Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris (2011)

[DavidSeven]

So, do we still care? Even his poorly-reviewed stuff usually makes for a decent trailer, but damn, this was painfully "meh."

Trailer (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810158277/video)

[soitgoes...]

I still care. He might not have made a film that's exceptional in well over a decade, but he still hits very good often enough for me to keep watching.

[Watashi]

All his movies are starting to blend together anyway.

I can't even remember his last movie without looking at IMDB.

[Lucky]

Man I'm usually willing to give Woody the benefit of the doubt, but that trailer is awfully dull indeed.

I haven't seen his last movie with Naomi Watts yet, but Whatever Works was alright. I'm anticipating his next movie with Ellen Page and Penelope Cruz in Rome.

[Qrazy]

No, he's shit now.

[B-side]

It looks better than his last two.

[Boner M]

I hope he lives long enough to do Rendezvous in Astana.

[Ezee E]

I won't even bother with his stranger movie, despite it having Hopkins and Watts. Yikes.

[baby doll]

I liked Vicky Christina Barcelona, thought Whatever Works was even better, and I loved You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger. What can I say? The heart wants what it wants, and mine wants Woody.

[Irish]

It looks like the same old, same old.

I liked Vicky Christina well enough, although by the second act I wished Allen had cut out the coeds and made the movie about Javier Bardem and whats-her-name.

I couldn't sit through 10 minutes of Whatever Works. Allen keeps retreading this awful dialogue where the characters sound stuck in grad school circa 1974.

This one has that same intellectual defensiveness, the stink coming from a college drop out who's read all the books but never done the work past a first level course.

I remember when A-listers used to hustle to get parts in his movies. Now the bill looks like a list of people who can't get jobs anywhere else. I mean, Owen Wilson? Really?

[Raiders]

I remember when A-listers used to hustle to get parts in his movies. Now the bill looks like a list of people who can't get jobs anywhere else. I mean, Owen Wilson? Really?

You think Own Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Adrien Brody and Michael Sheen can't get jobs anywhere else?

[Irish]

You think Own Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Adrien Brody and Michael Sheen can't get jobs anywhere else?

Let's review: Suicide, Never Was, European, Village Idiot, and another European.

Look at the movies they've been in over the last few years. A string of bombs, almost to a one.

Ten, twenty years ago none of them would have would have had a shot at getting into an Allen film. Being billed in his movies was a prestige thing. It meant you were serious. Now it means almost the opposite.

[Ezee E]

Marion Cotillard sure was in a bomb last year.

[baby doll]

Ten, twenty years ago none of them would have would have had a shot at getting into an Allen film. Being billed in his movies was a prestige thing. It meant you were serious. Now it means almost the opposite.Ten years ago Allen was making Small Time Crooks and The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, both fairly diverting films that aspire to be nothing more than light entertainment--which from the looks of it, is also what Midnight in Paris sets out to be. That's actually fine by me, as Allen's recent European films tend to be superior in craftsmanship to the overwhelming majority of Hollywood product these days, even when the script isn't up to par (as in Scoop and Cassandra's Dream, although I'll grant some rather shocking continuity errors in You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger). My only real qualm is Allen's absolute reliance on shopworn clichés for his sense of what non-American women are like (for instance, the dark exotic beauties played Penelope Cruz and Freida Pinto in Vicky Christina Barcelona and You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, respectively).

[baby doll]

By the way, whether or not Allen still has the prestige to attract A-list stars, and whether any of the people in this film (including the friggin' first lady of France) qualify as A-list stars, has absolutely no bearing on how good his films are or the talent of the actors involved.

[Melville]

Let's review: Suicide, Never Was, European, Village Idiot, and another European.

Look at the movies they've been in over the last few years. A string of bombs, almost to a one.

Ten, twenty years ago none of them would have would have had a shot at getting into an Allen film. Being billed in his movies was a prestige thing. It meant you were serious. Now it means almost the opposite.
I see you're back with even more crack. They've all been in a ton of movies in the last few years, and many hits: e.g., Marley and Me, Night at the Museum, Sherlock Holmes, Inception, Tron. I don't think these are really lower-tier actors than those in Allen's movies from ten (Curse of the Jade Scorpion) or twenty (Shadows and Fog) years ago, let alone actors that can't get work. And they're all quality actors. I don't really see the relevance even if what you're saying were true.

[[ETM]]

whats-her-name

Why do you keep doing this when it's about someone you don't care for? It's seriously annoying.

[Irish]

By the way, whether or not Allen still has the prestige to attract A-list stars, and whether any of the people in this film (including the friggin' first lady of France) qualify as A-list stars, has absolutely no bearing on how good his films are or the talent of the actors involved.

Sure it does. People with healthy careers smell shit and stay away from it, just like any sensible person would and, well, because they can. People with more limited options take the role.

Also, let's not pretend that Marion Cotillard is a meaningful name to anyone in America.

[Irish]

I see you're back with even more crack. They've all been in a ton of movies in the last few years, and many hits: e.g., Marley and Me, Night at the Museum, Sherlock Holmes, Inception, Tron. I don't think these are really lower-tier actors than those in Allen's movies from ten (Curse of the Jade Scorpion) or twenty (Shadows and Fog) years ago, let alone actors that can't get work. And they're all quality actors. I don't really see the relevance even if what you're saying were true.

You're calling Owen Wilson a quality actor and I'm on drugs? Tee hee.

[[ETM]]

Also, let's not pretend that Marion Cotillard is a meaningful name to anyone in America.

No, people usually forget all about leading role Oscar winners.

[Irish]

;338196']Why do you keep doing this when it's about someone you don't care for? It's seriously annoying.

Not trying to be clever with that. I'm typing out a thought and blank on someone's name, I use a generic catch all instead of tabbing out and looking them up. My use of it has nothing to do with my opinion of the person, only with my faulty memory.

[MadMan]

Marion Cotillard won an Oscar, so I'm sure there are people in America who know who she is. Not to mention she was in Public Enemies.

As for Allen, his more modern stuff can wait. I'm still going through the rest of his 70s movies, trying to see more 80s, and maybe I'll get to some of his 60s movies as well. I hear his 90s material is interesting, but I've heard really mixed opinions about his 2000s movies. My current understanding is that Allen's been directing so long, he had the misfortunate to be around for message boards. I imagine that if message boards had existed during the tail end of Hitchcock's career, we'd be saying similar things about him, too.

[Irish]

;338227']No, people usually forget all about leading role Oscar winners.

You're making the mistake of believing what's meaningful to you is meaningful to everyone.

I can guarantee you that the average theater goer -- even the avid watcher of Allen's movies -- has no idea who she is.

[MadMan]

Most people actually watch the Oscars, believe it or not.

[Irish]

Most people actually watch the Oscars, believe it or not.

A lot of people watch the Super Bowl every year too. That doesn't mean they remember who was MVP or even who won in any given year, unless they're a sports fan.

You guys are talking as if she's this enormous household name in America, and I'm saying she's not. Far from it, in fact.

[megladon8]

Agree with Irish here.

Cotillard is definitely not a recognizable name to the average movie-goer yet.

I wouldn't be surprised if that changes in the near future, with her being in the new Batman film as well as a few other high profile roles.

I don't think she's there yet, though.

You could, I'm sure, remind people of her by saying "Leo's crazy wife in Inception" or something, but just reciting her name isn't going to get a huge response.

[number8]

How dare you. Michael Sheen was in Twilight, and you say he's not bankable?

[[ETM]]

I seriously don't get what you're trying to do here, Irish. It's like you just love spilling out these way-out-there theories and defending them to death.

[[ETM]]

How dare you. Michael Sheen was in Twilight, and you say he's not bankable?

Sheen was in everything. I don't remember anyone covering such a wide variety of high-profile projects in such a short time, ever.

[Irish]

;338239']I seriously don't get what you're trying to do here, Irish. It's like you just love spilling out these way-out-there theories and defending them to death.

I'm doing what everyone does on a movie message board: Give my opinion on the subject at hand.

I don't think it's "way out" to describe actors like Owen Wilson and Adrian Brody, among others, as desperate for expsure, nor do I think it's "way out" to imply that Allen is on his last legs as a filmmaker of any note.

[number8]

;338241']Sheen was in everything. I don't remember anyone covering such a wide variety of high-profile projects in such a short time, ever.

Jude Law, at one point, though he never got a recurring role on 30 Rock.

[[ETM]]

I don't think it's "way out" to describe actors like Owen Wilson and Adrian Brody, among others, as desperate for expsure, nor do I think it's "way out" to imply that Allen is on his last legs as a filmmaker of any note.

What's problematic is the significance you attribute to those claims. Who cares if Allen is setting his films in places he'd like to get paid to have a prolonged paid vacation in? Who cares if he's got people who are not Brangelina in them? You're making it all sound so definite and apocalyptic.

[Irish]

;338250']What's problematic is the significance you attribute to those claims. Who cares if Allen is setting his films in places he'd like to get paid to have a prolonged paid vacation in? Who cares if he's got people who are not Brangelina in them? You're making it all sound so definite and apocalyptic.

Uh, I care? It's fun to speculate about this shit, in a gossipy sort of way. This is an "upcoming" section of the forum. Isn't this what people are supposed to do?

I never said anything about settings or paid vacations, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

My comment was really supposed to be more about Allen than those actors, because I think the billing he gets for his movies reflects how relevant he is.

[[ETM]]

Jude Law, at one point, though he never got a recurring role on 30 Rock.

Nah, he never had Sheen's range of roles.

http://i.fanpix.net/images/orig/j/2/j2xbll76lemkl6ml.jpg

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2009/01/30/michaelsheen_wideweb__470x307, 0.jpg

http://www.thedeadbolt.com/images/michael_sheen_twilight_b.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bO-Kk_f0W_I/Sa2CEA1QB-I/AAAAAAAAAL4/YJzh-m1pNco/s400/sheen-frost_392.jpg

http://www.topnews.in/files/Michael-Sheen_0.jpg

http://thebruisedego.files.wordpress. com/2011/02/michael-sheen-tron-legacy-castor-rosalina-da-silva-makeup-artist.jpg

[Raiders]

I just don't think that Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen and Marion Cotillard are any less "relevant" as actors than most of who Allen used over the years. Diana Keaton was not DIANE KEATON when she starred in thost 70s films... Michael Murphy, Mariel Hemingway, Tony Roberts, Carol Kane. Heck, it's Allen himself who single-handedly continued Mia Farrow's career.

[[ETM]]

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Melville]

You're calling Owen Wilson a quality actor and I'm on drugs? Tee hee.
Pretty sure you could find any number of people calling him a quality comedic actor going back to Bottle Rocket. He's just been in a lot of shitty movies. Anyway, that's a matter of taste, whereas you're making definitive claims that are factually wrong.


I don't think it's "way out" to describe actors like Owen Wilson and Adrian Brody, among others, as desperate for expsure, nor do I think it's "way out" to imply that Allen is on his last legs as a filmmaker of any note.
Owen Wilson has been in 8 movies in the last three years, three of which have each made over $200 million worldwide. It seems pretty 'way out' to infer desperate for exposure from that. Adrien Brody might be more desperate for work, but that's the only person on the list of names that hasn't been in a big hit and/or critically acclaimed movie lately (though Predators made back three times its budget).


I just don't think that Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen and Marion Cotillard are any less "relevant" as actors than most of who Allen used over the years. Diana Keaton was not DIANE KEATON when she starred in thost late 70s films... Michael Murphy, Mariel Hemingway, Tony Roberts, Carol Kane. Heck, it's Allen himself who single-handedly continued Mia Farrow's career.
This. In what period of his career did Woody Allen pack every movie with bigger names than in his current films?

[Bosco B Thug]

^^^ Yeah to Melville's post. Is Irish just wrong here? (No offense, Irish, remember I was on your side during that one argument, that I can't recall right now...)

My not-in-the-know self would've readily and without much thought placed Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody, and Rachel McAdams as completely A-list and bankable (and Cotillard and Sheen as at least A-list, if not bankable) before this spat broke out.

[Irish]

Diana Keaton was not DIANE KEATON when she starred in thost 70s films... Michael Murphy, Mariel Hemingway, Tony Roberts, Carol Kane. Heck, it's Allen himself who single-handedly continued Mia Farrow's career.

You're conveniently leaving out the following 20 years. Check out the cast lists for movies like Husbands & Wives, Shadows & Fog, Everyone Says I Love You and Celebrity, among others. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

People fought tooth and nail to land roles in those movies. You think anyone's fighting for Midnight in Paris?

[Irish]

My not-in-the-know self would've readily and without much thought placed Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody, and Rachel McAdams as completely A-list and bankable (and Cotillard and Sheen as at least A-list, if not bankable) before this spat broke out.

I guess that depends on how broad your definition of "bankable" is. I don't think anyone would cast Wilson in a "Wedding Crashers" or "Shanghai Knights" now. I don't think he could carry any vehicle, not in the same way previous (and current) "quality comedic actors" can.

The same goes for the rest of that cast.

[soitgoes...]

You're conveniently leaving out the following 20 years. Check out the cast lists for movies like Husbands & Wives, Shadows & Fog, Everyone Says I Love You and Celebrity, among others. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

People fought tooth and nail to land roles in those movies. You think anyone's fighting for Midnight in Paris?The best film of those listed has the least cast, Husbands & Wives. Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, Judy Davis, Sydney Pollack, Juliette Lewis and Liam Neeson. Which one is the A-list actor?

[elixir]

Who the fuck cares if they are A-listers or not? I really think you are ascribing an importance to this that just isn't there, and you aren't even correct anyways.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yeah, neither Woody or anyone in the cast is desperate for anything. Allen will cast carefully or "stuntly" as he sees fit, and those actors will pass on a Hollywood rom-com or animal movie to work with a still-respected filmmaker.

[Raiders]

You're conveniently leaving out the following 20 years. Check out the cast lists for movies like Husbands & Wives, Shadows & Fog, Everyone Says I Love You and Celebrity, among others. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

People fought tooth and nail to land roles in those movies. You think anyone's fighting for Midnight in Paris?

I'm not conveniently leaving out anything. My point was about the quality and respect those late 70s films got/get and the cast that they had.

I'm also curious on your source for people fighting harder for those 80s roles.

[Irish]

The best film of those listed has the least cast, Husbands & Wives. Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, Judy Davis, Sydney Pollack, Juliette Lewis and Liam Neeson. Which one is the A-list actor?

Juliette Lewis. She got insanely great reviews for Cape Fear. She was covered all over the place. People were raving about her in a kind of Julia Roberts way.

She could have done anything as a follow up. The fact that she chose Allen's picture says something about his pull at the time.

[soitgoes...]

I would go so far as to say that over Allen's first twenty years only Hannah and Her Sisters had multiple "A-List" actors, those whose careers were not bound previously to Allen. This idea where Allen fills his cast with tons of great actors seems like it's built on his 90's films, which also happens to be when his career started to slide.

Either way the idea is ridiculous. Woody Allen's success isn't bound to his actors, but to his scripts. As a point, he's led something like 15 different actors to an Oscar nom. A few of who the average filmgoer would be able to recognize.

[soitgoes...]

Juliette Lewis. She got insanely great reviews for Cape Fear. She was covered all over the place. People were raving about her in a kind of Julia Roberts way.

She could have done anything as a follow up. The fact that she chose Allen's picture says something about his pull at the time.Wait, what? You accept Juliette Lewis, but not Marion Cotillard? No one in 1992 knew who Juliette Lewis was unless you explained that she was the daughter in Christmas Vacation or Cape Fear. She was in no way "big" like Julia Roberts. I was 15 when Pretty Woman came out, and I knew who she was by name. Juliette Lewis didn't become a known name to the public until Natural Born Killers, and even after that she's always skated on the outside of stardom.

[Lucky]

I can guarantee you that the average theater goer -- even the avid watcher of Allen's movies -- has no idea who she is.

I was with you until here. Anyone who follows movie news enough to know when a new Woody Allen film comes out these days is going to know who Marion Cotillard is.

To prove my point, which set of movies has received more press in the past:

A) You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, Whatever Works, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Cassandra's Dream

B) Inception, Nine, Public Enemies, La Vie en Rose

[Ezee E]

I still think you underestimate Cotillard in America. She's the face of makeup lines, gets lead roles in summer movies. Girls love her because she presents elegance. Men love her cause she's damn good looking. Middle America doesn't like her because she's French and had some French callout on America back when she won her Oscar, and they'll never forget it.

[Watashi]

What the fuck is wrong with you, Irish?

[Irish]

Wait, what? You accept Juliette Lewis, but not Marion Cotillard? No one in 1992 knew who Juliette Lewis was unless you explained that she was the daughter in Christmas Vacation or Cape Fear. She was in no way "big" like Julia Roberts.

She wasn't talked about in an "America's sweetheart" kind of way, and the paparazzi didn't stalk her like they did Roberts, but man people raved and raved about her performance in Cape Fear, to the point where she was overexposed.

And yeah, people did know who she was. Like everyone else in her position, she appeared on everything from Arsenio Hall to Letterman to Regis.

[Sycophant]

I don't want to get into this argument, but just real quick.

Cotillard has been on Oprah twice, Fallon once, Larry King twice, and Craig Ferguson four times.

[DavidSeven]

Actors were more famous 20 years ago than they are now. How many super-duper stars are there now? You can count them on two hands, and they're largely carryovers from 20 years ago. In relative terms, Marion Cotillard is a bigger star within Hollywood now than Juliette Lewis was post-Cape Fear. And she is in a supporting role in the Allen film. McAdams is indisputably a legit star and a known entity to the commoners of America.

[Ivan Drago]

Eh, I'm looking forward to it. Like the cast and the poster is awesome.

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2011/03/17/midnight-in-paris-poster.jpg

[[ETM]]

Van Gogh seems an odd choice.

[Qrazy]

I just don't think that Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen and Marion Cotillard are any less "relevant" as actors than most of who Allen used over the years. Diana Keaton was not DIANE KEATON when she starred in thost 70s films... Michael Murphy, Mariel Hemingway, Tony Roberts, Carol Kane. Heck, it's Allen himself who single-handedly continued Mia Farrow's career.

Indeed, and let's not forget how many careers Allen got off the ground. A young Paul Giamatti had a bit part in Deconstructing Harry, Christopher Walken in Annie Hall, etc. It's a long list.

[Irish]

Reading about this in a few different places -- wow, that trailer was totally off the mark.

This is much closer to something like Purple Rose of Cairo. A shame, because the actual movie sounds a helluva lot more interesting than the advertisements let on.

[Pop Trash]

Some serious raves coming in for this. Ed Gonzalez at Slant says it's the best Woody in a decade.

[Winston*]

Reading about this in a few different places -- wow, that trailer was totally off the mark.

This is much closer to something like Purple Rose of Cairo. A shame, because the actual movie sounds a helluva lot more interesting than the advertisements let on.

Yeah, based on the premise this is something I'd wanna see.

[lovejuice]

You guy read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/movies/woody-allen-suffers-for-the-title-of-his-new-film.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&src=twr)?

[elixir]

I do want to post more thoughts on the movie soon, but let me just say, as reported, that the trailer for this is not indicative of the movie really. I have no idea why they didn't just "reveal" what the movie is actually about...pretty bad decision by the marketing department if you ask me.

Anyways, the movie's good. See it.

[DavidSeven]

Not bad. Calling it Woody's best in a decade is too much though. His fans will get a kick out of this, but it's also kind of disposable and obvious. Expect a lot of fun moments.

[Derek]

Not bad. Calling it Woody's best in a decade is too much though.

It's easily his best for me, but I also don't think Match Point or Vicky Christina are particularly good. I think calling either of those a masterpiece is a far bigger stretch than calling this his best in a decade simply because he hasn't produced any great works in that stretch. I also think the points this film made about nostalgia were much more interesting and poignant than any made about fate, or rather FATE, in Match Point and it was done in a much less overburdened manner.

[DavidSeven]

I'm not a fan of Match Point, but I thought Vicky Cristina was tremendous, one of the best of its year. I'd slide this one somewhere squarely in the middle of those two.

[NickGlass]

Match Point is obvious and lame and hollow. Vicky Cristina Barcelona is obvious and pretty and fun enough. Midnight in Paris is obvious and alternately pleasant and irritatingly broad. Match Point is by far the most heavy-handed, though.

Midnight in Paris feels like Woody directing an SNL sketch of an American in Paris. It's slight, has a poignant theme placed in a simplified and digestible form, and perpetually pigeonholes its characters.

[Pop Trash]

I remember thinking VCB was good but not great. I think I mostly had a problem with the third person voice-over. Like nails on a chalkboard.

[NickGlass]

Oh, and Alison Pill is aces, as always.

[Sven]

Oh, and Alison Pill is aces, as always.

I saw her in a play on Broadway and she was so annoying. It didn't help that she had to do an Irish accent.

[NickGlass]

I saw her in a play on Broadway and she was so annoying. It didn't help that she had to do an Irish accent.

Really? Which? I saw her in Neil LaBute's Reasons to be Pretty roughly three years ago and she was by far the least annoying aspect of that terrible production.

[DavidSeven]

I'll speak up in defense of Pill. She was the highlight of the film for me as well, and she was sadly given too little screen time. Also really liked Corey Stoll in this (totally unfamiliar with him outside of this film). Really hated caricature portrayal of Inez (McAdams). No fault to McAdams; that was just an unfortunately written character. Nick's description of some of these characters as being pigeonholed is right on.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Just found out this opened at my theater this week. I'm going to try to see it this weekend if I can squeeze it in.

[MadMan]

I didn't even realize it was playing at my local large chain theater. Huh. Guess I'll go check it out before it leaves town. Never seen a Woody Allen movie in theaters.

[Sven]

Really? Which? I saw her in Neil LaBute's Reasons to be Pretty roughly three years ago and she was by far the least annoying aspect of that terrible production.

Lieutenant of Inishmore. Fun show.

[Watashi]

I loved this dearly.

Good to have you back Woody.

[ledfloyd]

yeah, i thought it was fantastic. i'm not singling anyone here out (even though i'm paraphrasing) but i think films that come off as effortless can often be mistaken for disposable. this was one of woody's funniest in awhile, it was rather poignant, and owen wilson is just great in it. the bunuel scene had me in stitches. one of the most enjoyable trips to the movies i've had in a long time. i think it's easily in woody's top ten films.

[B-side]

So Man Ray is also a character in this film. Why was I not informed of this?

[Sxottlan]

This was a lot fun and quite sweet too.

Corey Stoll was fantastic as Hemingway.


the bunuel scene had me in stitches.

Yeah I haven't seen The Exterminating Angels yet, but I knew enough about it that that was cracking me up.

"I don't get it. Why can't they leave?"

[Pop Trash]

This is fine and fun and all, but not sure I get some of the raves. I kept waiting for a revelatory "holy shit" cinematic moment that never came. The epiphanies about nostalgia are accurate, if not exactly fresh.

Not to mention the usual "problems of the white, privileged, and educated" that come with Woody Allen films.

Big ups to most of the actors here though: Allison Pill, Corey Stoll, Kathy Bates, Marion Cotillard, and Adrian Brody all did fine jobs. Owen Wilson wasn't a bad Allen surrogate either. Rachel McAdams and co. got the worst roles, but that might have been more Allen than McAdams.

[Izzy Black]

I also think the points this film made about nostalgia were much more interesting and poignant than any made about fate, or rather FATE, in Match Point and it was done in a much less overburdened manner.

Really? I found the remarks about nostalgia pretty trite and humdrum. As for Match Point, the film involves chance more than fate. They aren't necessarily one in the same. What's more, the film isn't so merely about chance. It's bigger themes go quite a bit beyond that, extending to the aesthetic and the moral.

As a side note, I've seen the criticism "obvious" made in this thread more times than I think I've ever seen it used at all. What kind of criticism is it to say the film is "obvious"?

[DavidSeven]

I think "obvious" can be taken to mean that the elements of the film are either "trite and humdrum" or lacking in subtlety, perhaps both. I would guess people generally have a sense of what's meant when the term is used to describe a film.

[B-side]

I agree that the remarks on nostalgia are not at all revelatory or insightful.

[Pop Trash]

I'm siding with Israfel here. Match-Point is still the best Allen (I've seen) since 2000. And it's "insights" are much more pointed than Midnight in Paris.

That said, it still feels like a inferior retread of Crimes & Misdemeanors.

[Rowland]

My biggest gripe with this film is how blatantly Woody stacks the deck in terms of shticky caricatures and schematic thematic progression. Anyone paying attention should be able to figure out where it's going pretty early on, and lo and behold, it follows its preordained beats without much in the way of unanticipated poetic digressions or insightful grace notes. Furthermore, the ending seems dishonest, should we take Wilson's climactic revelation to heart. I would have been much more forgiving had his character also walked away from the fetching curator of nostalgic goods to forge a new enlightened path, unless we're intended to read it as ironic, in which case it just plays as a cosmic shrug of blissful self-delusion.

[Idioteque Stalker]

The gratuitous caricatures are the main reason the movie's as fun as it is. One never knows who Gill will run into next, and Allen depicts them in a lovingly over-the-top manner befitting a story about misplaced, exaggerated nostalgia.

The ending did seem incongruous (not to mention corny), as Rowland pointed out, but should we really expect much else from such a lighthearted movie?

I thought it was delightful. My favorite of Allen's since Sweet and Lowdown for sure.

[Thirdmango]

I think something that helped me in liking this film is besides knowing director and actors I knew nothing about the film before I started watching it. Thus the reveals were all new and fantastic. I do think I would probably have been less enthused if I knew before hand which is why with a director like Allen I'm perfectly fine watching his movies without knowing anything.

[Grouchy]

As a side note, I've seen the criticism "obvious" made in this thread more times than I think I've ever seen it used at all. What kind of criticism is it to say the film is "obvious"?
I'd say the film is "obvious" because, really, it has something very literal and banal to say about life - namely, that some people think that every past era was better than the present and that they're wrong - and it says it all right in the dialogue of the opening scene. No point in watching the rest of the film.

[Spinal]

Bleh, this wasn't very good. There isn't a whole lot of humor that hits. There isn't a whole lot to the story. There aren't a whole lot of surprises. It's a mildly keen observation about nostalgia that might have made for a nice moment in a television interview with Allen or something. The time travel conceit is really kind of amatuerish and the gags with Hemingway and Bunuel and the rest are cute at best. Are there charms along the way? Some. Marion Cotiallard is captivating as usual. I was amused by Adrien Brody's Dali. But this is not a film I expect I will ever be compelled to revisit or think much about beyond today.

[Pop Trash]

I'm still perplexed by Derek busting his nut all over this, especially when he's perfectly content bombing other good movies with one star.

[Boner M]

Spinal & Nick are on the money. Not much more to add, but I'll post my weekly-paper review anyway.

Woody Allen’s recent Euro-travelogue instincts come out in full force for Midnight in Paris, in which Owen Wilson joins the long line of actors saddled with the task of Allen-mimicry playing Gil, a Hollywood screenwriter and aspiring novelist holidaying in Paris, with his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams). Being a woman in a Woody Allen film, Inez is a gorgeous but unpleasant shrew, written with no redeeming qualities aside from the ability to deliver the occasional Allen-zinger, so Gil strolls the Parisian streets at night while she hangs out with her friends.

The film picks up considerable steam when the clock strikes midnight during Gil’s strolls, and he’s magically transported back to the Paris of the 1920’s, where the bespectacled Wilson is greeted to the likes of the Fitzgeralds, Picasso, Dali, Bunuel, and many others. All are impersonated to perfection, with Corey Stoll’s mercurial take on Hemingway being a particular showstopper. Gil – and by extension, Allen – questions both his talent as a novelist and his nostalgia for a bygone era he was never a part of, and it’s through these historical digressions that the film becomes a very on-the-nose rumination on what it means to look back.

Indeed, the ultimate theme is delivered in a monologue that counts as a spoiler of the ending, which really just shows how filmsy the whole thing is as a narrative. But then, context is everything: I suspect the disproportionate praise for Midnight in Paris has to do with the poignancy of seeing Allen, among the most antiquated of filmmakers, finally delivering a critique of his own nostalgic tendencies (a critique undermined by the sense that the story could be taking place any time in the last 50 years, excoriation of Tea Party republicans nonwithstanding). See it for the featherweight charms, and look elsewhere for true insights.

[transmogrifier]

The problem is, given the potential inherent in the premise, nothing much is done with it, and (worse) it is simply not very funny. And it's not as if Allen is writing jokes here that bomb - he's stopped writing jokes altogether, which is fine if you are trying to make a Match Point, but totally wrong for this sort of bauble.

But I tell you what, despite (because of?) playing a bit of a bitch, Rachel McAdams is stunningly hot here. So there is that going for it.

[monolith94]

She's hot, but Marion Cotillard was hotter in this film. Smoking hot eyes.

[ledfloyd]

if there weren't any jokes in the film why was i laughing?

[Derek]

I'm still perplexed by Derek busting his nut all over this, especially when he's perfectly content bombing other good movies with one star.

I gave it 3 stars, yo. I do think it's Allen's best in years though, but more because I was underwhelmed by his other recent critical darlings (MC, Vicky, etc.) than because this is some sort of masterpiece. I also personally found it really funny and its cleverness didn't feel as forced as it has in recent years.


She's hot, but Marion Cotillard was hotter in this film. Smoking hot eyes.

She's distractingly hot in almost everything I've seen her in. It's ridiculous.

[Boner M]

Wilson's convo with Bunuel about The Exterminating Angel was def. the highlight, albeit ruined by the screening I was at where numerous audience members did that smug, knowing laugh to make it clear to everyone around them that they 'got' it.


She's distractingly hot in almost everything I've seen her in. It's ridiculous.
This.

[transmogrifier]

She's hot, but Marion Cotillard was hotter in this film. Smoking hot eyes.

Disagree. McAdams seems way more relaxed (and curvy!) in this film than I have ever seen her; in her other roles, she always seems a little cold and mechanical, but Allen brought out a bit of life in her. And there's a reason why he wrote a scene where all she does is pretty much bend over in front of the camera and load luggage into a car.

PS Have nothing against Cotillard, though she was way wasted in this movie.

EDIT: I would also like to apologize for objectifying actresses here, but really, there is nothing much else to talk about with this film.

[transmogrifier]

if there weren't any jokes in the film why was i laughing?

Nitrous oxide leak?

[Spinal]

Wilson's convo with Bunuel about The Exterminating Angel was def. the highlight, albeit ruined by the screening I was at where numerous audience members did that smug, knowing laugh to make it clear to everyone around them that they 'got' it.


The problem with the bit is that smug, knowing laughs is all it really deserves. What is there to it beyond a wink tossed out to film buffs? If Bunuel has to have his own aesthetic explained to him by a traveller from the future, then he really isn't Bunuel, is he? The joke comes at the expense of character. And as a result, it's not terribly funny.

[Pop Trash]

I'm still perplexed by Derek busting his nut all over this, especially when he's perfectly content bombing other good movies with one star.

Strangely, this movie is staying with me more than other movies I thought I liked more (Moneyball for example). As facile as it is sometimes, Allen's thoughts on how we romanticize the past are right on. Maybe it's just because I've been hangin' with lots of artsy fartsy types lately.

[Boner M]

The problem with the bit is that smug, knowing laughs is all it really deserves. What is there to it beyond a wink tossed out to film buffs? If Bunuel has to have his own aesthetic explained to him by a traveller from the future, then he really isn't Bunuel, is he? The joke comes at the expense of character.
I thought it was a pretty good gag about artists' aesthetics and sensibilities being dependent on their era, and how truly adventurous ones would do things they'd never imagine they'd be doing generations ago rather than being mired in the past. Granted it's unlikely that Bunuel would be so literal-minded in his Dali years, but the joke still works IMO.

[NickGlass]

It's not her fault, but a majority of the scenes with McAdams are just insufferable. That broadly-played earrings scene? Totally brutal.

[NickGlass]

As facile as it is sometimes, Allen's thoughts on how we romanticize the past are right on.

They're so right on that he found a way to distill his simple point in a three sentence, overexplicit monologue. Oh, yeah, right on...


Maybe it's just because I've been hangin' with lots of artsy fartsy types lately.

I don't see the connection.

[TripZone]

The problem with the bit is that smug, knowing laughs is all it really deserves. What is there to it beyond a wink tossed out to film buffs? If Bunuel has to have his own aesthetic explained to him by a traveller from the future, then he really isn't Bunuel, is he? The joke comes at the expense of character. And as a result, it's not terribly funny.

Totally agree. I shuddered during that part.

[Watashi]

How so?

Where does Woody show fondness for Sheen's character? In an earlier Woody movie, Sheen's character would probably have been the main character, but with Midnight in Paris, I've noticed that Woody has matured away from this idea and has become (gulp) less cynical. Maybe that's why Nick hates it.

I actually love how on-the-nose and light-hearted this is. It's crazy how this film is Woody's most popular movie BO wise. This film was selling out weeks and weeks. And these weren't English majors or literary scholars seeing this. The showing I went to was full of high school couples just looking for a date movie to go to (I was alone :sad:). They didn't chuckle at the Bunuel joke nor did they whisper excitedly anytime a famous literary author popped up. They just enjoyed for its breezy message.

[Watashi]

The problem with the bit is that smug, knowing laughs is all it really deserves. What is there to it beyond a wink tossed out to film buffs? If Bunuel has to have his own aesthetic explained to him by a traveller from the future, then he really isn't Bunuel, is he? The joke comes at the expense of character. And as a result, it's not terribly funny.


Yeah, but Bunuel wasn't really Bunuel at this point. I mean, I don't think he has even made Un Chien Andaolu at this point where Owen meets him.

[Derek]

and how truly adventurous ones would do things they'd never imagine they'd be doing generations ago rather than being mired in the past. Granted it's unlikely that Bunuel would be so literal-minded in his Dali years, but the joke still works IMO.

Yeah, that was the joke. I don't see how anyone could see it as being at the expense of Bunuel.

[Rowland]

You could also argue that the scene reflects how Wilson uses the past to delude his reality, in that he doesn't even recognize how his summary of The Exterminating Angel could just as well be him describing his current marital situation.

[Boner M]

Where does Woody show fondness for Sheen's character?
I think you read my post wrong: I meant that he displays a fondness for the function of Sheen's character, not the character itself.

[Watashi]

I think you read my post wrong: I meant that he displays a fondness for the function of Sheen's character, not the character itself.
What's wrong with that?

[Spinal]

Yeah, but Bunuel wasn't really Bunuel at this point. I mean, I don't think he has even made Un Chien Andaolu at this point where Owen meets him.

But it contradicts another joke made earlier in the same film. When Gil describes his situation to the Surrealists, they don't find anything strange about it. That is a joke that is actually funny. Why? Because it uses what we know about their characters and places them in a situation where they react differently than anyone else would. That's comedy.

With the later scene, we are asked to accept that Bunuel cannot recognize his own aesthetic when it is being described to him. He is suddenly driven by conventional logic. Character has been abandoned and the joke doesn't work.

[Spinal]

I don't see how anyone could see it as being at the expense of Bunuel.

I don't think it's at the expense of Bunuel. I think it is at the expense of the Bunuel character that Allen has created.

[Boner M]

What's wrong with that?
Because Allen's incessant name-dropping and blanket distaste for pop culture is a kind of pseudo-intellectualism in itself.

[Boner M]

With the later scene, we are asked to accept that Bunuel cannot recognize his own aesthetic when it is being described to him. He is suddenly driven by conventional logic. Character has been abandoned and the joke doesn't work.
I dunno. There's a difference between the aesthetic of Dali/Bunuel ca. the 20's and the Bunuel of TEA.

[Watashi]

Because Allen's incessant name-dropping and blanket distaste for pop culture is a kind of pseudo-intellectualism in itself.
It's not like Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Gertrude Stein are obscure artists.

[Izzy Black]

Because Allen's incessant name-dropping and blanket distaste for pop culture is a kind of pseudo-intellectualism in itself.

But it's this very notion that's under review in his film. It's pretty much what the entire movie is about. I mean, you are in a sense agreeing with Allen here. This element of self-awareness is what makes the movie charming for a lot of people.

[Izzy Black]

I'd say the film is "obvious" because, really, it has something very literal and banal to say about life - namely, that some people think that every past era was better than the present and that they're wrong - and it says it all right in the dialogue of the opening scene. No point in watching the rest of the film.

For one, I don't think that's the message of the film. Second, I would agree with the claim that what it has to say is very literal, but I do not necessarily think it is "banal" in the 'uninteresting' sense, but I would be willing to accept that it's "banal" in the sense that it's a very commonplace and garden-variety observation about our experience.

Lastly, the fact that it's set up in the beginning doesn't mean there's no reason to watch it played out and unfold through a good story. Match-Point sets up its entire film based on the opening dialogue as well. Nevertheless, we don't want to just hear what the movie is about, we want to see it! That's why we watch movies.

[Grouchy]

Agree to disagree with that. I see your point, but I simply don't find modern Woody Allen interesting (either the filmmaking or the comedy) enough to justify watching the whole film. I don't like Match Point either for similar reasons - too obvious.

Still, I'm threading a fine line when I criticize Woody. His one-a-year output is the one thing keeping his work so uneven and undercooked, I think. And I still like movies like Vicky Cristina Barcelona or Cassandra's Dream a lot.

[Izzy Black]

Agree to disagree with that. I see your point, but I simply don't find modern Woody Allen interesting (either the filmmaking or the comedy) enough to justify watching the whole film. I don't like Match Point either for similar reasons - too obvious.

Okay.


Still, I'm threading a fine line when I criticize Woody. His one-a-year output is the one thing keeping his work so uneven and undercooked, I think. And I still like movies like Vicky Cristina Barcelona or Cassandra's Dream a lot.

Wow - Cassandra's Dream? Ack! But, yeah, okay.

[Boner M]

But it's this very notion that's under review in his film. It's pretty much what the entire movie is about. I mean, you are in a sense agreeing with Allen here. This element of self-awareness is what makes the movie charming for a lot of people.
Eh, I don't think there's any self-awareness to the use of the Sheen character as a device to highlight the real wisdom of Gil/Allen-by-proxy.

[baby doll]

Still, I'm threading a fine line when I criticize Woody. His one-a-year output is the one thing keeping his work so uneven and undercooked, I think. And I still like movies like Vicky Cristina Barcelona or Cassandra's Dream a lot.I've never been convinced by the argument that Allen is uneven because he makes too many movies. Then again, I tend to be wildly out of step with the general consensus on Allen, especially of late: I vastly prefer Whatever Works and You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, which flopped, to Vicky Christina Barcelona and Midnight in Paris, which were hits. I'm starting to think that how much you like Allen's films has a lot to do with what you expect to get out of them, and in the case of Midnight in Paris, part of why it disappointed me may simply be that I get the referrences to Orphée, which is incontroverably a better movies. (Then again, the fact that I love 8 1/2 and Twentieth Century has done nothing to diminish my enthusiasm for Stardust Memories and Bullets Over Broadway.)

[monolith94]

Where was there a reference to Orpheus?

[Grouchy]

You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger
This movie hurt my eyes and my brain. It's one of the few movies I have ever turned off. It was so bad I couldn't finish it.

[baby doll]

Where was there a reference to Orpheus?I think the old timey car that transported Owen Wilson back in time is pretty obviously a reference to the old timey car used by death and her driver in Cocteau's film. Also, it's mentioned in the dialogue that the first party that Wilson attends is being thrown by Cocteau.

[monolith94]

Yeah, I didn't think that simply mentioning that a party was being thrown by Cocteau was enough to count as a reference to Orpheus specifically, and I forgot about the whole car driving thing.

[Qrazy]

Lastly, the fact that it's set up in the beginning doesn't mean there's no reason to watch it played out and unfold through a good story. Match-Point sets up its entire film based on the opening dialogue as well. Nevertheless, we don't want to just hear what the movie is about, we want to see it! That's why we watch movies.

I don't want to see it personally cause that movie was total balls.

[ledfloyd]

I don't want to see it personally cause that movie was total balls.
tennis balls?

[Izzy Black]

I don't want to see it personally cause that movie was total balls.

Eh, well, they are dissimilar in just about every other possible way.

[Qrazy]

Eh, well, they are dissimilar in just about every other possible way.

Reasonable, I haven't seen Midnight in Paris. I can just never pass up an opportunity to slag off Match Point. :P

[Izzy Black]

Reasonable, I haven't seen Midnight in Paris. I can just never pass up an opportunity to slag off Match Point. :P

Yeah, I sensed the clear intention to take a swipe. I'm sure I've sparred you on it in the past, figured I let that pass.

[Izzy Black]

Eh, I don't think there's any self-awareness to the use of the Sheen character as a device to highlight the real wisdom of Gil/Allen-by-proxy.

Take the early scene where Paul takes everyone on a tour. They all mock Gil for his story about the nostalgia shop. They take turns at psychoanalyzing his denial of the present and his "Golden Age" thinking, the coping mechanism that results in the fallacy or erroneous thinking that the past is always better than the present. Gil's entire novel is deconstructed, lampooned, and dismissed right in front of him, long before he even had the chance to write it. He simply walks casually along with his head down in defeat and takes the brutal mockery. It's actually one of the more humorous bits in the film.

You might think about this scene that Gil represents Woody Allen and Paul is the quintessential "pseudo-intellectual" that Allen proceeds to prove wrong throughout the course of the next hour and half. But of course, that's to ignore the bittersweet insights of the conclusion and the function of comedy in Woody Allen's films. If Gil is a proxy for Allen, then the self-deprecation in this scene has to be at least considered at face value. Allen's cerebral humor works because his self-deprecation reflects a kind of Socratic uncertainty. In other words, it's not that Allen thinks Paul is simply wrong and that Gil is right, that Paul's intellectualized rant flatly fails to capture the real intellectual complexity and nuance of Gil's novel and philosophy on life. It might be right to think of Paul as a pseudo-intellectual because he speaks from what he's (half) read from books and not from what he has experienced, but that doesn't mean his analysis of Gil is incorrect. That's the value of the irony in this scene. Allen's brand of humor is a thoroughly self-aware one.

[Irish]

Painful to watch. No characters. Historical idiocy & inaccuracy. Sophomoric insights.

After VC Barcelona, Whatever Works & this, I'm convinced some half wit NYU undergrad is writing Allen's scripts.

[Pop Trash]

Painful to watch. No characters. Historical idiocy & inaccuracy. Sophomoric insights.


Isn't this sort of the point though? These historical characters are meant to be projections of Gil's mind (or are they?).

[Irish]

Isn't this sort of the point though? These historical characters are meant to be projections of Gil's mind (or are they?).
Yes & no.

If Gil really is a huge fan of the era, the he'd know that Hemingway wasn't a combatant in WWI and didn't go to Africa until 1933, well after the period presented.

On a personal level, it just bugged me that they took thee wonderfully interesting figures and reduced them to the stupidest level of characterchure. The back cover of the Cliff Note's for The Sun Also Rises has more depth than this movie.

I understand what Allen was doing, but I'm mystified it took him 2 hours to do it. Just as im mystified it took a grown man a week+ to realize there was no penicillin in 1925.

There's maybe 30 minutes of story & "insight" here. The rest is just a travelogue for Paris.

[lovejuice]

Watched it twice already. Probably my favorite film of 2011. During the second viewing, though, I can't help but notice how transparent and mechanical the script is.

The movie, as a whole, is rather silly, but a kind of silliness only Allen can pull off effortlessly. In fact its effortlessness is part of its charm. The movie is like a sketch by a master who knows he could make, or did make, a much greater movie.

I imagine a young and ambitious film-maker trying to work on this same concept. He'd probably strain every creative muscle to achieve this fine balance between smugness and playfulness, and audiences would surely notice that.

[Ezee E]

This was highly entertaining at times, when it goes back to the 20's, the 1890's... But when it is in the present. Blegh.

Kind of ironic I guess...

Allen films Paris with the eye of a tourist, and it's lovely. Can't complain there. This might be his best looking movie in a while.

Some have complained about the caricatures of the idols. To that, I think it's justified, and from the onlooker of someone that goes back in time, they'd be looking for those things in my opinion. Similar to how someone visits Paris for the first time.

[baby doll]

Some have complained about the caricatures of the idols. To that, I think it's justified, and from the onlooker of someone that goes back in time, they'd be looking for those things in my opinion. Similar to how someone visits Paris for the first time.I dunno about you, but personally, as soon as I got off the train, I immediately went whoring in Pigalle.

[Ezee E]

I dunno about you, but personally, as soon as I got off the train, I immediately went whoring in Pigalle.
Never been. Is that what they recommend in Frommer's?

[dreamdead]

Every character only has one note, and like others have mentioned, its sense of literary history is similarly basic (since Djana Barnes is thought of as a lesbian, of course she likes to lead in dancing) but it still has an effortless air. And Hemingway's one note is true and fine note. It is a pure note. And as such, it is a pure and glorious note. I could watch 2 hours of his character and still crack up.

Every scene with McAdams grates, but that's her character. Owen Wilson has the right breeziness to pull off the WA surrogate type. Enjoyable but slight nonetheless.

[Pop Trash]

Enjoyable but slight nonetheless.

This seems to be a lot of 2011's heavy hitters. Paris, The Artist, Hugo, even Drive.

[Boner M]

This seems to be a lot of 2011's heavy hitters. Paris, The Artist, Hugo, even Drive.
The nostalgia quartet?

[Adam]

Ugh, this was unbearable. Has there been a less sympathetic put-upon protagonist in Woody's canon than Owen Wilson in this movie? The thing is, Allen IS self aware, but still refuses to quit making the same movie. Midnight in Paris is the ultimate, ironic embodiment of that. I think I'm done with you, Woody. At least we'll always have Broadway Danny Rose

[Qrazy]

I thought this was fine, slight but fine. The only thing that really failed hard for me was the central relationship between the protag and his fiance. That dynamic was terribly executed as was the end of their relationship. Also, my god, by and large in this film women are just pretty faces to Allen. The curator? The audiophile? Bleh.

It's definitely infinitely better than Match Point though which is the last contemporary Allen I've seen.

[MadMan]

This seems to be a lot of 2011's heavy hitters. Paris, The Artist, Hugo, even Drive.I loved all of those movies.

[baby doll]

This seems to be a lot of 2011's heavy hitters. Paris, The Artist, Hugo, even Drive.Apart from Drive, I don't recall there being much heavy hitting in any of those movies.

[Izzy Black]

I understand what Allen was doing, but I'm mystified it took him 2 hours to do it. Just as im mystified it took a grown man a week+ to realize there was no penicillin in 1925.

There's maybe 30 minutes of story & "insight" here. The rest is just a travelogue for Paris.

I'm curious - what exactly do you think this film is about? I've seen a lot of people in this thread alternating between similar sorts of dismissals that describe the film as either 'obvious,' silly, simplistic, or short on insight, but yet many of those I've encountered have had slightly different interpretations on what this film is about considered in relation to its theme of nostalgia.

I've actually said myself that the conclusions made by Owen's character at the end of the film come off a bit trite, and I take it that this informs what most people think the film is about, but I don't think taking these thoughts wholesale as the film's own conclusions is really doing the film justice. I think the text is a bit more open than that and in a way that's more fitting with Allen's other work. And if we're really saying this is a quintessentially formulaic Allen film, then any presumption of a straightforward conclusion ought to be markedly measured by strong considerations of thematic irony and existential uncertainty. These qualities are the hallmark of any good reading of one of his more typical films.

[MarcusBrody]

Take the early scene where Paul takes everyone on a tour. They all mock Gil for his story about the nostalgia shop. They take turns at psychoanalyzing his denial of the present and his "Golden Age" thinking, the coping mechanism that results in the fallacy or erroneous thinking that the past is always better than the present. Gil's entire novel is deconstructed, lampooned, and dismissed right in front of him, long before he even had the chance to write it. He simply walks casually along with his head down in defeat and takes the brutal mockery. It's actually one of the more humorous bits in the film.

You might think about this scene that Gil represents Woody Allen and Paul is the quintessential "pseudo-intellectual" that Allen proceeds to prove wrong throughout the course of the next hour and half. But of course, that's to ignore the bittersweet insights of the conclusion and the function of comedy in Woody Allen's films. If Gil is a proxy for Allen, then the self-deprecation in this scene has to be at least considered at face value. Allen's cerebral humor works because his self-deprecation reflects a kind of Socratic uncertainty. In other words, it's not that Allen thinks Paul is simply wrong and that Gil is right, that Paul's intellectualized rant flatly fails to capture the real intellectual complexity and nuance of Gil's novel and philosophy on life. It might be right to think of Paul as a pseudo-intellectual because he speaks from what he's (half) read from books and not from what he has experienced, but that doesn't mean his analysis of Gil is incorrect. That's the value of the irony in this scene. Allen's brand of humor is a thoroughly self-aware one.

I was definitely thinking that this was going to be second rate Allen self-parody watching that opening scene. I was very pleasantly surprised when it shifted in tone and moved into the historical section. I ended up liking the film a lot.

[Izzy Black]

I was definitely thinking that this was going to be second rate Allen self-parody watching that opening scene. I was very pleasantly surprised when it shifted in tone and moved into the historical section. I ended up liking the film a lot.

I think it's a great scene and gives the ending the more resonance.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This was fun! The historical scenes trafficked in caricature, but they also sparked with life from the actors - Pill and Stoll and Cotillard were treats (especially Stoll, good God). By the time Gil's big moment came along, we've known for a while what the "lesson" is, so it doesn't hit as impactfully as it might have. Maybe because the film works best as a sort of highlight reel of formative American artists. Sort of a college junior's heavy rewrite of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. The modern scenes were more "eh." I was expecting another layer to reveal itself regarding why Gil would've ever bothered joining into this shallow circle of human beings (he's shallow too, but he comes from a place of genuine enthusiasm and warmth, as opposed to the dry detail-recitation of his wife and especially Peter), and that never happened. There's maybe something Allen could've teased out more with Gil not just yearning for a "golden age" of American art but also yearning for the earlier years of what's now a tired jog into an unhappy marriage.

It's funny to read these older comments on the ending, because I liked how the film ended, with him happy to be in Paris now, creating a new moment now with the woman. Anyway, he's not going back to the 1920s stoop. I'd call that progress.