The Best of Meryl Streep

Yes, it's melodramatic. With a performance like Streep's, it doesn't matter. She is not only the finest actress of her generation, but this may be the performance held above any actress of any generation. The rating, while it should be for the encompassing film is elevated because of Streep's greatest performance.

A charming, well-acted little film. It's kinda like an hor'douerve though, it's good, but it's not quite filling and you're left wanting a bit more. A nice diversion, I guess.

The meaty portion of the film comes from Meryl Streep and her homage to Julia Child. She is Julia Child and it's amazing to watch her nail the woman's charm, her voice, her charisma, her mannerisms, and her vivaciousness. Yet, she isn't just channeling her or mimicking her, it's more than that. It's a recreation. It's a visualized version of everything we would expect and hope Julia Child to be. I feel we're seeing Meryl's version of Julia as the way Julie saw and felt her while she was doing her recipes. I'm sure Oscar will come knocking once again.
The fluffy portion comes from the side of the character of Julie Powell. It's not that Amy Adams does not play her well, she does, nor is her side completely uninteresting, it's actually not, it's just that Meryl playing Julia is so much more interesting than Amy playing Julie.

They way they brought their two stories together, by their rises and falls, was intriguing and I liked it, and while the two stories followed their parallel paths very nicely, perfectly almost, they were both were without some force of nature, some deus ex machina, some conflict that helped the film a little more with its cohesiveness (except, at the end, where the stories almost come together when an older Julia commented to some reporter saying she felt what Julie was doing was disrespectful). I know that Julie felt like she was getting to know Julia throughout that year of doing her recipes, but that's not really enough to help the film come together (but maybe a second viewing might prove me wrong).
Still, the filmmakers, the actors, and especially the screenplay, do a good enough job of getting by without it and what we end up with is a very good trifle of a movie. Meryl Streep makes the film and it's wonderful to watch her mastery.

I know it's a chick flick but it's great. Meryl Streep is one of the best and proves it with a comedy...something actors usually don't get noted for.

Even if it's not the envelope pusher it was back in 1979, divorce now being such a regular event, Kramer vs. Kramer is still a very competent drama full of terrific (and Oscar-winning) performances. There's nothing here that's going to bowl you over immediately. It's by no means, a "Wow!" kind of film, something that strikes you right off, but what you have here is intelligent filmmaking, with craft attached to it, and heart.

What is impressive with the film is its reluctance to takes sides. We are given the father's point of view throughout the whole film as he struggles to being an only parent and having a job. (Dustin Hoffman and the boy, Justin Henry, have exceptional chemistry.) Streep's character returns in the latter part of the film because she wants her son, and now she is this liberated, stabilized woman who know can have her son back in her life. But throughout the trial, even though you are supposed to hate her, because we've been with Hoffman's character the whole time, we can see how both parents are equally fit to raise the child on their own; we can see both points of view. So, even though the courts decide in Joanna's favor, it is the last scene when she gives that custody back to Ted that we see the what it is at the heart of the film. Neither sex is more fit to raise a child, it is only dependent upon the situation in which the family is in. Strong, almost divisive commentary for a time in which women's lib. was in its peek.

And the true-life villain here... the child custody proceedings.

An awesome mind-trip. The three leads shine with Nicolas Cage giving the best performance of his career.

Terrifically well made docu-drama which captures Meryl Streep and Sam Neill in great form. Streep does not have an easy role. This is a woman you feel sorry for in principal, for what she's gone through, but as she sets up walls and bottles up her anger into an icy stare, she becomes a woman that doesn't look the part of a grieving mother, and thus, in some respects, gets the ire she deserves. Streep plays this delicate balance of a role perfectly and understatedly, and her scenes on the stand are intense.

What was intriguing about the film was how it did not pander to the Chamberlain family. In these kind of films, the "good guys" have been accused of something bad and are put into a good light, but here, we get an unbiased look at the event itself, and then, how their lives were shredded both privately and publicly. Adding to the film, was some impressive cinematography. First with the landscapes at the beginning, but later, we get a lot of shots that are set up with Lindy, Michael, and even a few with their sons as though they're behind bars. This, of course, is a foreshadowing of things to come with her guilty conviction, but also shows how crippling an effect this incident was having on her, and on them. What I also found well structured within the film was the various insertions of the thoughts of the Australian people, here and there, commenting on the case and what they felt about the this woman and the supposed dingo that killed her baby. It gives the audience a feel as to what this trial was doing to the Australian public and how much of an impact this scandal had on each and every citizen. Not to mention, these small moments give us a bird's eye view into how the rumors of her possibly being guilty got started, from the media to public and back and forth, and how powerful of an influence this was during her trial and conviction.

The ideas are big here and the film is almost able to handle it. The dialogue is aggressive, with all four major players giving Oscar-worthy performances.

Streep is a regular at this, yet you can't help but be awed by her, especially in a year where she has a complete opposite character in Momma Mia. Her face seems to be made of stone, hot iron anger when provoked. Eyes are the key to an actor and that's where Streep develops her character. They're hard, usually red, with lines, and yet, in the wall her character builds, they seem to be hiding something, something that may be a key relating her past events to the present ones taking place. Only in her last moments, does she bring down that wall, proving she does have doubts (forced scene though), but it doesn't seem to be about Father Flynn, but about the God she claims is the reason for her life and profession.

Hoffman again gives a delicately balanced performance. I thought there wasn't much to his performance originally, but what he creates is an equal amount of scenes where you feel he might be guilty of the crime he's accused and then there are scenes where he seems honest in his denial of it all. His last scene with Streep doesn't exactly give a conclusive answer, but it does show us that something... happened. It's his performance that seems to be the most clouded, and he does well to keep us on our mental toes.

Amy Adams breaks through into hardcore dramatic fare and bares an emotionally heartfelt performance as Sister James. It's not a "wowie" kind of performance, but the kind of acting that used to be rewarded regularly; a character that has no special ticks or irregularities, just normalcy. Adams brings this out in James and shows her to be a woman of virtue, respect and kindness (as Flynn points out), especially in the revealing scene where she yells at a boy in her class, she can't help but slightly break down, showing the fight of not becoming like the hardened tyrant Aloysius.

And finally the film's best scene comes from Viola Davis who treats the obstreperous Sister Aloysius with a combination of deference and fight that seems to throw her of her most certain pedestal. Streep's character expects her to just roll over and accept what she believes Father Flynn is guilty of. That's exactly what Mrs. Miller doesn't do; she fights for her son's well-being, fully believing that Father Flynn is no more than just a protector for a lonely boy. She believes that even though things might seem conspicuous, "it's only 'til June." Yet, she seems like she's hiding something her, and that, in itself, gives me the most doubt of all. She says his father would most certainly beat him for this (having already beaten him for being caught with the wine), what can she be hiding about her son? What goes on behind the closed doors of their house. This we cannot know.

Shanley proves himself a worthy first-time screenwriter and director, even though at times there is the occasional rigidness which comes with a play being adapted for the screen. The cinematography from Roger Deakins is exquisite and should be getting more attention; the fifth star on display here. All in all, an excellent film that, for the most part, conveys itself extremely well. That said, when a film goes for the large ideas as are presented here, it will get its fair share of criticism mixed with praise, yet I give it major applause for even trying to achieve this kind of depth. Maybe it was a better as a play, and it probably was, but it's certainly competent on the screen and proves it.

Woody is so brilliant. While deliberately more artistic than most of his other films, you can't help but feel a closeness with these characters, just as with his others. Each character represents outwardly what we all keep inside: they're annoying at first - how we look at some people when we first meet them - but as the relationships become more advanced, so do the people and they end up being just as complex and powerful as real individuals. What I also love is the film doesn't really follow the conventional beginning, rising action, climax, falling action telling of a story. It's like life, it's overall pretty steady. The black and white cinematography of NY is absolutely beautiful and his use of music has always been a highlight, but his choices here are impeccable.

Still, that said, Annie Hall is still my favorite.

A parent film of sorts to Platoon, Deer Hunter shows how war can have a myriad of effects. De Niro is great as usual, Streep gives a beautifully quiet performance, but Christopher Walken blows you away. The fim's one downfall is its length.

A very strong remake of a classic. The cast, especially the main three all turn in fine work (Meryl Streep is a villainess to the core and it's incredible to watch!). They've tweaked it, modernized it, and yet all the power of the original's motives/themes are still contained here. Demme masterfully evokes some of the psychological mind-gaming that he used so well in The Silence of the Lambs.

What is a very strong, layered drama which is anchored by three great ladies and supported by a heck of a cast. The balance between the three story-lines and their connections are handled very nicely within the script. Kidman won the Oscar here, but I think Streep and Moore turn in the better performances.

Quite appropriate that this ended up being Robert Altman's last film. The film speaks of last days, tearful farewells and saying goodbye. It was like Altman was saying his goodbyes with this film.

But, the true tone of the film is light, comedic, and has a touch of the ethereal. The ensemble cast is spectacular and Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin are a delight as a singing sister duo. The film is charming and contagious and it's part scripted screenplay, part {this has to be] improv element, the director's trademark of sorts, serves the film very well.

A fun movie. Both Hawn and Streep are comicly evil, and it was fun to see Willis as this sort of bumbling idiot.

It's so nice to see a movie where you can tell the people on the screen are having just as good a time as the people in the seats. Meryl Streep gets major props for finally getting in a musical like she always wanted. She can deliver both showstoppers and pratfalls. Everybody else seemed to be able to carry a tune (well, except for Brosnan), too. While I enjoyed it for the most part, it still felt weaker compared to some of the other recent musicals.

I love the books. The movie's pretty good too. One of Jim Carrey's best.

I didn't find this as bad as it was cracked up to be (it's just not gonna be horrible when you have that talented of a leading and supporting cast). Cruise was great, as was Redford, but Streep seemed off the wall; I couldn't tell whether she was supposed to mock the liberal journalist type (the pad of nothing except for "Whatever it takes"), or play it as for real (the rant in her editor's office which was way over the top). While I think there were some good ideas, the screenplay was just never meant to hold three story lines in only 90 minutes, and thus seemed to confused as to how to hold itself.

The best aspect of the film was Redford's conversation with his student. The war elements were by far the worst part, as they looked completely fake.

This was not as bad I heard from some that it was. It was said that Witherspoon and Gyllenhaal coasted and in a way that's true, but, actually, its an ensemble cast and their characters were just not left to develop. Meryl Streep is good, but a one-dimensional villain and I'm pretty sure her accent wavered from scene to scene. It seemed like she was trying to channel Devil Wears Prada and it just didn't work. The most impressive part of the film was the Middle-Eastern section which ended up being a nice little twist. Overall, not bad, but...ehhh...could've been better on the American side of things.