SYNOPSICS
Giulia e Giulia (1987) is a English,Italian movie. Peter Del Monte has directed this movie. Kathleen Turner,Gabriele Ferzetti,Gabriel Byrne,Angela Goodwin are the starring of this movie. It was released in 1987. Giulia e Giulia (1987) is considered one of the best Drama,Fantasy,Romance movie in India and around the world.
Julia, an American woman living in Italy, becomes depressed and traumatized after her husband Paolo is killed in a car accident on their wedding day. Six years later, Julia inexplicably finds herself sliding in time between two different worlds, where in one she is still struggling with her grief over Paolo's death, and in the other she is married to Paolo. In the latter time-line, Paolo is alive and well with their five year old son, and Julia is having an affair with a British gentleman named Daniel. The frequent supernatural sliding between these two worlds threaten to drive Julia crazy, as she begins having difficulty in telling them apart, and as she learns which world she is currently living in.
More
Giulia e Giulia (1987) Reviews
Sublimely and profoundly mesmerizing, Hitchcockian tale...
I'm a lifelong suspense/mystery fan, I do not enter this realm ill-prepared. Consequently, when I write that "Julia and Julia" is a very special film, I do not do so ill-advised. Our friend Alfred Hitchcock would have envied this fascinating, morbid tale of love found, tragically lost, yet found and lost again. And again. Serving as a hyper-psychological "thriller", it is far above simply that. Argueably, there is no strict filmic category for it. The story is of a woman's life after having lost her husband in a car crash on their honeymoon. It's also about a woman who chooses to have an illicit, extramarital affair with a perfect stranger. It's also about...well...you should decide for yourself. Direction and writing are both truly sublime. It is surreal, the viewer is left pondering aghast until the end, indeed way beyond. From a devout Hitchcockian, Julia and Julia is forever one of my all-time favorite movies.
Open ends not always are unfinished stories...
Julia and Julia has an interesting and well-developed plot, so I'm afraid to say that Sting's naked body isn't the best part of it! (sorry girls) The movie has some weak points (seems to be video/35 mm and the mix is a bit strange; the incidental music is a bit cheesy) but its strong points (original and thrilling story, smart structure and, most of all, the ending) help Julia & Julia to become a strange and enjoyable movie -something like David Lynch's flicks ancestor (Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, eg).
Interesting dualities and interesting questions
What makes this film interesting are the very things that some who reviewed it disliked. As it says in the Fun Stuff section, "First movie made on Video master using High Definition Video System (HDVS) at 1225 lines and then printed on 35 mm film format." It may not be that novel today, but remember... this film was released in 1987! I remember watching it. I remember how eerie it was. I didn't know that it was shot in high def; I didn't even know what that was. What struck me about it was how real it seemed. It didn't just have the look of TV. It had the look of a play. Live. In person. I found it disturbing. Perhaps the theme of "sliding between two worlds" and the questions of sanity vs. insanity have also become banal today. It wasn't that these were new themes, even then. But they weren't as outworn as they are today. Hollywood wasn't really into making blockbusters about mental breakdowns. That's a recent phenomenon. At that time, insanity was left to art house directors. Lynch has traditionally done a pretty good job with sanity vs. insanity. What's real? What isn't? That kind of crap. This film was novel, not because it was blockbuster with the insanity them (it was no blockbuster at all), but because for those who hadn't seen high def, films that questioned sanity... or both... this was something new and unnerving. The performances were great. You can't miss with Turner and Byrne... but Sting was great, too. Much as I hate to say it... he's really an excellent actor. It's always strange seeing him in a film. Isn't he a rock star? There's always that duality. Always that question... "Who am I seeing?" That echoes the "two worlds" insanity of Julia. It's a grossly underrated film. I think that people don't know how to watch it, if that makes sense. It's held up reasonably well over time. If you haven't already, check it out for yourself and see what you think.
Turner, Rotunno and Jarre make the film come alive
Kathleen Turner is notable; Rotunno's photography is mesmerising; and Jarre's score is pleasing. Even their combined contribution does not lift up the film to any great heights. It is interesting that Rotunno's work in so many films other than those of Fellini has often not been noticed.
Great for Sting lusters
Mindboggling storyline, beautiful photography, over the edge performance by Turner. The hard to follow logic could be a turn off but if you're a Sting fan, as always, he's a definite turn-on. Basically there as a sexual escapism for Turner's character, you will get to see Sting at his most erotic lovemaking, from panting start to orgasmic groans. Your best reward: Sting lying stomach down and completely naked in a beautifully dawn-lit shot. The scene is short, but Sting's golden hairy buttocks will stay with you forever!