I liked this movie very, VERY much.
As car as Scarlett Johansson is concerned, I have always been underwhelmed by her until this movie. Not only is she deserving of an Oscar nod, but she's my choice for the award right now.
Nothing British about the story, I agree. However, Allen chose to set the story in London and he has absolutely NO idea about how the kind of people he is choosing to tell his story with actually speak. Nobody says things like "I want you to make me pregnant", "that simply isn't so" or "I apologise for my reticence". There were a gazillion other moments that were equally as poorly written, but those three were the ones my friend and I quoted over and over again yesterday after seeing it.
In addition to having no idea about how British people talk, Allen is equally clueless about British society in general, London housing prices, laws and police procedures and many other aspects of the film that were just plain wrong. This lack of knowledge in the latter aspects means that the plot simply doesn't work, there are far too many holes to make it remotely believable. Scarlett Johansson was the movie's saving grace and without her (though I also think Kate Winslet would have been sensational in the role too) I probably wouldn't have sat through this until the end as it just irritated me so very much.
I'm not nearly as critical in the finer points that you've stated such as words that a Brit might say, real estate in London, etc. Those things aren't important to me. I don't expect a filmmaker to take the time to learn all that in order for me to enjoy a film. If they do, well fine, but I'm not holding that against them. In my reviews of films and/or stage, if I'm entertained, moved, transported into another place, then I'm happy and satisfied. I'm not as picky as many people are. This is not to say I'm easily pleased, because I'm not.
Well, being a Brit and spending the last seven years in London, it's going to happen that I'm gonna be picky about the finer points of this movie.
I don't expect a filmmaker to take the time to learn all that in order for me to enjoy a film.
Wow, really? It would have taken him all of a couple of months of research to get everything right that he got wrong. Frankly, that's the least I expect.
Nah, you seem a little testy or sarcastic towards me and my opinion now, so I'll leave the discussion.
Neither testy nor sarcastic, merely surprised.
Well, ok, sorry if I misread. There are some people though, who must resort to personal insults or nasty sarcasm when someone doesn't agree with them. I've been the victim of this recently and I just won't participate in it. You and I just agree to disagree!
"In my reviews of films and/or stage, if I'm entertained, moved, transported into another place, then I'm happy and satisfied. "
Nicely said and I could not agree more.
I wasn't moved or transported in the least and was only really entertained when Scarlett was on screen.
Thanks, Doogie B. I'm glad I have company!
Scarlett's performance in this film is overrated.
Emily Mortimer was unbelievable in this movie and Matthew Goode was just perfect. Jonathon Rhys-Meyers also did a great job.
I just don't see the big deal about Johannson, and at times she annoyed me (long before she annoyed Chris).
Angelica Huston basically played an older version of this character in CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, and was far better.
Rhys-Meyers was AWFUL. Wooden to the max. Scarlett is not overrated. Emily Mortimer was great but her character annoyed me WAY more than Nola did.
I agree about Scarlett, and as I said, she's got a great look and a wonderful voice-lots of charisma. I've enjoyed watching all of her performances, but for me it's mostly charisma, and I haven't been convinced she's a great actress yet, but again as I said, I'm giving her time.
I guess I'm in the minority here, but I really liked Rhys-Meyers. I found him appropriately calculating.
This year's supporting actress category is going to be so hard to predict: Johansson, Rachel Weisz, Catherine Keener, Amy Adams-all were excellent. I honestly don't know which one I would choose if I were given a vote.
I liked him, too. But I'm quite biased. He's always been my #1 film crush.
I. Just. Don't. Get. It.
Rhys-Meyers was perfect. There was a lot of cliched dialogue in this movie, and he's the only actor who would've been able to pull it off without seeming dumb. It worked.
I also really enjoyed the movie. I found the screenplay to be very well written, and the characters seemed no less British than Woody's normal characters are American. He writes in a particular cerebral style, that I love. These characters seemed to be talking in that style "Brittishly" instead of the usual "NewYorky."
I though Johansson was marvelous, and Rhys-Meyers was very well suited to the role. Appropriately detached. I liked Mortimer, but I agree hers was the more annoying character.
If you're going to set a story in a particular milieu -- especially a well-known one like London -- I think you'd better get the details right, or else it's another kind of exotification.
I don't agree with Roeper all the time, but I think he nailed it when he said that Johansson's performance was stiff and self-aware.
By the way, I thought that Rhys-Meyers was very good. He started off very bland, but he really sold the last half-hour.
Exotification seemed to me to be part of the point with this movie. I am not saying it shouldn't have been done, but for me personally small factual details in movies are unimportant, and have no bearing on my overall impression of the film.
If it is something like the oft used representation of the US south east as a vast swampy wasteland it is a problem, but when it is "the 1 train doesn't go to Queens" it seems unnecessary.
Exactly. When it comes to the academy's decisions, I doubt if the members will disregard Woody's actual storyline and ponder over the innaccuracies of London life which may or may not appear in the film.
Edited to add something I said before-since the location of this story is incidental, and can be taking place almost anywhere, I doubt if the details of London real estate, subway stops, words spoken at a given time, etc. are even considered in judging this film.
They won't, because the vast majority of Academy members are American.
I'm just saying the same thing happens in American movies set inside the US as well. The story is what matters to the director and the geography simply fits in where they need it.
Videos