The perfect movie for the holidays

Whenever you want entertaining life lessons, you turn to one person and that is...

Yep, Woody pretty much knows it all. Although my absolute favorite of his is Annie Hall (quite easily), around Christmas, there's a movie I just cannot miss and that is...

Hannah and Her Sisters, the bittersweet masterpiece is just the perfect holiday movie. It's a brilliant summary of life, our world as well as the best movie of the eighties (for me). Now I've seen it 8 times (counting the one two hours ago).

The movies chapters all offer different views and perspectives of life that get even richer and richer at each viewing. It's marvelous to me how Woody's brilliance truly unfolds to me over the years, since there are so many aspects of his movies that I become fascinated by. Things that I previously barely noticed or even ignored. 

This year, for me, that is the wonderful, stunning visuality of the movie. People so easily ignore the visuality of "small" movies like the ones made by Woody. The cinematography of Carlo Di Palma is just stunning and its best proof is the lunch of the three sisters. The way the camera gazes at the expressions of the sisters combined with the fabulous performances that these three ladies give and the flawless directing is an unforgettable experience.

Hannah's worries, Holly's nervousness and Lee's shame are all perfectly captured. It's like looking into three different souls at the same. Although Dianne Wiest was the one winning the Oscar (and deservedly so, she's my favorite winner in that category), the two other sisters are not less brilliant than she is. Barbara Hershey's performance is incredibly painful, but also uplifting, making her probably the emotional core of the story. Mia Farrow does an amazing job holding the movie together with her character: it's so easy to ignore her merits in the movie, but once you've seen this film many times, you recognise the amazing job that she does here. And no words are necessary to describe Dianne Wiest: she's the one you relate to, the easiest person to love in this whole story, despite playing a neurotic mess. The way Wiest portrays how Holly longs for love is just amazing and makes this character so relatable (her scene in the cab is one of the greatest ones ever made). 

Hannah and Her Sisters give us scenes from life tha feel so close and real to what we experience every day. One says you watch a movie to escape reality and to see something different as Haneke says "24 lies per second". But as Woody proves it, it can be "the truth, 24 frames per second", Hannah and Her Sister is a mirror in which we can all observe our lives and what we know and think about this world. And that's the best thing one can get at Christmas or any time of the year. 

Happy Holidays once again! :)

198. Shadows and Fog

198. (10 Sep) Shadows and Fog (1991, Woody Allen) 39



Carlo Di Palma was hardly Woody Allen's best cinematographer and he's a definite liability considering Shadows and Fog is so much about composition. One can't help but wonder what Vilmos Zsigmond, Gordon Willis or Sven Nykvist might have accomplished in his stead. Despite an inexplicable $19 million budget, this looks murky and amateurish, matching a frustratingly obscure screenplay. It's all the more annoying that a particularly shrill Mia Farrow gets most of the screentime when Kathy Bates, Lily Tomlin, Madonna, John Cusack and Julie Kavner shine in bit parts.

TO ROME WITH LOVE

TO ROME WITH LOVE
Written and Directed by Woody Allen
Starring Alec Baldwin, Jesse Eisenberg, Ellen Page, Penelope Cruz and Woody Allen


Jack: What’s so great about suffering?
Monica: There’s just something attractive about a man who is plagued by the perils of existence.

Woody Allen remains true to form with his latest international comedy TO ROME WITH LOVE. And by that I mean that he has followed up a genuine hit with a complete misfire. This is Allen’s pattern after all. On occasion, he gets it just right and many people thought he did just that with last year’s MIDNIGHT IN PARIS. The Oscar winner for Original Screenplay is not my favourite Allen film by any means, but it did certainly enchant with its whimsical look at Paris and people from a cross-generational perspective. His latest hopes to achieve that same success in Rome, but it is such a disconnected collage of familiar Allen talking points that I don’t see the masses swooning this time around. And sadly, if history continues to repeat itself, we will be in store for a few more Allen misses before another hit.

I’m not really sure where to begin with TO ROME WITH LOVE. Alec Baldwin plays an architect vacationing in his former stomping grounds and Jesse Eisenberg is, what I interpret as, a younger version of himself. Baldwin revisits his past by observing Eisenberg (the character Allen himself said he would have liked to play, y’know, if he was fifty years younger) as he waffles between passion (Ellen Page) and stability (Greta Gerwig). Alison Pill referees between her new fiancé, Michelangelo (Flavio Parenti), and her parents (Judy Davis and Allen, making his first film appearance since SCOOP, another real winner), as Allen tries to make Antonio’s father (famed tenor, Fabio Armiliato) into a famous opera singer by staging him in shows where he sings in a shower. Meanwhile, Penelope Cruz plays a prostitute who is mistaken for the new wife of a young businessman (Alessandro Tiberi). They parade around the city with his family while his actual wife (Alessandra Mastronardi) remains perpetually lost in Rome. And then, as if the rest of it wasn’t absurd enough, Roberto Benigni plays a nobody who suddenly and inexplicably becomes an overnight sensation, his every move, from breakfast to bedtime, becomes public fascination. As individual parts, they are more or less amusing and occasionally very witty, but as a whole, they never cohesively come together to mean anything substantial.

TO ROME WITH LOVE was originally called, “Nero Fiddled”. The name change itself exposes what I believe to be the only major selling point about this movie. Clearly, the hope was that those who fell in love with Allen in Paris would do the same in Rome, which is, of course, just as picturesque. The reality is that there will certainly be more interest in this film as a result, but once those patrons get there, I doubt very much they will feel the warmth and charm they are expecting. Before long, everyone who celebrated Allen last year after years of denouncing him as over, will probably find themselves wondering if his late in life romp through Paris, was just a fluke.

Winner Breakdown: Screenplays

Writing (Adapted Screenplay):
- The Descendants
- Hugo
- The Ides of March
- Moneyball
- Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy


This year was very much composed of book adaptations in the best picture category. Of the 9 nominees, 6 are based upon books, though surprisingly only 3 of those made it in (Moneyball, Descendants and Hugo). So far, it looks like the competition will be between the 3 Best Picture nominees. Behind The Descendants we have Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon. Payne previously won an Oscar (his only) for his writing for Sideways. Behind Hugo is John Logan, who hasn't won an Oscar yet, but was previously nominated for Gladiator and The Aviator. And for Moneyball we have Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin. Zaillian has been nominated 4 times and won for Schindler's List, and Sorkin has been nominated twice, winning for his work on last year's The Social Network. (Ides writers both have been nominated for 1 other film, and TTSS are first time nominees). So we're really looking at the BP nominees. But personally, I feel the award will go to Moneyball. Zaillian and Sorkin made a smart baseball film, with some humour, but also with some wit, and passion. It's a well-written script, and may be Moneyball's best shot at anything. It's won lots of Film Critics awards (Toronto, San Diago, etc), and it has the powerhouse's of Zaillian and Sorkin. If anything is to upset this award, it'll be The Descendants, which just won the WGA Award for Best Adapted. Payne has previously won for Sideways, and both films will be duking it out for (possibly) the only awards they have shots at. But I'm going to have to put Moneyball as the winner, just over The Descendants, though I wouldn't be shocked if The Descendants took it.

Will Win: Moneyball
Could Win: The Descendants
Dark Horse: The Ides of March
Who I Want to Win: Moneyball



Writing (Original Screenplay):
- The Artist
- Bridesmaids
- Margin Call
- Midnight in Paris
- A Separation


This category was interesting since there weren't too many Original Screenplay's this year. This is Margin Call's only nomination, and it's not likely to win. The clear winner here is Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris. It won the Golden Globe and the Writers Guild Award. I'd say it's pretty much a lock-in, with Allen previously winning 2 Writing Awards, and being nominated a total of 15 times (just for writing). This one is a pretty clear winner. However, The Artist could make an upset (as could Bridesmaids), but I wouldn't seriously think on it, as it's not at all likely. 




Will Win: Midnight in Paris
Could Win: The Artist
Dark Horse: Bridesmaids 
Who I Want to Win: Midnight in Paris

Annie Hall

Annie Hall, 1977
Directed by Woody Allen
Up Against: The Goodbye Girl, Julia, The Turning Point, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

Woody Allen directs and stars in this film. While it's only the second Woody Allen film I've seen (the first being Midnight in Paris- yes I'm behind on things), it's the first film I've seen him act in.

Allen plays a wonderfully dorky, intelluctual, neurotic comedian, living in New York City. He's been married twice already, and opens up the film telling us that life is full of loneliness and it's over too quickly, and that he'd never be a part of a club that has a member like himself. Right off the bat we get an idea about who Alvy Singer is and what he's about. He's not like most guys.

Alvy is in love with a woman named Annie Hall. She's slightly ditsy, and a different kind of neurotic. She's flighty and simple-minded, while Alvy is a deep-thinker who's always pinned as being slightly hostile, obsessed with death and paranoid. The story of their love is told in a narrative that jumps back and forth between present and past, and is riddled with captions stating what they're thinking, their present selves visiting their past selves, and frequently addressing the audience with their thoughts. It's a quirky love story, but it's utterly charming.

The film tells us about how Alvy and Annie were introduced (playing tennis), how they got together, the good times, the bad times, the break-ups, the other one-night stands and the getting back together. And the circle continues. While the story doesn't have too much of a plot, it's interesting. It's more of a documentary of 2 lovers in New York, living life.

In a way this film reminded me of (500) Days of Summer. Not so much what the film was about, but more how they were both told in quirky, unique ways, and focused on how different they both were (Tom and Summer, and Alvy and Annie). Had this film been told how regular movies are told, with little voice-over narrative, few flashbacks and a definitie plot, this film would've been a lot less charming than it was. Alvy is cooky but you feel for him, and you love his quirks. Annie is erratic, but you come to love and care about her too.

I loved Woody Allen playing Alvy. Yes I know he wrote the screenplay, but I thought he was perfectly dorky, and carried the part so well. He really understand Alvy (duh), but really portrayed him well too, with great timing and perfect awkwardness. Diane Keaton was also great as Annie. She was the perfect balance between being erratic and simple-minded. She brought passion into the part, and played Annie well. Hence her winning the Oscar for the role.

Of course, the screenplay was great. Woody Allen seems strongest suit really seems to be writing. Many times I wished he'd write novels, while watching this movie. They would be incredibly interesting.

The only few flaws of the film was many-a-times, a flashback scene would be shown, and I'm never really sure if it's ended, or if we're back in the present. It's easy when we're seeing flashbacks of Alvy and his ex-wives, but his flashbacks with Annie are less defined, and the scene at the beginning of the movie, I'm never sure if after that we went completely to the beginning and went chronologically, or if we came back to that point and did present time then flashbacks, alternating.

But overall, I really enjoyed the film. It's so different from other Best Picture's I've watched so far. It was a cute movie, it was funny and sarcastic, and it was enjoyable to watch!

8/10

Winner Breakdown: Art Direction

Art Direction:
- The Artist
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
- Hugo
- Midnight in Paris
- War Horse


This is another category that I feel is super strong. There were again, so many other films that could've been nominated here too. It was definitely a good year for the Arts categories! But the 3 big contenders in this arena are Hugo, The Artist, and Harry Potter. Hugo was fantasic looking, with it's 1930's Gard du Nord train station setting, the silent films settings, and the automaton. The Artist had the glitzy 1920/30's Hollywood look, with snazzy set designs, and just making everything look genuinely old. And then Harry Potter. Harry Potter has been nominated for Art Direction, 3 times before, making this its 4th time. And it's been deserving every single year. We had the destroyed Hogwarts, the glass boat house, the flashback scenes, etc. The 3 big winners at the Art Directors Guild awards was The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Hugo, and Harry Potter. While that doesn't exactly rule who wins, it gives Harry Potter a step up, and the Artist a step down, though only slightly. Again, Hugo has tons of nominations, and I expect it'll win a lot of them. Hugo probably has the best chance of winning it here. However, the Academy could decide to give it to Potter, after all the times it's been nominated, and not excluding the great Direction it had again for this film. If anyone will upset Hugo, it'll be Harry Potter, though don't count the Artist out. It may sweep because of it's front-runner status. 

Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part II
Dark Horse: Midnight in Paris
Who I Want to Win: Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Part II

Midnight in Paris

Midnight in Paris, 2011
Directed by Woody Allen
Potential Nominations Include: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay

Synopsis: Engaged couple, Gil and Inez have come to Paris with Inez's parents as tag-alongs on her parent's business trip. Gil instantly falls in love with the city, ready to give up his life as Hollywood screenwriter, his life in California to live in Paris and finish his novel he's been labouring over. Inez feels differently, and see's it as a tourist trip, and more looks forward to going out dancing with her friends, than taking in the city like Gil. But after midnight, Gil experiences something very strange on the streets or Paris. Suddenly it's Paris 1920, he gets invited into an old car, taken about the city and meets people like Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Picasso. But while he seems to be discovering himself, and where his heart truly lies, he's also discovering where his heart doesn't lie.

Ironically, this is probably the last potential Best Picture nominee I'll need to see, but it was the first one released, making it's debut in theatres in June. I've heard so many good things about it since then, it having been nominated for all 4 Guild Awards (SAG, PGA, DGA, WGA), making it a lock for a Best Picture nomination. Also, it's Woody Allen, who is extremely well known and loved. So, naturally, I've been waiting a while to see this film.

Knowing the concept I was wondering how it would pan out without seeming cheesy, or simple, or just plain generic. But it was done very well, and I could see the moral of it The idea of nostalgia is brought up very early on and we can see where this film is headed. Gil is determined 1920's is the Golden Age, between the writing and the art, and the music.

Overall, I didn't find the movie ah-mazing, but I did enjoy it. It was nice to see Owen Wilson in a different type of role, and seeing that he actually does have some talent, hidden behind those awful movies he usually does was nice. He was well-acted, funny, and just so human. He was star-struck, but at the same time retrospective as well as introspective. While it wasn't an Oscar winning performance, or even worth a nomination, I enjoyed him as Gil. We saw Marion Cottilard as Adriana, the alluring French woman that has captured the hearts of Picasso, a variety of famous painters, and, finally, Gil. Marion was completely alluring, yet seemingly innocent, and played her part well. Everyone in the cast did a great job, and it was a hefty cast indeed including Rachel McAdams as Inez, Tom Hiddleston as Fitzgerald, Kathy Bates are Gertrude Stein, Michael Sheen as Paul, the intelligent man that Inez adores. The casting was great, and made it star-studded, but not overly so, though well-done.

Owen really carried the film on his shoulders. We really understood Gil, where he was coming from, and his aggrevation at Paul being a know it all, Inez shushing him and adoring Paul, and just trying to finish his novel, looking for better life than his shallow one in California. The story was just told in a way that we so believed. We were able to put off our sense of disbelief and just accept everything, and we couldn't understand why Inez didn't see it, or why she didn't understand. Gil was a very likable character, and was told so honestly.

Additionally, the shots of Paris really were beautiful. I felt like I saw so much of the city, though I've never been to it. We understood Gil's love for the city, and we see what he sees, the beauty in everything. Also, the costumes were great, and were just so 1920's (obviously), but they were just so well done. The hair, the dresses, the suits, everything just looked so great, but in a subtle way. We could see it was still the same Paris that Gil and Inez are in, but it's also the one Hemingway and Fitzgerald lived in. The same, yet subtly different. The screenplay was also well-written. As I mentioned, Gil is such a believable character, but yet so are so many of the others, including Inez, and Hemingway, and Adriana. It had touches or humor, but it was also touching, and intelligent.

Overall, again, I thought it was a good movie. It was a nice, humorous story about a couple who are clearly not right for each other, and the idea of never being satisfied with where and who we are. Had people not known the references in the film it wouldn't be appreciated, and I only picked up on about 75%, enough to appreciate, but also just a little too much I didn't know that I felt slightly left out. I liked it, I'd watch it again, and I'd recommend it, but it's not my top film of the year. Didn't hate it, didn't die over it. It was a nice film, with a nice story.

7/10

Midnight in Paris

The quickest review of Midnight in Paris would be that it's a magical and charming time travel whimsical American tale set amidst the beauty that is Paris, France with classic (Woddy) Allen-esq neurotic characters. It's also a film that proves to be every art majors wet dream come true.

In fact i'm going to take the easy way out and won't go into detail anymore, except that the cast is spectacular (notably Kathy Bates, Michael Sheen, Marion Cotillard, and Adrien Brody) and Owen Wilson captures the neurosis of Allen perfectly, making this one of the best romantic fantasy comedies of the year.

The magic of Midnight in Paris is going to watch it without knowing much about it, as I did. It catches your attention when you least expect it and takes you on a journey, along with its cast, that is simply enchanting and colorful.

If you like good cinema that excites the brain, then make sure you watch this wonderful adventurous story that raises the question of whether "the good ol' days" really are what we make of them?

Rating 4.5/5

470. Midnight in Paris

470. (20 Nov) Midnight in Paris (2011, Woody Allen) 54



There's clumsiness in both the film's key plot device and the way famous individuals who populated 1920's Paris are introduced. Though warmth and charm carry a handful of scenes, it's burdened by inobservant observances like no time period recognizing its own significance. Owen Wilson's character wants to take his chances with an entrancing young woman in the past rather than his clearly dreadful fiancee in the present; that sort of deck-stacking prevents the film from feeling romantic or insightful. There are also some smug moments like Wilson pitching a scenario to Luis Buñuel.

Top Ranked Films of Woody Allen

Woody Allen
(6 titles, 20th in pts with 22,541)

These are all the films of Allen’s that made the top 1000 (and all the others that were ranked in polls) in our 2011 update of the Top Ranked 1000 Films on the Net, all polls.

1. Manhattan (1979) bw #67
2. Annie Hall (1977) #77
3. Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) #215
4. Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) #271
5. Zelig (1983) #741
6. Purple Rose of

Trailer Tuesday - Annie Hall (1977)

Perhaps the greatest romantic comedy of modern cinema, and the I'm pretty sure the only Best Picture Oscar winner I have in my DVD collection...

REVIEW: Midnight in Paris (A-)

(dir. Woody Allen, 2011)

There are many kinds of Woody Allen movies.  There are the good ones and the bad ones.  There are the tough-nosed Manhattan tales and his whimsical fantasies.  His dramas and his comedies.  For a man with such a specific style, he seems to blur such nuanced genres in line with his signature storytelling.  Unfortunately, he hasn't been doing much of that late.

Midnight in Paris is Woody's third European film, following London and Barcelona-based Match Point and Vicky Cristina Barcelona.  When Woody experiments with style, sometimes it can be thrilling (Interiors, Manhattan Murder Mystery) and sometimes it can be awful (The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Melinda and Melinda) but this fantasy tale so evoked the purity of the Allen form that it was a homerun from the beginning.

Set, obviously, in Paris, this is the story of a successful beat screenwriter (Owen Wilson) trying to fulfill his true potential as a novelist while vacationing with his snotty fiancee (Rachel McAdams, playing the role so well you hate her) and her equally snotty parents.  While there, Wilson falls head over heels for the City of Lights, finding that the purest pleasure from the city isn't material consumption, but rather just seeing the city.  Over and over he states how much wonderful Paris would have been in the 1920s.  It becomes very clear quickly that what McAdams and Wilson have isn't very meaty, which actually prompts Wilson's quest for fulfillment very believable.  One night, while walking the streets of Paris, the midnight clock rings, a 1920s car pulls up and transports him to the world of Paris in the 1920s where he meets artistic icons and one sultry muse.

It's been said that Wilson is the best Allen stand-in since Allen himself, and I tend to agree with that (after having to suffer the indignation of Josh Brolin and the atrocious Larry David), for Wilson understood and exacted the typical nebbish nature of the character Allen has penned.  Though, oddly, this successful Woody Allen film doesn't exactly have a standout performance.  In his career, Allen has been so prolific with writing great roles for actors and specifically actresses.  But in Midnight in Paris, a few bit characters really steal the show.  It's not the apt Wilson, the painfully truthful McAdams, or the perfect Parisian Marion Cottilard.  But rather, it's Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald, Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway, and Adrien Brody as Salvador Dalí.

I dare anyone not to sit through Brody's sole scene without splitting a side; his ridiculous commitment to the absurdity of Dalí and his obsession with rhinoceroses is just magnificent.  Pill as the country-bumpkin turned booze maven is a delight, chewing her words and making Zelda just as we'd always imagined her.  Stoll, too, deserves some credit for not exactly having as a comedic a role as the aforementioned two, but still delivering a blisteringly true performance as Hemingway.

Overall, Allen's message in the film is a fine, clear one.  It's nice to see an Allen film not as focused on infidelity or sex as his previous films have been, and he's allowed his truly great story to shine.  It's a small, quiet tale told in fantastic measure, yet with such a profound and grounded conclusion.  I can say without hesitation, that this is Allen's best film in nearly 20 years.  Surely come Oscar time, this film will get at least attention for Allen's superb screenplay.  GRADE: A-

.

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

Written and Directed by Woody Allen

Starring Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard and Michael Sheen

Inez: The studios adore you; you’re in demand. Do you really want to give it all up just to struggle?

Every time I review a Woody Allen movie, it seems I address the same issues time and time again. This is likely because Allen always chooses to tackle the same themes – class, art and commerce, American values, inferiority and infidelity, to name but a few. Often times, he falls flat, which is entirely reasonable when one takes into account that he makes a movie every year, but once in a while, his recurring neurosis come together so perfectly, they reveal his true genius. MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, Allen’s 41^st feature film, embodies this culmination brilliantly and is perhaps his most enchanting film in years. It is unmistakably “Woody Allen” but for some cinephiles out there, that is cause for celebration and not reason to run away.

Allen opens MIDNIGHT IN PARIS the way he always does, with plain white titles on a black background and a plucky jazz track playing. Suddenly, he interrupts himself and goes into a montage of Paris postcard shots, spanning a day that sees all the sights, a heavy rain fall and the kind of charm that only an evening in Paris can provide. It isn’t that the montage itself isn’t also quintessentially Allen-esque that is striking; it is the interruption that announces that Allen is alert and making choices instead of just letting everything play out naturally. It also allows the viewer, or any remotely sentimental one anyway, to get fully sucked into the clichéd idea of Paris as the most romantic city in the world. The images themselves are stunning yet subtle, thanks to cinematographer, Darius Khondji (who has worked with Allen once before on ANYTHING ELSE, but we probably shouldn’t talk about that), allowing Paris to be its grand self and showing us very clearly how much Allen is in love with the city.

Owen Wilson is Gil, the Allen figurehead in this story (and a very suitable one at that). He is a successful Hollywood screenwriter who considers all his success to be built on the production of meaningless material. He and his fiancée, Inez (Rachel McAdams, who does materialistic and shallow all too well) find themselves in Paris on her parents’ dime, just as he has decided to try his hand at writing a novel in hopes of achieving a more respectable level of artistry. Their priorities are clearly at odds; she prefers to go out and party while he prefers to soak in the city’s elegance. More importantly, she is of the moment and he cannot help but long for a simpler time, when life was rich and not empty like the constantly moving present. Then one night, Gil gets exactly what he has been longing for. He is mysteriously whisked away to the Paris of yesteryear when the clock strikes midnight. Here he meets artists he has always admired and finds romance he has only dreamed of. If only he wasn’t from another era.

It may sound a little “je ne sais quoi” but MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is truly a magical experience and meant to be absurdist and surreal. The cast is delightful, from Marion Cotillard as Gil’s other world love interest to Michael Sheen as the pedantic windbag archetype Allen loves to mock so much. Paris, past and present, also presents Allen with an opportunity to showcase exquisite production designs and lovely costume pieces. The literary references may go above some heads but aside from that, it is practically impossible not to get caught up in the glamour of it all. Despite all of this allure though, what most distinguishes this work from so much of Allen’s previous work, is Allen’s shift towards resolution. Infamous for being trapped by the past, Allen now moves towards letting go of his illusions of the past, allowing for a catharsis that his films rarely ever achieve.

REVIEW: Every Thing You Always Wanted to Know About Sex *

*But Were Too Afraid To Ask

(dir. Woody Allen, 1972)

It's always a treat to see the early work of a famous artist.  Be it Blood Simple by the Coens, Mean Streets by Martin Scorsese, or Following by Christopher Nolan, it manages to show the greatness that lay ahead (or in many cases, the shock that the person who would later make this could have ever made that).  And this is what brings me to Every Thing You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Too Afraid To Ask, Woody Allen's 1972 vignette comedy about all things sexual.

Based loosely--and by loosely I mean they share a title and the theme of sex--on David Reuben's advise book, this work of Allen's foreshadows decades of self-conscious penis references, nebbish men nabbing hot girls, and askew takes on everyday predicaments.  I'm actually quite fond of Allen pre-Annie Hall work (which is saying something, since said films are few and hard to come by) with Play It Again, Sam being one of my favorite movies of all time.  It panders not only to Allen fans, but Casablanca fans as well.

But back to Every Thing You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Too Afraid To Ask. It opens with a somewhat overall weak vignette with Allen as a court jester in Medieval England.  Anthony Quale makes a hilarious cameo as a sex-crazed king, which allows Allen himself to shine as the horrible fool of court.  His deadpan delivery is as priceless in 1972 as it is in 1986, for I often wonder if anyone can deliver a bad joke as well as Allen, and only because he also knows it's bad!  Here, Allen makes awful jokes seem like zingers to the viewer, as we giggle at just how awful the joke is.  Not to mention, he compares Lynn Redgrave's chest to a pair of "tomatoes."

Baaaaaaaaaaad Romance

The following acts are hits a misses.  Gene Wilder as a sheep-loving doctor is probably the best performance in the film, if only for Wilder's ridiculous commitment to the part. The faux-Italian cinema spoof with Allen playing a macho man unable to bring his wife to coitus doesn't really ever get going. Another scene with an accidental transvestite is a riot, and only because Allen knows when to cut the joke and end the vignette. Another scene featuring the quote "I don't know if you've read my book, Advanced Sexual Positions: How to Achieve Them Without Laughing" and an "enormous tit" terrorizing the countryside is pure Allen. And the finale, and probably the film's most famous scene, is the inner workings of a man's mind during a date and eventually during sex.  Needless, and not surprisingly, to say, Allen plays a Sperm cell.


Overall, a choppy movie, but a clear direction of where it's going and what it wants to do.  The acting is what it needs to be, without many standouts even with a stellar cast.  Wilder's acting and Allen's script are the highlights, and it's a nice treat for lovers of Allen.  GRADE: B




.

Midnight in Paris trailer drops

Or as non-dorks call it, another Woody Allen film.  But this Woody Allen film is the one slated to open Cannes in a few month's time.  Sure, the last few Allen projects have been bumpier than not, what with Match Point and Vicky Cristina Barcelona being the standouts amongst some of his career-worst efforts like Whatever Works and You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger.  But here's a toast to not judging a book by its cover and hoping that Allen has found his groove in Paris that he seemingly lost in London last summer.  Anyone else excited for Michael Sheen in a full-on beard?  Prime Minister say what?

This film's BEAUTIFUL poster after the cut ...

My Week In Movies - March Comes In Like A Lizard

Rango (2011) An odd animated tale with Johnny Depp as a lizard who gets wrapped up in the troubles of a small western town. Rango ends up becoming the sheriff of Dirt, and helps the town folk restore their lost water supply. It's kind of a neat idea to do an animated western, and this movie does look neat but it's too odd and strange in the beginning to really get into. By the second half, things start to get rolling but 107 minutes the whole affair is a little too long to hold kids attentions. There are lots of jokes aimed at adults and as my son noted, most of the verbal humor went over the kids heads. If you enjoy animated features it's worth checking out as some point. Rated PG for violence and mild profanity.

The Other Guys (2010) What starts out as a pretty smart parody of the action genre, eventually just becomes the standard run of the mill police picture. Will Ferrell and Marky Mark are mismatched partners who stumble upon the biggest case of their careers. Michael Keaton shows up as the department's chief, and he's really good. It makes you wish Keaton was still headlining vehicles of his own. There's a bunch of other familiar faces that pop up along the way and it's nice to see Ferrell play a somewhat normal guy instead of an over-the-top SNL character which he's done effectively in the past but just a bit too often. Theatrically the film was rated PG-13, the DVD features both the theatrical cut and an unrated version. I watched the unrated version and didn't see anything that went beyond a PG-13. It's all the usual swearing, violence and sexual innuendo.

Grown Ups (2010) This Adam Sandler comedy from last summer has absolutely no plot. I don't just mean a flimsy excuse for a plot, I'm talking about no attempt at a story what-so-ever. But you know what, every movie doesn't need a story. This is just some good simple fun as five buddies get back together after 30 years to pay their last respects to their high school basketball coach. All the business with the coach is wrapped up in the first 15 minutes of the movie and the rest of the picture is just the great cast of Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, Rob Schneider and David Spade just cracking on each other and having a good time. It's exactly the kind of time you'd love to spend with a handful of old buddies of yours. Rated PG-13 for dirty words and dirty jokes.

imps* (The Immoral Minority Picture Show) (1983/2009) Now, this is saying alot coming from me...but this has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I was excited to dig up another sketch movie from the past but this one was a real stinker. The sense of humor in this thing is so lame, what passes for a joke wouldn't even make a 7 year old laugh. The title suggests that this movie is a take-off on the Moral Majority, with content supposedly so offensive it will offend everyone. It never really gets raunchy it also never really gets funny. There's a parade of familiar faces in it but none of them are given anything to do. The skits build and build to a punchline that never pays off...if there even is a punchline at the end of the skit. This flick is so terrible it was apparently completed in 1983 but NEVER saw the light of day until a DVD release in 2009. The world wasn't missing anything all those years. Rated R for language, attempted crude humor, sexual situations and nudity.

The Pom Pom Girls (1976) We spent last weekend at the beach and there happened to be a Cheerleader competition in town. The whole resort town was crawling with cheerleaders aged 4 to 18. In honor of our time with the cheerleaders I thought I'd catch up on a couple of my favorite cheerleader movies. I hadn't seen The Pom Pom Girls in a long time and it was fun to revisit it. This is one of those low budget, drive-in classics that the old USA Network used to run on weekend nights on USA Up All Night. This one was in heavy rotation and I saw it many times in my high school years. According to my internet research, this R rated high school flick was a big box office performer and was later reissued in a slightly trimmed PG version. My copy appears to be the PG version as it's not as steamy as the poster suggests. It also doesn't really have anything to do with cheerleading or the Pom Pom girls. It's about two dudes and three gals that just hang out during their last year of high school. They make-out in vans, they drink, they have food fights and they steal a fire engine in broad daylight...you know, typical high school stuff! It's actually a fairly innocent look at a time gone by when life was much more simpler. The PG rated version has some swearing and fairly heavy sexual situations but there is no nudity. From what I can tell, the R rated cut had a couple of locker room scenes with topless cheerleaders. Still fun in the watered down PG rated version.

You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger (2010) Woody Allen's latest film takes all the familiar characters, situations and film making techniques of all his other movies and gently mixes them up for a light but pleasant look at finding true love and dealing with relationships that have run their course. Woody's newest cliche' that he seems to be employing alot recently is a narrator who keeps the film popping along at a nice pace. Woody's not on screen in this one, but Anthony Hopkins does a nice job playing the "Woody" role. I'm not good enough a writer to try and sum up the events in this film. Rated R for language.

The Wrestler Wins Best Picture at the Indy Spirit Awards

The Wrestler won the big awards at tonight's Indy Spirit awards, picture and actor for Mickey O'Rourke.

The main awards:

Picture: The Wrestler (dir. by Daniel Aranofsky)
Director: Tom McCarthy (The Visitor)
Lead Actor: Mickey O'Rourke (The Wrestler)
Lead Actress: Melissa Leo (Frozen River)
Supporting Actress: Penelope Cruz (Vicky Christina Barcelona)
Supporting Actor: James Franco (Milk)