Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris begins with a five-minute montage of the beautiful sights and parks of Paris. I'm not sure you knew this, but Paris is a very pretty city; there are lots of nice buildings and some lovely parks there. (Strangely, Woody's shots have no people in them... I guess he likes the places more than the people... well, they smell, I guess.) To say this opening is an allusion to the intro to Manhattan, would be to miss the point of this movie.
When basically every scene of a film is taken from one's own oeuvre, they stop being allusions and start being tedious, uninspired, self-promotion. There is nothing fresh in Midnight in Paris, aside from the fact that it's set in Paris and not New York (or London). This is a dull movie with a bizarre, simplistic moral lesson.
Gil, (Owen Wilson) is the Woody character here, is a screenwriter about to marry Inez (Rachel McAdams), a WASP with two super WASPy paretns. They are all on vacation in Paris while Inez's dad finalizes a business deal. Gil, the only cosmopolitan screenwriter in history to have never been to Paris, talks nonstop, mostly about his love for old-timey Paris, when great writers and artists mingled in jazz clubs. One night, when wandering the streets at midnight, he is picked up in an old car and dropped off at a party in the 1920s where he meets F. Scott Fitzgerald, Zelda Fitzgerald and Cole Porter. Somehow Gil is living between the two time periods.
Over the course of several nights he meets basically everyone who was living in Paris at that time, Hemmingway, Picasso, Bunuel, Dali, Gertrude Stein, Alice B. Tolkas, Josephine Baker and Man Ray (to name just a few). They help him "finish his novel" and come to realize what is really important in his life. During the daylight hours, meanwhile, he goes on field trips with Inez or avoids her as his heart changes regarding.
Gil is basically like every other nebbishy Woody character you've ever seen on screen. There are brief moments where Inez and him meet Paul (Michael Sheen), a guy who she had a crush on in college, an his girlfriend Carol (Nina Arianda). These scenes are pulled almost verbatim from Crimes and Misdemeanors, where Woody hates Alan Alda and everything he has to say.
I would compliment Wilson on his performance, but it's become so cliche to have a non-Woody actor playing Woody, that I don't think it takes much talent to do - it's basically just an impersonation blessed by the subject (deeper levels of self-obsession). I will say that Arianda is actually really funny and, after seeing her recently on Broadway in Born Yesterday, I can say she really does have something great going for her. She's probably the highlight of the film... and she's in three scenes for about eight minutes.
We never really see much of Paris after that opening montage. Most of the film is shot at night and on sound stages. I'm not convinced this is as much the love letter to Paris that many are making it out to be. It's sort of a love letter to the mentally limited who think that the best time is never now, but always in the past.
Assuming Gil comes to the conclusions he comes to after deep reflection (and not actually talking with Hemmingway), it's an admirable thing. But why then does Woody have to frame it in such a banal context? When was the last time you saw a character of Woody's creation have a deep moment of self-reflection or self-anaysis? Why does he have to put the agency for Gil's changes in the hands of others? Why is Gil with Inez in the first place? They seem to have nothing in common.
I've almost totally forgotten this movie already. The narrative is so silly, it could have been written as a children's book, and the lessons to come out of the story, could have been given by anyone with a rooting interest in Gil's happiness. The style is as flaccid as Woody has been in the last two decades. He really should retire and stop wasting our time.
Stars: 1 of 4
Woody forgot how to make movies etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
Woody forgot how to make movies etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
15 Haziran 2011 Çarşamba
2 Ekim 2010 Cumartesi
You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger (Saturday, October 2, 2010) (128)
Once more into the breach, dear friends. Woody Allen is at it again in You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, the most recent item of evidence presented in the desperate case for his long-overdue retirement. This time the story is set in London (I guess he's finally paying attention to Manhattan's pleas to stop making movies in her) with a much too complicated ensemble-cast story.
Sally (Naomi Watts) is a woman in her 30s who lives in London with her American husband Roy (Josh Brolin). She works in an art gallery and her husband, who finished medical school but is not a doctor, is an unsuccessful novelist. They are supported by her mother, Helena (Gemma Jones), a divorced woman in her 60s who regularly goes to see a fortune teller (played by Pauline Collins) to look into the future. Her father, Alfie (Anthony Hopkins), left her mother during some sort of mid-life crisis and now is married to an ex-hooker named Charmaine (Lucy Punch).
None of them are happy with their lives and all of them are looking to improve their situations, either through sex with new people (Roy falls in love with he neighbor, played by the magnificent Freida Pinto; Sally falls in love with her boss, played by Antonio Banderas) or major career moves (Roy steals a dead friend's book and publishes it as his own; Sally wants to open her own art gallery with a friend). I guess the inside joke in the film is that Helena is just about as overbearing as a WASP as a Jewish mother would be, were the film typically set in New York. Who cares?!
Woody has this idea that men sit around in groups at cafes, pubs and poker tables talking about stuff. This doesn't really happen. Men sit around bars or dens and watch football games, but men don't really gossip the way they do in his movies. Sometimes this construction works in his films (like in Broadway Danny Rose), but most of the time it's just dumb (like in Whatever Works or here). Beyond this, it is totally unclear why Roy lives in London and not New York. Why do we need an American in the cast at all? Having him in the story brings up more questions than it answers.
More than anything, this film is totally unmemorable and lacks any emotional or sensory connection to anything. I feel like I've seen this film six times already from Woody (Oh - a guy upset in his marriage - maybe it's Husbands and Wives, or Crimes and Misdemeanors, or Match Point - ugh).
The film has no style to is and the script is just recycled. At times I feel that he makes movies as an excuse to work with talented actors he hasn't worked with before (like Freida Pinto or Pauline Collins). But I wish he would either write better material for them or hold off on making two movies a year to make a great movie and really show off the actors' abilities. This is not a movie that I was begging for him to make. I've already almost totally forgotten I saw it.
Stars: 2 of 4
Sally (Naomi Watts) is a woman in her 30s who lives in London with her American husband Roy (Josh Brolin). She works in an art gallery and her husband, who finished medical school but is not a doctor, is an unsuccessful novelist. They are supported by her mother, Helena (Gemma Jones), a divorced woman in her 60s who regularly goes to see a fortune teller (played by Pauline Collins) to look into the future. Her father, Alfie (Anthony Hopkins), left her mother during some sort of mid-life crisis and now is married to an ex-hooker named Charmaine (Lucy Punch).
None of them are happy with their lives and all of them are looking to improve their situations, either through sex with new people (Roy falls in love with he neighbor, played by the magnificent Freida Pinto; Sally falls in love with her boss, played by Antonio Banderas) or major career moves (Roy steals a dead friend's book and publishes it as his own; Sally wants to open her own art gallery with a friend). I guess the inside joke in the film is that Helena is just about as overbearing as a WASP as a Jewish mother would be, were the film typically set in New York. Who cares?!
Woody has this idea that men sit around in groups at cafes, pubs and poker tables talking about stuff. This doesn't really happen. Men sit around bars or dens and watch football games, but men don't really gossip the way they do in his movies. Sometimes this construction works in his films (like in Broadway Danny Rose), but most of the time it's just dumb (like in Whatever Works or here). Beyond this, it is totally unclear why Roy lives in London and not New York. Why do we need an American in the cast at all? Having him in the story brings up more questions than it answers.
More than anything, this film is totally unmemorable and lacks any emotional or sensory connection to anything. I feel like I've seen this film six times already from Woody (Oh - a guy upset in his marriage - maybe it's Husbands and Wives, or Crimes and Misdemeanors, or Match Point - ugh).
The film has no style to is and the script is just recycled. At times I feel that he makes movies as an excuse to work with talented actors he hasn't worked with before (like Freida Pinto or Pauline Collins). But I wish he would either write better material for them or hold off on making two movies a year to make a great movie and really show off the actors' abilities. This is not a movie that I was begging for him to make. I've already almost totally forgotten I saw it.
Stars: 2 of 4
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)