think this race is at least two months from even really starting in earnest, and four from being clear. And Streep is not without negatives (previous wins, older actress, more lightweight role). None of these remotely rules her out. She is likely competitive. But they are factors specifically related to this year, this race.

I wonder if her being nominated time after time just doesn't give voters an excuse not to give her the win - they assume she'll be around again, and again and again.

I said last year in December that Streep's best chance then was to be up against a divided field. But she ended up against a long overdue nominee, with a bit surprisingly her stronger role being nominated (and not being in two categories). That doomed Streep. I need to see the whole field before feeling comfortable calling her the likely winner.

I think that two of the "negatives" you cite are positives in this instance - "older actress" might be good in this case (as it was for K. Hepburn) and "lightweight role" could be a plus as well - twice honored already for her dramatic work, what better way to cement her status as the "world's greatest actress" than by honoring her for her comic talents as well?

Again I don't disagree - and to add, a second successful caricatured humerous performance, coming after Prada, helps her chances. All this will be in the mix.

But it is only a small part of a very big mix, most of the elements of which are still unknown and will be for some time. And the most important is whether she will be up against a divided field, or a single strong competitor (a la Winslet - and it can be from a single performance, or another overdue non-winner).

Let me throw in another possible complication - would Streep win best actress two years in a row from SAG? Normally they go with the Oscar winner - last year was of course complicated (Winslet/Reader winning supporting). But if there is another real strong candidate, would they go with Streep again? And wouldn't that other actress winning buttress her Oscar chances (particularly if she won the GG/drama while Streep wins comedy)?

Just one of the innumerable steps this race needs to travel before we really can prognosticate with any certainty.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

Don't forget, Streep has "It's Complicated" coming out on Christmas. If that is a box office hit along with J&J, there maybe too much catnip for voters to ignore.

I have always said that Streep will most likely win her second lead Oscar for a lighter film showcasing her comedic timing....this is the perfect vehicle. True story, icon, transformative role.

Hepburn won her second lead Oscar(also at 60) for the lightweight "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" and then the following year for high drama. Wouldn't be bizarre if history repeated itself and Streep wins this year for J&J(at 60) and next year for...oh, lets dream of August:Osage County. :_

As far as two SAG Awards back to back....if they gave it to Zellweger, then can do it for Streep.

As Seanflynn stated, we have to wait for all the players to enter the game. BUT, the stars are looking good for Streep.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: VegasMovieMan,

Hepburn won for Guess Who's Coming to Dinner because:

1) it was only her second Oscar
2) the film she was in got 10 nominations
3) mostly because Hollywood was awarding her for her behsvior and grief vis a vis Spencer Tracy and his death

Streep could easily win, but the two situations are not remotely comparable.

^ She was also good in the film. Of course, not really award worthy, but it's not like it was some horrific performance.

I agree that its still way too early to name Streep as the favorite for the Best Actress oscar this year. Time will tell.

Seanflynn wrote about Streep in Doubt:

"The only reason she was competitive last year despite the very problematic and flawed performance in Doubt was because she is "due."

Sorry but I strongly disagree with this. IMO Streep was very good in Doubt and was a worthy nominee (loved the movie, an actor's tour de force IMO).

Me thinks Hepburn won in 67 because of the "due factor". She had lost the Best Actress 7 times in a row since her first win. Streep has lost what now, 12 times in a row since winning for Sophie's Choice? She too now has the "due factor".

Streep will eventually get that 3rd oscar but I'm not at all convinced it will be for this film.

Not to reignite the Doubt/Streep fight, but it is an objective fact that her performance was by far the worst reviewed of all her nominations.

"Worst" is a comparative - it doesn't mean that all she got was bad reviews. or that a majority were bad. But among the reviews were many unfavorable ones, and far below the level of her other nominations.

And that feeling was shared by some Academy members. Every one I talked to did not like her performance.

Obviously enough liked her to get her nominated; some critics praised her; and quite a few people here liked her. It does not change my core point, that the overall reaction to the performance hurt her chances.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

Resounding praise for Streep, calls movie half-baked

David Edelstein Published Aug 2, 2009

For teachers of the method, shaping a character begins with psychological self-plumbing, but some actors find that by getting the externals right (cadence, physical mannerisms, wardrobe), they can cut a direct path to the soul. That’s the case with Meryl Streep as the middle-aged Julia Child in the comedy Julie & Julia: What begins as a great impersonation becomes a marvel of sympathetic imagination. The performance is transcendental. Streep’s voice is deeply musical, starting in the chest and erupting into that burbling falsetto with its trills and diphthongs. The voice is Streep’s way into Child’s pleasure centers, and the body—stiff-shouldered, sloshing around like an ocean liner—follows along in a kind of daffy interpretive dance. Streep isn’t tall, but she’s photographed carefully and projects height; she understands that the six-foot-two Child learned not to be ashamed of her size but to go with it. Her Julia is a force. At one point, she falls into bed with her husband, Paul (Stanley Tucci), and one’s instinctive response—“Julia Child having sex … Ewww …”—gives way to, “Julia Child having sex … Awesome!” Anything to hear that voice in full, happy throttle!



This is a Nora Ephron movie, which means cartoonish extroverts pulling faces. But Streep kicks it up about a million notches, and Ephron is an enthusiastic cook, so the film has some foodie texture. It’s a shame the protagonist isn’t Julia but Julie: Julie Powell (Amy Adams), who, in real life, distracted herself from a messy existence with a blog that chronicled her effort to cook all 524 dishes in Child and Simone Beck and Louisette Bertholle’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking. Powell’s book about that yearlong homage/ordeal is fast and fun, and the recipes are so out-of-fashion (aspic!) it’s like a voyage back in time. But when Ephron cuts between Paris in the fifties and Queens in 2002 to show Julia and Julie as they both achieve autonomy through cooking, The Godfather Part II this ain’t—the connection is strained. (The Child material is based on her memoir My Life in France, written with her nephew, Alex Prud’Homme.) Julie’s character doesn’t even track. She’s referred to as a “bitch,” but all we’ve seen is the patented Ephron adorable klutz. (Adams is too good to waste on Meg Ryan parts.) Ephron should make a film about the person she herself is (smart, acid) instead of the cutie-pixie of her dumb fantasies.



Julie & Julia is full of holes, but you don’t even care when Streep is onscreen. In one scene, Julia greets her sister at a train station, and the marvelous Jane Lynch makes a whooping entrance, a giantess even more ebulliently uncoordinated than her sister. Tucci’s Paul gazes on them like a man in clover. Tucci has a wonderful, easy presence here: My guess is his bedazzlement with Streep merged with Paul’s bedazzlement with Julia, and the whole is even greater than the sum of its parts. When actors like these are cooking, it’s better than haute cuisine.