Woody Allen's "Magic in the Moonlight" (2014)

I really liked "Match Point" so I don't wish to disparage it, but to borrow a riff from David Spade, "I liked it the first time I saw it - When it was called 'Crimes And Misdemeanors".

 

I noticed some people are complaining about the the age difference between the two leads in the film.

Did anyone honestly complain about the age difference between Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart, 70 years ago, in To Have and Have Not? I mean, seriously!

 

Bingo!

 

David Spade is a Wanker. Always has been. The differences are so much more than the similarities

 

As I said, "Match Point" is a very good film. But the fact that a viewer can't help feeling deja vu throughout detracts a bit from focusing on the film. Just like the moment in "Blue Jasmine" when "A Streetcar Named Desire" crosses your mind, and you can't get rid of that thought. On the other hand, "Crimes and Misdemeanors" doesn't make me think of another film while I watch it - it has my full attention.

 

Woody frequently recycles from himself and others. Interiors is his Bergman. Stardust Memories is his 8 & 1/2.

 

I think there is "being inspired by", "paying homage to" and "recycling". Sometimes the line between the three is nebulous. The workout device for the busy executive routine in "Bananas" is clearly inspired by "Modern Times", but it doesn't feel recycled.

 

I love the vast majority of his movies, and all the recent ones have been great.

 

Woody Allen is the only filmmaker whose works I will go see upon release without fail. Even if some of his films are not entirely successful, they are generally never "sub mental" (one of my favorite Woody-isms), like the vast majority of Hollywood releases (sadly). But to say all his recent movies have been GREAT is a bit much and then some (IMO).

 

Agreed. Kind of like how When Harry Met Sally was obviously a "Woody Allen movie" in tone/style/content, but managed to succeed brilliantly on its own.

Woody does recycle himself. I couldn't believe when he re-used the concept about overhearing confessions from a psychiatrist's office ("Another Woman") in "Everyone Says I Love You", either. "Match Point" was a very well done movie, but I definitely felt he'd done it before - and better - in Crimes...

 

Yes, a very good example of out-and-out "recycling". Perhaps one of the reasons I found the Julia Roberts subplot to be the weakest element of "ESILY" (and her acting, and the lack of chemistry between she and Woody even though he was her "dream man", Woody and Goldie Hawn, conversely, had very good on-screen chemistry). Perhaps someone pointed out the recycling to Woody, to which I hope he replied "I accept your condemnation".

 

Saw it last night. I liked it to a point, but no chemistry that could warrant the outcome. Got an icky feeling in my gut after seeing that final scene.

 

It "opens wide" (including my neck of the woods) on Friday ... looking forward to it, although all the chatter seems to point to it being a minor film.

 

I'm particularly worried because the local "weekly" reviewer lumped it in with Hollywood Ending, Anything Else, and Whatever Works. With 45 or so films to pick from, I find it astounding that that reviewer named ALL THREE of my least favorite WA flix as comparisons to this one...

 

I could never make a "bottom three" list without "Alice". In fact "Alice" is at THE bottom of my list. I'm with you on "Hollywood Ending", and if there were any justice in the world Jason Biggs would have never worked again after "Anything Else". But Woody's character (Dobel) somewhat redeems the film for me. I really enjoy "Whatever Works" - being a big Larry David fan doesn't hurt, but I can (dare I say it) relate to the main character

 

And Crimes and Misdemeanors is his version of Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, right down to the nearly identical names.

Regarding Woody's frequent recycling of themes, situations, and even dialogue... I suggest you guys look into the auteur theory. Woody is definitely an auteur, one of only a dozen or so I could name. And one of the earmarks of being an auteur is having a distinctive style, and reoccurring themes in their works. If I played you a Woody Allen movie that you had never seen (without credits), it wouldn't take you long to realize who made it.

 

"Crimes and Misdemeanors" vs. "Crime and Punishment" in a steel cage, no holds barred match - my favorite author vs. my favorite film maker ... and the winner is ... Woody, because the ending of his film far surpasses the "Hollywood ending" (pun intended) of the novel.

 

There's a difference between revisiting recurring themes and recycling plot devices. Woody revisiting his favorites themes (such as magic, obsession with death, the absence of God in the universe, etc.) is different than recycling a plot device (overhearing the psychiatric session, for example). One is the mark of an auteur, one is the mark of a guy writing a script who was late for the Knicks game and couldn't come up with a fresh idea.

 

I thought it was his weakest effort since "Sweet and Lowdown". A movie so sloppy and slight I swore off seeing his movies by rote.

 

Well, Ray, it seems we share a holy trinity with Bob/Beatles/Woody, so I'll be quite curious what you think of this one.

It won't crowd the lowest rung on my Woody tier with the three I mentioned above, but it won't rank higher than too many of his other films, either. I liked it more than "To Rome..." and the tv version of "Don't Drink The Water" and maybe a couple of others, but that's about it. VERY few laughs - the line in the trailer about her mind being clouded by "cirrus or cumulous" clouds was typical of the relative lack of wit in the script. The film certainly LOOKED gorgeous, but that was most of its charm (ala "Shadows & Fog"). I'm not really familiar with Emma Stone and her performance in this certainly doesn't have me eager to see the film she's currently shooting with the Woodman - I found her performance far less convincing than Colin Firth's.

As to your points above, yes "Dobel" was a great role for latter-day Woody - a little "unhinged", which suited him well. I also am a big Larry David fan, but even he couldn't save Whatever Works for me. And Biggs was wooden, but I was so thoroughly repulsed by Christina Ricci's character in that film - when she was supposed to be so alluring - that I doubt anything will ever take it's place at the bottom of the barrel...

Alice? Been a long time since I saw that one, but I don't recall it being too terrible. Wasn't Joe Mantegna in that? I liked his character, as I recall. Middle of the pack for me.

 

I've been travelling and very busy with the new semester, but I've carved out some time to see it tomorrow. I'm honestly concerned that by Friday it will be gone, and I won't get a chance to see it in a theater at all. It doesn't sound promising, but I'll have an open mind. Even not-so-good Woody at least provokes conversation. The TV "Don't Drink The Water" may qualify as his most forgettable film ... Woody miscast in his own film! (Don't try to follow Jackie Gleason - ask Cedric the Entertainer )

I think Christina Ricci's character was meant to be self-absorbed and dislikeable. It mostly made me just dislike Biggs' character even more as he took her crap. But Woody smashing the car windows in a "rage" was worth the price of admission for me.

Yes, Joe Mantegna was in "Alice". He was generally fine, and I liked William Hurt's despicable character. Mia Farrow just really really gets on my nerves in that film - she deserves to have her husband cheating on her. And the plot device with the invisibility - if you possessed the ability to make yourself invisible, would you waste it on a self-absorbed house wife and her pathetic little problems? Alec Baldwin, who I generally like (really good in "Blue Jasmine"), is also at his annoying worst. My least favorite Woody film by a considerable margin.

 

I finally got to "Magic in the Moonlight" today at a near "private screening" (there were two other people in the theater). I really wish I could like this film more. It deals with one of Woody's favorite themes, and one of MY favorite themes of Woody's - Is it better to be a "blue pill" person than a "red pill" person? Is some degree of self-delusion about the ways of the universe a healthy thing - in fact nearly essential for a person to be "happy"? Woody's answer, once again, seems to be that he would happily be a "blue pill" person if he could, but that choice is not available to him. We also get, once again, as in "Whatever Works" and numerous other films, that "the heart wants what the heart wants", and usually the heart of the logical cynic seems to desire someone who is more emotional and less intellectual (and a lot younger).

I don't mind the revisiting of the theme, since it clearly means a great deal to Woody, forever trapped in his unhappy existence with his "broken denial mechanism" that causes him to unblinkingly face his own mortality and the fact that "ze universe iz a cold place". But he did it in such a dull fashion this time out. There barely seems to even be an attempt at writing witty dialog here, never mind "jokes" (there isn't a single laugh in the entire film). There's far too much exposition through dialog, which gave me a feeling of the film being dumbed down. Also, as far as the leads are concerned, there's way too much TALKING about a chemistry between them without any on-screen evidence of it. This is not quite "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion", where there isn't a single shred of on-screen evidence why the two leads would ever be attracted to each other, but it's pretty close. Not to mention the flawed logic in the plot that I can't discuss without a spoiler alert.

I think the period costuming had a lot to do with it, but Emma Stone kept reminding me of Samantha Morton in "Sweet and Low Down". The characters are dissimilar but the look is reminiscent. Colin Firth does the Woody stand-in role, but for a "genius" seems to keep saying the same obvious things over and over, without the wit we'd get from even, say, Ray "The Brain" from "Small Time Crooks".

So I guess I've said a lot of negative and not much positive. It's not an awful film, it's not a train wreck, but it is most assuredly a "minor" work for the Woodman.

 

a must see for Woody's fans...

 

We saw the film Tuesday night, also at a nearly private screening with just 2 other patrons in the theater. I disagree that there wasn't a single laugh in the film, I found myself at least chuckling several times, although there definitely was no broad humor. I caught myself wishing that Woody had cast himself as the best friend and rival magician, and possibly called Colin Firth's character 'Max' during the entire picture. Magic in the Moonlight is billed as a romantic comedy, and it needed more romance or more comedy, if not both.

I admired the look of the film, with the period cars, clothes and furniture. My wife is so enamored of the 20s, the sets and costumes were enough for her to give it a thumbs up.

 

I saw it over the weekend. Decent movie..

Brice I thought stole the movie....