Reviews

19 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Celebrity (1998)
5/10
One of Allen's most disappointing
18 February 2004
Any director as prolific as Woody Allen is bound to have some successes and some failures. In this case, "Celebrity" is mostly a failure; it's not a terrible film, but when compared to most other Woody Allen movies it reveals itself to be a truly mediocre effort. While I don't have a problem with the grittiness that Allen has chosen to portray, and I don't think it's bad that the movie is in black & white, the movie itself just isn't very satisfying - there aren't very many funny or dramatic sequences. It sort of feels like Allen is going through the motions. For Woody fans only.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A film of jarring contrasts
15 February 2004
This is a drama, but there are also plenty of moments of comedy. The dramatic subject (which I won't get into because I don't want to spoil the story) is so wrenching and desperate that the contrast it has with the comedic aspects of the film can be quite jarring. But the picture comes together anyway, and this is among Woody Allen's best films at uniting moments of comedy with a darker, overall drama. All the acting is spectacular; especially enjoyable are two men who would later star in "Law and Order" - Jerry Orbach and Sam Waterston. Both do an excellent job.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A very average Allen film
14 February 2004
This fits right in the middle on a list ranking Woody Allen's movies... it's not that good, but not that bad, either. Of course, Woody Allen fans such as myself will contend that an average or 'mediocre' Allen movie is better than an average or 'mediocre' film that isn't by him; personally, I love his directing style, acting, and scripting... so I have to say that this is worth seeing, even though it doesn't come close to being one of his best movies.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Just plain fun
14 February 2004
The acting is particularly strong in this tale of a bumbling would-be crook and his wife. Allen and Ullman are a very likable pair, and the supporting cast is quite strong. Although the laughs are not constant, there are several of Woody Allen's classic one-liners and the fun atmosphere keeps the movie moving forward, although it probably could have stood a little more editing.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Surprisingly disturbing
14 February 2004
Although many people believe that Woody Allen plays basically the same character in all of his movies, this film proves that to be untrue; usually, Allen plays a soft-spoken, imperfect, frail, but basically good-hearted character who might do some things wrong but is still likable on most levels. In "Deconstructing Harry", he is much more dark, vulgar, and unlikable... for example, he swears quite a bit, which is unusual for a character played by Allen. Somehow, I didn't like this - while I personally have no problem with profanity, somehow hearing Allen doing it bothers me. I guess it sort of ruins the image of him I have in my head, even though I know it's a fictional image. The actual plot of this movie is quite clever, and there are a few great scenes, but many have found the film to be a bit disturbing in how it manipulates and darkens the classic Allen persona, and I have to agree.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Sorvino's acting saves this picture
14 February 2004
Mira Sorvino's fine turn as a ditzy hooker saves this film from mediocrity. While not a masterpiece, Woody Allen once again has constructed a solid, enjoyable, rather clever movie which features a strong cast. Fairly average for his work, but of course better than most of the movies out there.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A light but very fun comedy
14 February 2004
Woody Allen and Diane Keaton reunite in this fine film, and both are in top form. Although it largely abandons the angst-filled themes of many of Allen's earlier films, it replaces it with a playfulness and sense of fun which elevates the film above your standard comedy or mystery. Alan Alda is notable for his fine performance, as well.
29 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alice (1990)
5/10
One of Allen's most inconsequential works
14 February 2004
As a fan of Woody Allen I tend to see the better side of his works; a mediocre Allen movie is pretty good, in the larger scheme of things. And a bad Allen movie... well, it's mediocre, in the long run. This might well be described as a "bad" Woody Allen movie, so it might just as well be described as a mediocre film, overall. The acting is pretty solid although not spectacular, the script is lightweight, there isn't much in the way of humor, and there isn't much in the way of drama... yet it isn't terrible, either. I guess I would say that this is only for die-hard fans of Woody Allen, or of romances that have a twist of fantasy.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Another Woman (1988)
9/10
A masterwork
14 February 2004
The acting and script of this film are amazing. Even the music is haunting (Allen effectively uses everything from jazz to Bach to Eric Satie). Although "Interiors" may be the best known of Allen's melodramas, this one is very close behind in quality... I strongly recommend it.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
September (1987)
6/10
A somber meditation
14 February 2004
Basically, if you liked "Interiors" you will probably also enjoy this moody piece which features some fine performances and a lot of angst-filled speeches. On the other hand, if you didn't like "Interiors" you probably won't like this film either. Although it isn't as good as Allen's more famous melodrama, it comes close to being of equal quality, in terms of the acting; the script, however, leaves something to be desired. I'd recommend it if someone asked me, but I wouldn't go out of my way to try to get people to see it.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Zelig (1983)
7/10
A unique film experience
14 February 2004
"Zelig" has several very funny moments, but it is probably most memorable for its unique premise and its masterful execution. The cinematography is quite well done; this movie pairs Woody Allen with historical figures long before Forrest Gump ever met the President. The visual and auditory elements of the film lend it a strong air of authenticity, even though we know this is a comedic "fake" documentary. Every Woody Allen fan should give it a go.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Visually stunning
14 February 2004
Arbitrarily making a movie in black-and-white does not automatically mean it will be a visual masterpiece; however, in this case, the choice to film without color strongly enhances the film's visual presence. Shadows, silhouettes, and starkness all play an important role. The story itself is also fascinating, although the script is at times less than satisfying. This is probably one of Allen's best films, visually, but also one of his most mediocre, regarding other elements.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Manhattan (1979)
7/10
An artistic, if not comedic, triumph
14 February 2004
Visually this is one of Allen's best films; the opening sequence, paired with music by Gershwin, is classic. Speaking of music, the soundtrack to this film adds a lot to it. However, it doesn't work as a comedy quite as well many of Allen's other films; think of it more as a postcard to New York City, much as "Lost In Translation" is a postcard to Tokyo.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Annie Hall (1977)
6/10
Good, but probably overrated
14 February 2004
I am an ardent fan of Woody Allen, and I think most of his films are underrated. However, this is one of the few movies he did where the critical response was probably a bit too favorable. Not to say that this isn't a good movie, but Allen has made many better films, including "Love and Death", "Interiors", and the very comparable "Manhattan." Still, who am I to say that popular opinion is wrong? Allen deserves acclaim; this just wouldn't have been my pick as his "masterpiece".
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Possibly Allen's comic masterpiece
14 February 2004
Although the critics loved Annie Hall and some of Allen's other films more than this one, I think this is his best combination of comedy and philosophy. I would strongly recommend this to any fan of Russian history, comedy, philosophy, or Woody Allen.
43 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sleeper (1973)
8/10
Visual humor is the key
14 February 2004
This movie relies much more strongly on visual humor than many of Woody Allen's other works. It draws heavily on the tradition of silent film. Unfortunately, it never achieves the level of true genius that Allen is capable of; although better than the average comedy, it is far below the average quality of a Woody Allen work. I guess there must be something wrong with me, since most people I know really like this movie, but somehow it just falls a little flat.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
One of Allen's most hilarious films
14 February 2004
The multiple skits which make up this film vary in their level of humor and cleverness; however, almost all of them are at least very funny, and some are downright hilarious. While this may not be Allen's most philosophical or deep comedy, it certainly qualifies as, at least, a near-classic.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bananas (1971)
6/10
Comic purity marred only by time
14 February 2004
Although an obviously low budget might keep some from fully appreciating the comedy in this movie, I think most people who like Woody Allen should enjoy this movie very much. While it hasn't aged as well as some of Allen's other early films (particularly the classic "Love and Death") fans of his "earlier, funny" movies will definitely get a kick out of this one, which combines wacky visual comedy with a wry script.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Surprisingly durable
14 February 2004
Although Allen would refine his comedy in later films, incorporating more philosophy, this is a surprisingly funny piece which stands the test of time. While not a comedy classic from beginning to end, there are some timeless scenes. Also, take note of the music during a scene late in the film, which was later adapted to serve as the theme to the Austin Powers movies.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed