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.

When I first saw this movie in my 20s I thought it was about a bold, confident woman who runs away to travel and learn about life and love. Watching it in my 30s is a completely different story. Do I agree with all the other reviewers that our leading lady is selfish for leaving her husband, being flaky and indecisive? Yes. Do I think she's wrong for being all that? No.

What this movie showcases is the reality of life choices, as well as the pressure and obligations of society. At the start she questions if she wants kids, if she wants to even be married. She's in her 40s and still not being true to herself. She's never had that "aha" moment where you feel you're on the right path. It's a commonality that a lot of people who don't have a strong sense of self will use a romantic partner to help feel more whole. However there does eventually come a point where you question if you really are truly being accepted by your partner or whether they love you because you made yourself out to be what they wanted. Julia Roberts in this role is very clearly that type that has been a chameleon in relationships, as is witnessed with her first marriage and subsequent partners following. Even her good friend states the obvious.

To me this isn't about a woman traveling the world and finding her soulmate. Cause to be honest, it's not a romance in the slightest. It's a narrative about the imperfect relationship we all have with ourselves. How we eventually learn to accept and work with ourselves, our wants and desires.

It's a good film if you've been dealing with identity issues. Julia Roberts isn't a hero or someone to look up to, but what is admirable is that she does actually take the chance of experiencing self discovery, as opposed to remaining unhappily settled, as many people do. People do change and generally it's important to find a relationship that allows you to grow, but if you don't even know who you are then how are you expected to find that sort of relationship?

What this movie is getting at is that the relationship with yourself is THE most important relationship in your life.

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.

Liz Gilbert (Julia Roberts) is a modern woman with a husband, a job, and a house. Then she divorces her husband. Confused and lost, she sets off on a quest for enlightenment.

Ryan Murphy wrote and directed this film based on the popular book. I don't know if there's anything especially offensive to me (moviewise) in this movie, but I don't find it involving. It feels very bourgeois. And it goes so slowly. She's so full of herself. Julia Roberts just doesn't give a sense of somebody in crisis. Can boredom be a crisis? That's what it seems to be. If there is one movie thing that I object to, it's the narration. There's nothing more boring than being told how unfulfilled you are in narration. It doesn't make the movie any better.

I love travelogues and I'm a fan of Julia Roberts but, what happened here? I'm not sure in what period, time wise, it this set. The only turmoil seems to be in this very selfish forty-something. What about the rest of the world? She goes for a sort of journey of discovery in a world that doesn't really exist. Did I miss something? No wars, no economic crisis, no nothing, only the intimate qualm of a woman who I, personally, cannot feel represented by. I grant you I'm from another generation but, please! What is this. I loved the food and Javier Bardem and it is in fact the Bardem episode that brings some kind of recognizable something to the proceedings. So, let me recapitulate and ask you if we've seen the same movie...A woman facing an existential crisis and moves out from her marital abode without even having a discussion about it with her husband - a scrumptious Billy Crudup - then she has an affair with James Franco - who wouldn't, right? - but the Franco in this movie is just a plain reflection of the Franco from "Milk" just to name one title. The Naples presented here seems out of the mind of someone who's never been to Naples. I don't know what to say. I'm a bit puzzled and, I should confess, a bit annoyed.