Biutiful? Really? One of the most unpleasant movies I've ever seen. But I agree Javier Bardem is a great actor. That psycho from No Country for Old Men is charming? Woody seems to be batting .333 these days and Vicky Cristina Barcelona was one of the hits.
"Biutiful" is hard to watch. It's tragic, and I can't say I "enjoy" it, but I'd rather watch that than most things. Really makes my cold, black heart feel....things...
My two cents on "Whatever Works": This may be the Woody Allen film where my subjective opinion (how much I personally enjoy the film) and my theoretically objective opinion (how "good" I think the film is) are widest apart. I think this film suffers from some obvious weaknesses but it really hits the spot for me personally. When we were discussing "Match Point" I was lamenting how Woody kept going back to "Crime and Punishment" for inspiration when he could have tackled "Notes From Underground", but I had forgotten how much Boris Yellnikoff and the Underground Man have in common. Misanthropy. Hypochondria. Delusions of intellectual grandeur. General disdain for the whole of humanity, particularly doctors. Yes, Boris at least has some friends, and is funnier than the UM, and despite mocking her intellect, he treats Melodie far better than the UM treats the young woman that he takes under his wing. But there's a lot of UM in Boris, and the UM, I hate to admit, is my favorite Dostoyevsky character. Boris isn't exactly a stretch for Larry David to play (Will Ferrell would have played it with a limp), and for the most part when he's able to spew rather than act (which is most of the film), he's just fine. And when he does have to act, sometimes he's actually pretty touching (when Melodie dumps him), and other times (the anxiety attacks) he hits pretty wide of the mark ("Oh the horror!" indeed). Evan Rachel Wood is nearly as funny as her dim-witted predecessors in "Bullets Over Broadway" and "Mighty Aphrodite", but is also quite sweet. And at least their ridiculous age difference is directly addressed in the film (and likely plays a role in their breakup). I find the film quite funny, even downright witty at times, and I like that it isn't "the feel good movie of the year". "Lucky Kurtz didn't have The Times delivered in the jungle" I've seen mention of the script dating from the "early 70s", and while Woody could have written it with Zero Mostel in mind before working with him on "The Front", I lean towards the notion that it dates from after that film (with no proof, I might add). I can see this script as something pushed aside when "Annie Hall" came to fruition, and this film is WAY more about anhedonia (the inability to experience pleasure) than the film that supposedly had that working title. As much as I like Boris as a character, I really like when Melodie's new man shoots a hole in her admiration for Boris in one sentence - "You mistake his despair for wisdom". Finally, I have to say that this film has just a touch of guilty pleasure to it. A guilty pleasure because, as one negative review aptly put it, this film is an exercise in "liberal wish fulfillment". Southerners, church-goers, NRA members - Woody sets them all up as the lightest of light weight straw men, and he knocks them all over in a matter of minutes. They throw their lifelong beliefs, allegiances, sexual morals, and even sexual orientation away so quickly that you'd miss it if you got up to get popcorn. Yes, I know, it's just a comedy (and my "team" - go Liberals! - wins every confrontation, decisively), but I don't know how much I'd enjoy it if the shoe was on the other foot. If there was anyone left on the other side of aisle to alienate, Woody alienated them in this film. In closing this magnum opus, I'll add that I value the message at the heart of the movie - "whatever works ... whatever happiness you can filch ... etc. etc." Assuming this script does pre-date his relationship with Soon-Yi by 15+ years, it was rather prescient in that regard.
Once again, we are poles apart... I was a late convert to Seinfeld, content with my belief that ALL sitcoms from about 1985-onward were idiotic. But I came around. "Curb Your Enthusiasm", while occasionally a touch too raunchy for my tastes, is one of the funniest shows I've seen in years (the "Christ Nail" episode, in particular, was both enormously funny, and perhaps the ballsiest script I'd seen on a major network in memory). So, the idea of Larry David - and Michael McKean! - in Woody's next film gave this eternal pessimist some relatively high hopes for the film... And I think it's AWFUL. As much as I despise Anything Else, at least that film has some funny bits from Woody's character. I might have laughed twice tonight (but even one of those was tainted, because it was from the trailer ("He's a decorator")), three times at most. The "inchworm" and "cockroach" and "microbe" insults that were so hilarious in Jade Scorpion return five-fold here - and that's not a good thing. The first time Boris sings "happy birthday to you" while washing his hands isn't funny, it's asinine. When he does it for the third or fourth time, it's simply excruciating. While I, too, get some vicarious enjoyment from the "liberal wish fulfillment" in the film, I think I hate all the characters more than Boris hates humanity. Harry Block was a nasty character, with contempt for nearly everyone, but his searing putdowns were eminently quotable - Boris shows 1/100th of that wit, if that. I actually find this film so bad, that I'm offended by it, and I'm not easily offended. After Melody parrots back his views on society, he suddenly sees the light and marries her. Then he continues to talk about how she likely doesn't understand the films he takes her to, etc. I always thought Anything Else couldn't be bottomed, but this film gives it a serious run for the money - Woody at his absolute worst.
I tried four times to "like" your post, but the software refuses to (it went through on about the 7th try). Apparently even the artificial intelligence has more taste than you. I fully expected others to not enjoy this film as much as I, but I really didn't expect anyone to conjure up "Anything Else" or "Jade Scorpion" (really? seriously?) in its presence! I thought that Patricia Clarkson's reaction to Boris washing his hands for the whatever time was quite funny. And I found the notion of Melodie finding "wisdom" in Boris' whiny misanthropy funny as well - and not out of the realm of reality at all from my experiences. This is a film I expect to like less every time I watch it, but I seem to always come out of it liking more. Since it's on YouTube, I got to do the last rewatch on my tablet while on the elliptical and the stationary bike. I actually suppressed laughter a number of times so as not to draw attention to myself. And if I can filch some laughs during 90 minutes of cardio, it's a good thing. I'm reluctant to say that I find the film funnier than most because I see some Boris in me (I'd stop short of saying A LOT of Boris), but that may be the answer here.
Really! Seriously! "Hollywood Ending" looks like "The Player" compared to this movie. "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion" like ... "The Maltese Falcon". "Alice" is ... "Elizabeth". I think you're just unwilling to admit the underlying reason this movie appeals to you, because it will make you come face-to-face with a darker reality about yourself. Secretly, you must love the scene at the wax museum, where our lead characters play out a scene in front of wax replicas of President Reagan, President Bush and President...
I'm having this recurring nightmare that I leave New York for Louisiana, join the NRA, get religion, cut my long hair, start frequenting fish fries, and throw my support behind the gentleman portrayed above. Of course I know that you suggesting "Alice" > "Whatever Works" is just inverse obsequious banter. I will throw out there, though, that in my pantheon of Allen, "Whatever Works" > "Midnight in Paris", and I say that with all sincerity and due respect.
I guess this would be the appropriate chronological spot for my little personal Woody story. As I mentioned in my post about "Melinda and Melinda", I was teaching at a school right near Woody's 5th Avenue apartment, and I passed Woody and Soon-Yi a number of times on the street, often with their daughter (and later her younger sister) in a stroller. Working on the Upper East Side for so many years, I saw or walked past a number of famous people, including some whose work I really admired (David Crosby, Elvis Costello, Jerry Seinfeld, Neil Young). I always opted for leaving them alone, which is a fairly standard Manhattan thing anyway. Some time between "Whatever Works" and "You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger", word came to me that Woody and Soon-Yi were touring our school and considering it for one of their daughters. You can see both of their daughters, by the way, very briefly in "Tall Dark Stranger", right before Josh Brolin breaks in to steal the manuscript, and one of his daughters is also seen briefly in the airport scene in "To Rome, With Love". As it came to pass, they did choose our school, and I started teaching one of their children just before "Tall Dark Stranger" came out. That aspect of my experience isn't fodder for discussion here, but I bring this all up to get to the "punchline". Having been a coach, teacher, athletic director, etc. for many years, I had given probably 100 speeches to parents over the years (not to mention all the public speaking I did on behalf of my writing). I was (and still am) very comfortable as a public speaker, and I like to think that whenever I am on a panel of speakers I will be the most entertaining because I bring some humor and wit to the proceedings. After 4 or 5 department chairs before me had given cookie cutter speeches about their "exciting" plans for the academic year, I would jolt the audience awake with a joke or a seeming non-sequitur that I would slowly bring into focus and relevance in an entertaining way. So on "parent night" that year, I was confidently prepared for speech #101. I was going to open with a joke, as usual, and was convinced I would "kill". I didn't really plan on Woody Allen being in the audience, though. And shortly before "show time", there he was with his wife (I would say "with his wife on his arm", but it actually was the other way around - he looked frail up close, and he seemed to be leaning strongly on her - maybe because, as he always claims, he really is a shy person who greatly dislikes public events). After some mingling, the speeches got started, and Woody and Soon-Yi sat on the aisle in the 3rd row, which was maybe 10 feet from the lectern. As other people spoke, I experienced a very uncommon wave of stage nerves, and I was debating in my mind just how funny my opening joke was (and at this point today I can't remember what it even was). My brain suddenly got to the heart of the matter - did I really have the nerve to think I could tell a joke to one of the funniest men who ever roamed the planet? In the end, the answer turned out to be "no". For the first time in all my years of speeches, I cut the joke entirely and gave the dullest, most cookie cutter speech of them all. That year I taught Existentialist Literature of East Europe, and my curriculum was Tolstoy, Kafka, Dostoyevsky, and Allen ("Crimes and Misdemeanors"). I made some initial inquiries about asking Woody to come in and speak to my class, knowing it was a long shot, but I quickly let it drop, in the spirit of my leaving famous people alone policy. I know, not exactly a screen play worthy story!
As I read this, I was really rooting for you - "Tell the joke!" then I had a vision of you nervously shuffling notecards and mopping your brow - "Why do they call it Ovaltine? The mug is round... The jar is round... They should call it Roundtine."
Yeah, this comedy stuff is easy ... "Did you ever notice ... blah blah blah". I'm sure the joke would have gone over (they always did) but I was pathetically intimidated ... by a frail 75-year-old man. But who knows, he might have had a gub.
2011 - "You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger" My impression of this film is that it commits a sin no other Woody Allen written & directed film does, even the reviled "Hollywood Ending" - it is just plain DULL. It's almost never funny, you never really get invested in the characters - there's just not a lot here to like, IMO. First off, the narrator is back, and more annoying than ever. Secondly, there is the dialog. As I rewatched the film I just scribbled down some instances where characters TELL you how they are feeling, instead of just acting that way and letting you figure it out - "I'm speechless", "I'm a wreck", "I'm in a state of shock", and, my favorite, "He's on tenterhooks". We get the moments that seem very familiar. The entire Anthony Hopkins story line is a more or less retread of the Sydney Pollack-Judy Davis portion of "Husband and Wives". And it seems like very fertile ground for comedy, but there's never really a pay off. We get yet another character who tries to avoid an argument by saying "My head is splitting" (following Elliot in "Hannah" and the Christina Ricci character in "Anything Else). We get the line "If I didn't think there was more to life I just couldn't go on", a sentiment that the rabbi in "Crimes and Misdemeanors" long since addressed, and in a far more eloquent fashion. On the plus side, the funniest line in the film (only funny line?) is when Josh Brolin says "She takes your money and tells you want you want to hear" (regarding the fortune teller), and his mother-in-law replies "Well, you take my money and don't tell me anything I want to hear", or something to that effect. Also on the plus side, there is the intriguing plot point of the failing writer stealing his recently deceased friend's manuscript (which just by itself might have made a better movie than this one), but then there is the silly "Three's Company" style mix-up to drive that story line (yes, lots of people confuse which of their friends died in a car crash and which of them survived and are in comas, happens all the time). If I can sit in the audience without a screenplay to my name and realize that having the friend with the manuscript in a bleak-looking coma (without the silly confusion part), and Roy willing to roll the dice that he dies (and root for it) to propel his own career, would have been the way to go, a guy who has so many writing Oscars he doesn't even bother to pick them up should have known too. Finally, on the personal plus side for me, we get an appearance from Bollywood legend Anupam Kher. I think I've seen him in a hundred movies where he plays the slightly eccentric but lovable uncle or the father that the prodigal son eventually makes proud. Just cool to see him suddenly show up in the middle of a Woody Allen film, where he unfortunately acts circles around his "daughter" (Freida Pinto), who as an actress make a pretty good model. Bottomline: This one falls in the bottom 10% of the canon for me.
The poster goes with the title of the film ... but not the film itself ... like the person who created it hadn't seen the movie.
If you don't have 35 minutes for this, just watch the first 3 minutes to see Woody answer the first question.
90% of the press's questions are directed towards Woody, so this almost qualifies as an interview. For those with time constraints I also suggest checking out the final question about the prevalence of older man/younger woman relationships in his movies. Woody says he has used it "2 or 3 times", and mentions "Manhattan", "Whatever Works" and "Tall Dark Stranger". Apparently the other 19 instances slipped his mind.
Sorry for being so late to the thread, but something in another thread brought up a memory of Hannah And Her Sisters (record store scene), so I am giving my impression: I had not seen a WA movie in the theaters until Hannah back in 1985. It was not my usual movie I would see at the time, but the story was so well done, and I thought "what an incredible ending!!" When the Oscars came up next year, I pegged it to win best original screenplay, and sure enough, it did. I also saw Brazil in the theater that same year.
Thanks for chiming in. Interestingly, while "Hannah" is pretty much universally adored by Woody's hardcore fans, the ending is the part they (including a number of us here) have a bit of a gripe with.
I can understand that, the ending is not for everyone. But for me, who has not seen it in 30 years (never saw it on TV or video) and I still have memories of that film, it must have had some impact at the time, and I felt in the context of the movie and seeing it once, for the first time ever, the ending for me was well done.
I am drawn to the sad and even outright bleak endings ("Crimes and Misdemeanors", "The Purple Rose of Cairo", "Blue Jasmine"), maybe because they are fairly unique in American cinema. At the end of "Hannah" it certainly is nice to see Lee (Barbara Hershey) apparently get a good guy. She certainly deserves one after her last two experiences.
