My expectations are fairly moderate for this film, but I'm looking forward to the opening credits in about 8hrs and 25mins nonetheless...
My countdown clock is at 6 hours and 8 minutes. Start popping the popcorn. I expect the film to be a life-altering experience that will cause me to start a new religion, from which I will immediately exclude everyone else.
That was part of my problem----expectations were too high. I finally watched Shadows and Fog just for the sake of being a completest and was pleasantly surprised.
Now I'm suddenly terrified about tonight's premiere ... I can only hope that your taste is as awful as Ray's.
Maybe you should stay home and watch "Alice" a few more times instead. Make sure you reinforce your sides first so they don't split from laughter.
Opening night in my neck of the woods ... 7 p.m. showing ... and my nephew and I made up 33% of the audience (yes, 6 people in a theater meant for maybe 300). My impression: I wouldn't classify the film as "bad" (I reserve that for "Hollywood Ending" and "Alice"), but it seemed like an incredibly long 86 minutes. I thought the pace was very slow, and the dialog lacked any crackle. The last 20 minutes or so of the film, where the pace picked up, were plagued by a "throw anything into the pot" mentality. It was almost like a greatest hits medley - as topics, dilemmas, and plot points from other films were briefly revisited. It was nice to have Woody himself as the narrator, but the vast majority of his narration was superfluous. The dialog, as a few of the reviews I've just now read point out, is often anachronistic, sounding more 2016 than 1939 (odd, considering Woody often sounded like 1970 in 2004). Most reviews seem to give kudos to Kristen Stewart's performance, but to me she was more anachronistic than the film's dialog. I was never convinced that she was from the 1930s - not in her look, her mannerism, or her speech. I'll certainly agree with the reviews that the "star" of the film is Vittorio Storaro. The film looks great, particularly the Hollywood sequences. The dialog never gets dumb (well, almost never) but I never really felt emotionally invested in the characters and the romantic triangle/square. Just when I thought things were going to take off (in a scene that couldn't help but remind me of Ingrid Bergman showing up in "Casablanca"), Vonnie's character does a 180 and returns to safer ground. I was more interested in seeing the apparent change she had undergone play out (rather than suddenly disappear). My nephew, who at 17 had never seen a Woody Allen film before, was far more impressed with the movie than I was. It made me think that perhaps I was rating the movie on the "Woody vs. Woody" scale, rather than the "Woody vs. The Usual Crap That Is Out There" scale. On the Woody vs. Woody scale, I have to go with "lesser work". On the other scale the film is certainly smarter and more beautiful than most of what's out there, and it was at least vaguely thought provoking ("Can we still be happy living with workable substitutes for our 'one true love'?") When it gets to Amazon Prime I will certainly give it another crack.
I do think you are rating the movie on the "Woody vs. Woody" scale. I am a fairly recent convert to Woody Allen films. For most of my life, I didn't "get" Woody, then around the time of Vicki Christina Barcelona, which I saw because I like Javier Bardem, I had something of an epiphany where Woody is concerned. Since then, I find myself going to see most of his films, and I always enjoy them. I haven't yet gone back to watch (or rewatch, in some instances) his earlier films, so I can't really compare. I really enjoyed Cafe Society on its own merits. It had all the characteristics of a Woody Allen film that I enjoy, and was well worth spending time watching.
Just say Cafe Society Loved Cafe Society. Beautifully lit and photographed, every scene is stunning. Great cast. My favorite Woody film in years.
Just got back from my 2nd viewing. A really nice Woody Allen film. His best since Blue Jasmine, although I enjoyed the films in-between.
My thoughts are very similar to yours, Threadmaster. I'd avoided reading most anything about the movie, other than glancing at metacritic/tomatoes ratings, so didn't know much about the plot. I knew Jesse went to Hollywood in the 30s, and that Woody did narration, but that was about it. For some reason I had it in my head that Jesse would play a young filmmaker, forced to sell out his artistic vision by the whims and misguided desires of Hollywood moguls. I figured there'd be plenty of comic material to mine with a naive filmmaker learning the ropes and Woody would provide the same sort of weary, bittersweet autobiographical narration that he did in Radio Days... Nope. I kind of like my rough outline a little better than the actual script, fwiw... The review that ran in my local paper said it was "upper-middle-late-period Woody Allen" and I'd mostly agree with that. It was extremely well-executed, but also somewhat forgettable and not overly engaging to me. Instead of narration that was wise and weathered by time, it seemed unnecessary, and Woody's aged voice seemed to struggle to deliver it. I must say it did remind me of Radio Days, with its depictions of the upper crust of society from the same era and the fairly thinly drawn characters (note: I was persecuted earlier in this thread for attempting to criticize Radio Days, so there's no need to get me again). I noted one thing I thought was a flaw early on. Woody narrates that Jesse and Kristin went out a second time after first meeting, but it seemed they were in the same clothes as their first outing together - oops? I must say I found it hard to feel bad for Jesse not winding up with Kristin and instead having to suffer through life with Blake Lively as his wife - talk about First World Problems! In a completely unrelated observation, Blake spoke with the near-exact cadence and facial expressions as an ex girlfriend (who ran off with my "best friend" a few years ago) and that may have soured me on the film somewhat - it certainly threw me for an unexpected and unwelcome loop mid-film...
I did notice that Kristen had the same outfit on in both scenes (didn't notice it with Jesse). Her outfits seemed quite risque for the late 1930s, but what do I know? In the "echos of other films" category, I'd agree that "Radio Days" is the winner. We've also got "Bullets Over Broadway", "Crimes and Misdemeanors", "Hollywood Ending" (similar amber "golden hour" look to the Hollywood scenes), "Purple Rose of Cairo", even "Deconstructing Harry" (the failed "hooker scene"). You have my sympathy regarding your situation. One of my girlfriends ran off with my best friend, but it was okay because she looked like Max Schmeling.
I really felt Cafe Society was his best photographed film in many years. As much as I liked Midnight in Paris, it's not in my personal top tier, but I'm so happy he had a huge hit with it. His close ups of Kristen Steward were stunning. Thought she and Carrel were great and all of the character actors as well. Maybe it was the mood I was in last night, but I really loved Cafe. I laughed out loed at some of the scenes as did some of the small audience. The bit about conversion to being catholic was hysterical, but maybe because I'm a Jew I found all that stuff really funny. Also the Yiddish talk..
Do Woody flicks still open (almost exclusively) at that theatre in Wallingford, on 45th? I saw a ton up there in my Seattle days... Was surprised at the relatively small turnout at my local theatre Friday night here. They usually are near-sell outs here, drawing the few liberals in Boise out in droves. Was baffled by their absence Friday...
Yes that's where i saw it. But it was also playing at the Big AMC and South Mall. The concept seems like it would be popular to a larger audience , especially with the talent. Since it's produced and released by Amazon you know it will be on Prime soon. I bet it will do well there.
There won't be a cinema poster, but we now have a title for Woody's Amazon show. Available at the of next month!! "'Crisis in Six Scenes' is a comedy that takes place in the 1960s during turbulent times in the United States when a middle class suburban family is visited by a guest who turns their household in completely upside down."
I'm excited for this - more excited than I was for "Cafe Society". Something about having the Woodman back in front of the camera (maybe for the last time?)
Woody does this a lot these days ,makes some really unfunny crap,and then makes a very good film(maybe not up to his best standards ) ,This is clearly his best looking film ever ,thanks to Storaro and subject ,The stuff in NY is far funnier ,and I wish the young lead ,and his love life was less of the movie ,Much Like Small Time Crooks ,parts are very funny Clearly worth going or buying
Looking like I will stand alone in the "Irrational Man" > "Cafe Society" camp. And to me it's not even close. I can live with that. I can't say that "Cafe Society" was funnier on either coast, because I don't think I laughed during the entire movie. Maybe a chuckle or mild guffaw. I'm in absolute agreement that the movie LOOKED great - but it didn't make me laugh as a comedy and I was rarely invested in the characters as a drama (did it really MATTER how the love triangle reconciled?) It was never bad (apart from the "hooker" scene which offered no redemption of any kind), but I felt it was flat and moved slowly. I wouldn't apply either term to "Irrational Man".
I will agree with that. However, I disagree with your need to minimize "Café Society" in order to make your argument. I agree it felt long but I did get to the point where I was clicked in and invested in the characters. I was more interested in Kristen Stewart because I thought she "sold" her transformation more than Jesse Eisenberg did. Not all his fault as I never found the Blake Lively character likeable. And I kept wondering how is this going to end? The 360 shots of Jesse to Kristen to Jesse I thought was just perfect and made me leave the theater in deep thought about choices and mistakes made in life.
