Eat Pray Love

Posted In: Eat Pray Love

Azzie Ellinger says...

Why, oh why, did so many ladies sing the praise of this book and movie?Do I really know that many stupid, dull women?This movie was so lacking in story depth, character (which I understand is what the character was lacking in the beginning, but still!).Sure, it was visually appealing - which is why I gave it 2 stars.If I'd stayed longer for the male rear nudity, maybe it would have gotten 3 stars but I doubt it.After 12 minutes in my daughter and I already wanted to turn it off.And just over and hour we couldn't take it anymore.I think maybe you had to have read the book first to have bonded with the main character.Alas, this movie was made without realizing that most of their audience did not read the book first and we were not going to simply love the movie because Julia Roberts was in it.

Posted on December 31, 2010

April Richey says...

There's nothing like spending two hours watching a self-centered woman trying to fulfill herself at the expense of others.I was deeply disappointed and felt myself being increasingly annoyed by the main character as the film dragged on.I was glad when my daughter interrupted me just short of the ending so I had an excuse to turn the thing off.I don't feel compelled to find out how it ends.

Posted on January 1, 2011

Kara Gonzales says...

Let me preface this by mentioning I haven't read the book, though I've been meaning to, and after seeing the film first, I can only hope the book form is better. As a travel buff, I've been looking forward to watching this film, and I knew from the get-go that this would be a film about a woman's ennui and unfulfilled life. Yes, I know, first world problems--cue roll of the eyes. But I think many people can relate to the emptiness that pervades life on occasion.



That being said, even as someone sympathetic to this kind of plight, I found the character Liz to be utterly insufferable and a practically impossible woman to relate to. The film has Liz, lying in bed with her husband, looking bored and lonely. She gets out of the bed she shares with her husband to go downstairs to literally kneel down and ask for God's help for the first time, sobbing in the room of her multi-million dollar home. The problem with this entire premise is that her emptiness isn't presented in a way that is relatable to the audience. With film, the exercise is to convey what is inside by external means; the audience cannot magically divine what is going on with the characters. I understand what the INTENT was: her husband doesn't have the travel bug; her husband has ideas but doesn't stick to a single one to make it his passion; her husband doesn't share her curiosity of life, an inclination for what is MORE; she has it all but is still unsatisfied--there's no spark, no excitement. But for me these were not conveyed convincingly. Instead, we have Julia Roberts (playing Julia Roberts) crying, staring at the wall, yelling, acting like an overgrown brat with an alarming sense of entitlement. She purports to look within, but she doesn't. She turns her rage to those around her, and that's a fatal flaw in the film from which it never recovers. The premise is promising -- after all, it is often touted that money cannot buy happiness, and there are situations in real life where people who don't have much are happier than those with a lot (more money, more problems). But instead of taking the opportunity to lay that foundation and build upon it, the filmmakers seem to skip it altogether in favor of pretty travel shots, apparently unable to take on the storytelling task. Is it difficult, especially in this economy, to make a film about the dissatisfaction and existential angst of a well-off woman? Yes. But it is not impossible, and if they are going to make a film based on this premise, they better well try to sway the audience. Unfortunately, they seem to just rely on Julia Roberts' "America's Sweetheart" status to replace effective narrative.



In a meeting with the lawyers and her husband, Liz glares at her husband with the fire of a thousand suns, resenting him for being, well, him. Rightfully, her husband frustratingly informs her that she never sat him down to tell him what's wrong, never gave him a chance to try to fix it if she had such a problem in the marriage. The audience really only sees what ANNOYS her (e.g., he wants to do a postgraduate degree, he doesn't want to go to Aruba). Are these "flaws" big enough for her to just walk out one day? At least this warrants a serious sit-down talk about each of their goals and feelings, right? No. Liz doesn't feel connected to him, and instead of sitting down like adults, she decides to leave, cold turkey, because if you don't get what you want out of life, the lesson is you must drop all your problems and run. It is understandable for someone to want to end a marriage if she is unhappy, but to just cut it off abruptly without a serious discussion (and assuming abuse or infidelity haven't occurred, which, in this film, they haven't) is unreasonable and paints the person as a spoiled brat who never learned how to navigate life in an adult world. This is a bad start to a film...an unsympathetic protagonist. Oh, God, how many more minutes do we have to spend with this woman? Did she really just leave her husband because some medicine man in Bali six months before told her one of her marriages would be short? Really? How gullible are you, Liz? The filmmaker really missed out on capitalizing on one genuine moment in the film -- her husband, in the elevator after the meeting with the lawyers, looking truly broken by his wife's abrupt abandonment. Do we get to explore her need to do this in spite of her husband's deep love for her? No, we get Liz's three-second look at his broken figure before she decides to run abroad an cavort with strangers who are meant to fix all her problems.



Throughout the film, Liz makes no real decisions; rather, she allows others to do the thinking for her, which makes for tiresome viewing. The writing and direction are aimless and sloppy. Far too much of the film is spent on her romance with a struggling actor, David (James Franco), who is more of a caricature than someone along the road who truly enlightens Liz and helps her on her journey. He's young. He's handsome. He follows an Indian guru (shrine adorning his apartment), sounds like a fortune cookie, and is a complete poser. He states he has never been to India, but he wants to one day, and spends his day looking sexily forlorn, a tortured soul, when, in fact, he's just like those wannabe Goths who shop at Hot Topic (except he's the hippie version). One day, he wakes up to find half of his bed empty. Where's Liz? She has moved herself to the floor beside the bed, looking like someone just killed her puppy. Again, she doesn't talk about the problem. She just moved her bed to the floor like a petulant child because, again, as with her husband, she's unfulfilled and wants to break up for no discernible reason. Okay, maybe Prozac is in order?



We are meant to take away from this romance the idea that David inspired Liz's trip to India. After all, she never would have known about that guru if it weren't for this poser. Get it, audience? Each person she meets is like a clue to the next spot on the treasure map. Get it? Except the character of David is so hastily written and lazily portrayed that the impact of his influence is negligible (seriously, James Franco looked like he phoned-in his scenes, and even he admitted recently that he knows the film is terrible and that he only did this film to have the experience of working with Julia Roberts).



The Italy chapter of the film is the most enjoyable, simply because it plays like a fun travelogue -- food porn, fun people, pretty sights. Here, we get a little break from Liz's overbearing personality. We meet some other characters who welcome Liz with open arms, and there are beautiful shots of quaint cafes and restaurants, plates of delicious food, and beautiful cityscapes. For once, we get to see Liz just ENJOYING herself without lashing out, and for a moment the audience can forget Liz as Liz; she's just an American enjoying Italy like any tourist would, looking at Italy with new eyes.



I expected the film to escalate and become even more profound as we head to India, but the narrative takes a serious and boring dip here. You know all the foodcentric tie-ins in the promotion of this movie? It ends with Italy, and it is understandable, seeing that Italy is the "eat" of the triumvirate, but since the spirituality aspects of India and Bali are so clumsily portrayed that one cannot help but feel cheated by the rest of the film. Okay, if we can't have genuine spirituality, at least show how decadent the other places are. There's more to India and Bali than ashrams and huts. It's as if the writers and filmmaker didn't know what to do about India. "Hm, what's India known for? Gods! And poor people. Okay, this part of the film will be about Gods and poor people. It'll be like a spiritual thang." So we have Liz living in an ashram, cleaning and doing practically nothing, and this is where she meets a Texan named Richard, played by the amazing Richard Jenkins, the highlight of the film. Though his character is paper-thin, Jenkins is so gifted and nuanced in his acting that he's able to flesh out a full character out of practically nothing. He's like your favorite uncle who wise-cracks and kicks you in the seat of your pants once in a while to set you straight. It is too bad that his character disappears rather quickly, which deflates the rest of the film. The writers try to flesh out India by introducing a 17-year-old girl forced into an arranged marriage (a heavy-handed parallel to Liz's own marriage, complete with flashbacks), but by then it is too late. Chapter 2 is already dead in the water. There's no spiritual enlightenment, just a disrespectful fast food approach to prayer and meditation. You just sit quietly, cross your legs, close your eyes, and spread your arms out. That's all, folks.



The film then skips abruptly to Bali, as if it did all it could do in India. Here we have the return of the toothless guru, who, like the Franco character, speaks like a fortune cookie and appears more like a stereotype more than anything else. Liz refers to him as "Yoda." He's quirky, speaks with an accent, wears a sarong, and reads your palm...OF COURSE he's enlightened! He's from Bali! He's infused with magic! All the houses have no walls. It's really weird here! When the quirkiness of Bali runs thin, it's time to introduce Felipe (Javier Bardem), an affectionate grizzly bear of a man who kisses his son on the mouth and cries at the drop of a hat. He's not American! He's Brazilian! Passionate! That's what Liz needs! But after his profession of his love, Liz immediately pulls away and starts screaming at him, feeling suffocated. Really, Liz? It's his fault for falling in love and cramping your style? How dare he say it! He's supposed to be passionate -- but to a point, to some invisible marker that Liz draws in the air. Here, Liz comes off as bipolar, running hot and cold at the drop of a hat without rhyme or reason; she is angry at anyone who doesn't read your mind. At this point, the film suffers even more because it is unclear to the audience WHY he's in love with her. He professes to be madly in love with Liz, but it's a head-scratcher why because we do not see her as very lovable at all. She's a screeching banshee of a woman who doesn't seem to be aware of her own motivations, so the relationship itself seems forced, and, by this time in the film, it is too late to build this relationship up as The Relationship in the entire film (yet it is, to the detriment of the narrative; it wasted far too much time with David before introducing Felipe late in the game). She runs away, but one last minute trip to the all-knowing toothless guru, who tells her to open her heart, magically clicks in her head (despite people saying this throughout the film), and she runs back to Felipe and they lived happily ever after.



The film never recovers from its biggest malaise: Liz is not sympathetic or relatable. We The Audience watch her cry, look empty, wander, and we can imagine what that's like from drawing on our own lives, but we do not FEEL for her because she isn't even active in her own life. Throughout the film, she is passive (funny, considering all the traveling she decides to do), but in every scene she doesn't seem to help herself, and feels like it is life's duty to provide others who will help her out of her slump. Liz begins the film financially comfortable, with an enviable job, a nice husband, a gorgeous home, and loving friends and family -- it will take some good strong storytelling to convince the audience why she feels unsatisfied. But the director and writers rely too much on the audience just being able to GET IT so the film can skip off to the three countries for the pretty shots. There is no compelling scene that shows Liz and her husband's true unfixable disconnect. We're just supposed to accept there is one from Liz's tears and blank stares at the wall and move on. There's nothing at all that convinces the audience that this gilded cage is suffocating; if anything, we understand Liz as a woman who just needs a good therapist and some volunteer work around the corner (but no, the film seems to say...you can't volunteer at home; you must have a profound experience with poor people abroad). The shot at the end of her ex-husband with a baby and new wife, strolling happily down the street, is meant to show the audience that Liz was right all along, that they were never meant to be, but it feels false and tacked-on instead of true vindication. The problem is, most people in the audience don't have the luxury of taking a year off to vacation in three countries to find themselves, so if you are going to make a film about an unfulfilled woman who CAN do all of this (and a film with merchandise tie-ins that include Buddhist prayer beads), itwould be nice for the filmmakers to make the point that happiness doesn't merely lie in stamps in your passport; rather, it's a journey you can take at home. You can meet wonderful people at your corner coffee shop and develop meaningful friendships. You can volunteer at a local shelter and find purpose. If you stopped enjoying food, you can find new recipes or cuisines to try. Unfortunately, the film clearly pushes the idea that for Liz, her existing family and friends aren't enough; she feels an ashram or guru is the secret of finding herself; and she even proclaims that the food in her current area doesn't do it for her anymore. The whole film reads like a commercial for the travel industry more than an illuminating lesson of a woman at a crossroads in her life that each audience member can apply to his or her own life.



In short, the film is like one of those gimmicky Zen boxes you see by the registers at Borders: watered-down to non-existence and insulting.

Posted on January 4, 2011

Charise Meyerson says...

I read and loved the book, or more accurately, I bought the audio book and Elizabeth Gilbert read her book to me. From my vantage point on the other side of midlife, I can say that Elizabeth has the same problem a lot of people have, they are in an unhappy relationship and think the problem is the other person. Of course, it never is entirely the other person but usually one doesn't discover this until after the second bad marriage.



Elizabeth chucked everything and went on a journey to herself. If you pay attention to the subtleties of the movie, she begins her enlightenment when it stops being about her and starts being about other people. Richard, who lived up the highway from here until his death recently was certainly a real person and was portrayed in the movie very much like in the book.



The scenes in Bali were spectacular. The miraculous healing potions of Wayan were as described in the book.



When the movie was over, I felt that it was a "little too neat" in that some of the angst and agonizing were omitted as side plots and not important to the main story but in the book they were very interesting. My companion (another woman who had not read the book) remarked that she was glad it wasn't a "love story". In my opinion it was a love story about learning to love yourself and open yourself up to life. A lesson we all need to be reminded of.



Do yourself a favor, read the book, see the movie, read her next book. Enjoy!

Posted on January 4, 2011

Flor Stecklair says...

This is a silly trifle of a movie.I love silly romantic dramedies, but this one tackles deep subjects with the cinematic equivalent of one of those little pink ice cream sample spoons.It's watchable, but not really worth the time.

Posted on January 4, 2011

Hope Mollins says...

Eat, Pray, Love was, first and foremost, boring.Nothing happened--no adventure, no enlightenment, no interesting conversations, no revelations, no self-discovery (or discovery of anything else, for that matter).



Second, this movie was trite.Reminiscent of the ego tripping of the 1960's, it added nothing new to any debate about anything--humanity, nature, individualism, all of these were possible topics.The movie touched on none of them.



Third, this movie was improbable.Liz wakes up one morning, deciding (for no ascertainable reason) to dump her husband and go on a year-long odyssey to discover something, or recover something, or whatever.She apparently has the funds to do this, which should come as a surprise to everyone (including herself) after her divorce.We certainly never see her worried about money or whether her mail will catch up with her, or how to pay her income taxes or credit card bills.In Italy, she eats pasta and moans about an increasing weight we certainly never see.In India, she stays on an ashram that seems to cater to spiritual tourists, but we never see her eating or sick.She never even gets dirty.In Bali, she takes on a huge commitment to transcribe ancient Balinese wisdom for a wise man, but abandons this endeavor without warning or excuse to spend three weeks (!) in bed with a handsome and very unusual Brazilian man.(When did any of you ever meet a gorgeous Brazilian man who was willing to be a househusband?)



Fourth, this movie represented selfishness and hypocrisy at extraordinary levels.She dumps her husband with no warning, no counseling, nothing.She goes where she wants and tramples upon whomever she wishes to crush.Given that she is on a mission of self-indulgence, it is shocking that she works to persuade a 17 year old Indian woman to marry the man her family has chosen for her.Why isn't this girl entitled to the same freedom that Liz feels is her own right?She does one thing that might be considered to be outside the solipsistic world she has created:she writes to her friends to ask them to donate money to a Balinese healer who desperately needs a house.But even that is staggeringly self-centered:she bases her request to them on the premise that, if she were in New York, her friends would be throwing a very expensive birthday party for her, to which they would bring expensive bottles of wine as gifts.What presumption!



In case you have read this far in this review, and in case, having read this far, you don't get the picture, this is a terrible movie.

Posted on January 8, 2011

Sandie Guise says...

Julie Roberts is a talented actress, and as such, she should have known better than to do this movie.I read the book, which was tolerable at times, and other times just the author going on completely self-centered, bipolar mania rants.The movie was far worse and far more dull.The main character's selfishness comes out more as well.By the title and plot of the movie, you would think the main character is out to find herself by losing herself in other cultures and finding solice in spirituality.But in reality, she is on a vojage to Neverland to escape her problems like a teenager fleeing impending responsibility.The movie portrays the irresponsible side even stronger, which makes the character completely unrelatable.All the parts of the book where the character somehow makes progress to "find herself" and has moments of spiritual progress have been cut out of the movie.This movie is rubbish.

Posted on January 9, 2011

Esteban Merrills says...

If you need a sleeping aid, don't take Tylenol PM, watch this instead.Eat, Pray, Love is the second worst movie I have ever seen.It is more interesting to watch your Uncle Rico eat, your Aunt Sarah pray, and even a nonexistent love life would be more interesting cinema than the nearly platonic love relationship of this movie.This movie has beautiful scenery as it is filmed in multiple countries, but a Google image search or travel magazines would produce the same effect.Furthermore, I though gurus were supposed to be wise and interesting.Highly disappointing.

Posted on January 9, 2011

Sandi Banis says...

I can't really add anything to the growing list of observations made by the mostly exasperated viewers of this film. A day after I watched this self-indulgent b.s., for some reason the movie Silkwood popped into my head, and I longed to see Cher sitting on that porch swing, giving the performance of a life time as Dolly Polliker. The observations of a poor lesbian in Texas may not sound like something that would present a transformational moment, but it moved me to tears; something that this movie could only hope to aspire to do in its dreams. If you want to wash away the memory of his disappointing performance in E.P.L., I suggest that you re-watch Milk to remind yourself of what tenderness James Franco is capable of portraying. Richard Jenkins gives the only authentic performance in this movie- not sure if it's worth slogging through an hour and twenty minutes to get to, but it's definitely the most moving part. If you want to go on a journey of real forgiveness and redemption try Big Fish. Billy Crudup,(the much- maligned caricature of a husband) gets a chance to shed the years of animosity he's felt towards his father by taking a trip through the fantastic stories he's spun over the years, in the hopes of de-bunking them all, only to discover that there's a grain of truth in every one. If you want to watch a movie that will inspire you to re-evaluate your relationships and then do everything that you can to create authentic connections within them, this is the one.

Posted on January 10, 2011

Jene Roose says...

what is fulfillment?

food? religion? travel? no,

just a good boning





















asdhcgaksdglguyiugavf

Posted on January 10, 2011