A COUPLE OF (YAWN) SPOILERS.
I went Sunday and found it startlingly uninteresting. The Khonji cinematography is (predictably) breathtaking. As are the locations, all shot with "lemony" light, as one critic pronounced it. For a few minutes, that sustains. But he's photographing so many talky scenes that trail off shapelessly. In the first half, they just start, stop, never end. Time is taken getting characters in and out of cars and up and down stairs while little happens. The premise isn't bad, but Allen seems obsessed with using it (only) as a riff on spirituality rather than just telling a decent love story, albeit one with a debt to Shaw (and Woody Allen!). The lack of even intellectual chemistry between Stone and Firth is deadly. She is lovely but strangely charmless. He seems crotchety and sour, but not in any compelling, edgy way. (You can't believe this man enjoys performing magic; he's without a whiff of show biz passion for performing or colorful eccentricity; a snooty professor slumming as a European vaudeville act, or something?) They don't even seem to be inhabiting the same moments, other than one beat in an observatory -- and Firth falls asleep.
People wanting Atkins to get an Oscar nomination -- did they actually see the film? She's badly used and handled. And one scene in which she plays solitaire -- the Higgins family, i.e. a steal from "Pygmalion" -- keeps her hooded and busy and without any real presence. Allen seems to have been so intimidated by her he didn't bother to direct Atkins's scenes; she flounders, which doesn't seem possible (and wears one white costume repeatedly, inadvertent motif? One that isn't explained). And the continuity is bizarre. Atkins is in an accident, but recovers off camera (instantly) and behaves the same way, in the same costumes, afterward. And what about poor Hamish Linklater, sort of doing Tommy Tune in "The Boyfriend." Having just seen him in Central Park -- walking away with "Much Ado" -- I couldn't believe how dreary he came off.
The storytelling is both rushed (overall) and drawn-out (individual beats -- those entrances!). And the movie is devoid of a single really good house laugh -- which it desperately needs -- the most shocking missing element of all. It reads like a first draft, before Allen went back in to hone and sharpen a single moment. It's a flaccid debate about faith and spirituality and science and in every way but its look a real let-down. Still, pretty to look at. The costumes are sumptuous.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Updated On: 8/12/14 at 06:10 PM