Went to the movies on Wednesday and watched Julia. I don’t think I’m able to really write a coherent review, it will be more like a collection of my thoughts.
It’s a good movie, with some minor flaws.
It could have been half an hour shorter, but it wasn’t boring. It was more like “I know, this is not going to end well, so why don’t you show me already?”.
Without Tilda Swinton and Aidan Gould (and to a certain extent Kate del Castillo), it would have been a really tedious watch. But they were there and to watch their relationships grow and change was what made this movie so good.
The story was pretty realistic. Not necessarily what happened, but how it happened. Which is the reason why this movie certainly is no “feel good, don’t think” film.
Did I mention already that Tilda Swinton was amazing? Because she was. And, weird as it may sounds, she looked really pretty as the wrecked alcoholic she played. That woman has legs…
It is definitely worth a watch, but I don’t think I want to see it again. Although, …
8/10
It had the ability to make you forget that the picture quality was not really good.
Does this make any sense to anybody but me?
kalafudra's Stuff 
The part where you said Tilda Swinton has got amazing legs totally makes sense to me. Jokes apart, what do you mean by picture quality? Was it graded? Bad resolution?
It was kind of a low budget movie and they didn’t have the best cameras, so yeah, partly the resolution was bad, it was a bit grainy and they used handcameras more than I like it. [But then, my “pain” threshold for hand cameras is pretty low.]