Midnight in Paris- Page 2
Midnight in Paris
#25Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/27/11 at 5:43pm
Finally got around to seeing this, and I was so disappointed. Owen Wilson staggered around from scene to scene like a lobotomized Woody Allen. His vocal mimicry of Allen's inflection drove me completely nuts and pulled me out of the story.
I did like the the story itself, but because the protagonist was so repulsively insipid to me, I couldn't get into it. So I picked at all of its faults, and I found many. I adore Marion Cotillard, but her character wasn't much more than a 2D ingenue.
Being introduced to all the "celebrities" of bygone eras didn't amount to more than a tour through Madame Tussauds for me, with the exceptions of Corey Stoll (Hemmingway) and Adrien Brody, who was underused but delightful in his cameo as Dali.
And Rachel McAdams was such a monster of a fiancee. I wanted to laugh at her and her on-screen parents, but found myself flipping them off (mentally) more than anything. Same for the annoying couple they meet up with (Sheen and Arianda, although she faired better than he did).
It was a romantic comedy with a romantic story, no romantic chemistry at all, and very few laughs.
And I got sick of the overdone and overused yellow/amber filter right after the opening montage. It looked like Paris had been peed on, and somebody forgot to flush.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#27Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/27/11 at 5:54pm
LOL
Yes, I made it all up. It's the best movie ever!!!!!
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#28Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/27/11 at 5:59pmWell it's far from the best movie ever. I'm starting to think you didn't even see it.
#29Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/27/11 at 6:14pm
Then you're a liar.
I saw it this afternoon, and didn't like it. Blame it (mostly) on Owen Wilson.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#30Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/27/11 at 6:20pmLol. He was a bit over the top, I'll give you that. But nowhere near as horiffic as Kenneth Branagh in CELEBRITY.
#31Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/27/11 at 6:24pm
I agree with besty's assessment 100%. Those are my sentiments exactly. I so wanted to love it 'cause I'm all for fantasy and time travel, but it fell short with me. The only interesting character for me was Inez. She was a bitch but a wonderful bitch. I honestly thought she would accidentally discover Gil's world and through their trips together eventually gain a better understanding of her husband. I thought she would be the dynamic character. But instead she remains static, and Gil follows the cliched path of finding someone else who understands him. I figured that's what would happen from the get-go (either with Adriana or Gabrielle), but I was hoping for my version 'cause I thought it made a better story. And the end was so corny. Made me think of FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL, which coincidentally also ends as it starts to rain. Andie McDowell's lifeless delivery, "Is it raining? I hadn't noticed," was so bad-awful. Likewise, Gabrielle's stilted line about loving walking in the rain made my eyes roll.
On another note, why no shout out for Josephine Baker? They do show her gyrating but it's not pointed out who she is. I was hoping they would for the benefit of the audience and her fans. Yet they bother to name-drop Djuna Barnes, who is only shown from behind while briefly dancing with Gil.
ETA: Carey Stoll's Hemingway made me wanna do nasty things to him! I never found Stoll attractive, but his Hemingway made my teeth sweat.
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
#32Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/27/11 at 9:07pm
I do like many of Allen's films, but I didn't see Celebrity. This one sounded right up my alley but failed on just about every level, except for the overall premise and the location (even looking so "peed-on" with that terrible yellow filter).
I've been to Paris. I've walked through the Montmartre, down the back streets on my own "walking tour." I saw where Satie lived, and Picasso, and Lautrec, and Van Gogh with his brother Theo. I went inside the Moulin Rouge, I went inside Renoir's house, I visited Le Moulin de la Galette (what's left of it). Lapin Agile, etc. I spent four days there exploring the city. And there were moments were I felt I was stepping back in time, and happily so.
But this film captured none of it. It felt (as I said before) like a visit to Madame Tussauds. Just navigating through a bunch of waxwork likenesses of historical celebrities, dressed in period clothing, with some whiny tourists by my side.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#33Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/28/11 at 12:07am
It is one of the best films of the year and deserves nominations for Pic, Director, Screenplay, Support Actress [Kathy Bates], Cinematography, Costumes, and Score.
Cannot believe the film did not have a soundtrack released; the scenes of Owen Wilson and Marion Cotillard dancing to "Parlez-moi d'Amour" are one of the highlights of the year in cinema.
It is the first time I have ever cared about Owen Wilson as an actor; the rest of the cast for the most part are superb. Nina Arianda has a small role as Michael Sheen's girlfriend.
#34Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/28/11 at 12:22ambesty, did you like Arianda? I thought she was hilarious.
#35Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/28/11 at 6:56am
I didn't find her hilarious, but I thought she was fine---her double-pronouncing all the French words to make sure she got them right. And I didn't find Sheen funny at all, just tedious. I realize that's his character, though, but I wish I'd had something to laugh at.
The big "miss" in this is Owen Wilson. The more I think about it, if a younger Woody Allen had been playing the part, it would have worked much better. Woody has/had a way about observing all the pompous and boring people in his life (in his films) that makes them funny. We can see on his sour face exactly what he's thinking. Owen misses that opportunity at every single turn. He doesn't observe anything. He doesn't react. He acts ... mostly with whining and Woody Allen impersonations. But I don't get a sense (or a cue) of what to think about these other people. Wilson challenges the Sheen character in an inept and pointless battle of art history trivia, but I don't see on his face what he THINKS of the guy ... or that ridiculous situation. That's not something written in Woody's scripts in the language, either. That's something in the acting style of Woody Allen. It's "written" on his face. Owen doesn't have that.
EDIT: I wonder what John Kusack would have done with this part. He handled the "Woody" character so much better in Bullets Over Broadway, without doing an Allen impersonation.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#36Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/28/11 at 9:10am
I saw this back in I-don't-even-remember-when-July-maybe? and was thinking about a few of these very things just the other day, best. I didn't detest the movie. No matter how much junk he's churned out in the past 15 years, I remain a Woody Allen fan, and he's done much worse than this through his entire career. I wasn't particularly bothered by Owen Wilson, though I didn't find him a "likable" protagonist. (I don't typically care for him, anyway.) And Marion Cotillard and Michael Sheen pulled off minor miracles by creating characters who made a lasting impression from some terribly by-the-numbers writing.
I was, however, very bothered by the cramming of 15 to 20 supporting characters into an 90-minute movie and left the cinema thinking it either should have been twice as long or had half as many characters and more integrated story lines. Your Madame Tussauds analogy is apt, and the problem -- unsurprisingly -- is Mr. Allen's script, which, though cutely enamored of the explosive Modernism of '20s Parisians and expatriates, gives them Wikipedia personalities that benefit only from whatever else the actors can sketch in their limited screentime.
Adrien Brody was a charmer, but why Dali and Bunuel, specifically? Why not Dulac? Is it because even my idiot grandmother recognizes the name Salvador Dali? (Actually, she doesn't, but I've made my point -- and a joke -- so it stays.) Hemingway I get, but why Eliot and Fitzgerald, instead of the infinitely more minable Dos Passos, Joyce, or H.D.? Maybe if Mr. Allen had made a movie that actually treated these characters as people and not included them because recognizing Alice B. Toklas' name allows more people "in on the joke," the movie would have been more satisfying and felt less like a small intellectual insult. Okay, it's a romantic comedy in magical realism. I'm not asking for an academic lecture, but a few three-dimensional characters -- especially among the historical figures, where the meat of the story lies -- and a reason for their being there would have been nice. The fiancee and her parents -- get rid of them altogether or banish them after the first reel. You can keep Josephine Baker. That was a lovely inclusion.
And the more I dwelt on this, the more the movie's integrity -- and maybe its romantic nobility -- weakened. I'm sure Mr. Allen's interest in the period isn't as superficial as the movie implies, but it seems like he missed the chance to really explore this time, this place, and these people, and still have lots of fun along the way. I've never been to Paris and felt the history in walks of the bystreets, and everything about this movie still felt patina'd to me. But then probably a movie whose major supporting characters are Jean Rhys and Archibald MacLeish instead of Picasso and Cole Porter doesn't become your highest-grossing release of all time? I don't know. Perhaps that's taking it too far.
#elitistbullsh!t
#37Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/28/11 at 10:28amI saw it in the summer and agree that it is overrated. The theme that each generation has their own golden past is good one, but Woody does glamorize it by populating the film with the Cliffs Notes version of People of Art and Culture in Paris. And that fantasy that we could be transported to a world that was more fabulous than what really existed is what makes the movie popular (despite Owen Wilson's lack of appeal--I further agree that John Cusack would have been great as the Woody stand-in, or Ewan McGregor, who was in possibly the worst Allen film, Cassandra's Dream). So, I don't begrudge Woody making a popular fantasy. I mean, who wouldn't want to live in a world populated by the likes of Marion Cotillard? I love Woody, and Paris (despite Owen Wilson) was better than some of his films, like Scoop, Jade Scorpion or the aforementioned Cassandra's Dream.
henrikegerman
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/29/05
#38Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/28/11 at 10:46am
The best thing he's done in years. I sat with a smile on my face the whole time.
No Allen film has done as well at the box office.
I don't see any acting oscar nominations. Bates, as always, was wonderful, but in terms of screen time, variation, significant scenes, it's just not there, especially with this year's competition. I doubt Cotillard will get nominated either. My favorite performance in the movie, besides Wilson's, is actually Cory Stoll's Hemingway.
#39Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/28/11 at 11:01amThis was actually one of my favorites this year. It's not deep, but I found it irresistibly charming. At first, I was worried about Owen Wilson starring in a Woody Allen film, but I was quite surprised by him and he won me over. Honestly, I much preferred this to Hugo.
henrikegerman
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/29/05
#40Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/28/11 at 2:22pm
I'm surprised at some of the criticism of Wilson. I thought it was by far the most appealing performance I've seen him give.
And I didn't find him remotely Woodyish, especially compared to the many actors and actresses in Woody Allen films who have been near facsimiles to the director in acting style and rhythm. That seems to have become something of a convention in later Woody Allen movies, partly because, it's been said, he directs his actors to speak very quickly and, some performers find it difficult not to emulate Allen's inflections because hearing him on the set infects their performances. Well, excuses or not...
Be that as it may, I found that Wilson didn't fall into this trap at all. Although his role is in some ways a stand in for a classic Woody character, he is not at all Woody's archtypal insecure malcontent. Nor does he attempt to play it that way. He brought a wide-eyed innocense, languid mellowness, and a humility that was quite different than Woody in roles with somewhat similar trajectories. His inflections seemed not to have the least bit of Woodyishness offered at times from other stars in his films. Branagh, Davis and even Farrow at times come to mind quickest at, for better or for worse, emulating Woody's vocal patterns.
When he confronts Sheen's pretentions, echoing Woody's confrontations with many pompous asses in movies over the years, he played it completely differently than we've seen Woody do in the past. Underplayfully and mildly getting through it rather than impressing others around him in some sort of pissing contest, not out of a Woodyish insecurity but out of a world-weariness.
#41Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/28/11 at 2:28pm
To each his own, then.
I completely disagree and found his inflection and meandering and whiny tone to be exactly that of Woody's, by the numbers ... but without any sense of what he was doing or saying. He seemed lost and incapable of inhabiting the part.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#42Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/28/11 at 2:37pm
I agree with you, henrik, and am also surprised by the harshness of the criticism, but I also wouldn't go too far in praising Wilson's performance. In his characterization, I saw none of the trappings of actors before him who have played the "Woody role" in Woody's movies to an overt Woody effect, but neither did I see him doing anything very different than what he usually does -- and I do think he's very much a "thing he usually does" actor.
He plays two Owen Wilsons in this movie -- frustrated but likable, acquiescent Owen Wilson, then honest and earnest romantic Owen Wilson -- and it's all very appropriate, but he's never really doing a whole lot of "work," or certainly no work that he hasn't been doing since he started playing varations on Owen Wilson in "Bottle Rocket."
#43Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/28/11 at 3:02pm
I finally saw it last night. I had a perfectly nice time, but I found the whole thing a bit lazy. It felt like a quarter of the film was the opening montage of shots of the city--something he a thousand times more effectively in "Manhattan."
Count me as one of those who didn't think Wilson was doing a Woody impression--or at least did it as minimally as possible in that role. I though John Cusack gave a much better performance in "Bullets" while doing almost full-on Woody. Still, I found Wilson good company.
Actually, I thought Sheen was appropriating more of Woody's vocal tics (while playing the anti-Woody role).
#44Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/29/11 at 3:58pm
So far I'm enjoying the film very much. I love films which give us a look into the art world of the past, like Henry and June, and this one, among others.
. My only problem is Owen Wilson. I don't mind if the an actor "does Woody Allen" but I mind Owen Wilson doing it. Plus, I'm distracted by his permanently pursed lips and penis nose, lol!
#45Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/29/11 at 4:47pm
Yes, owen is ruining the film for me. I'd much prefer it if Woody himself did the part.
Instead, he took Wilson, dressed him entirely in a Woody Allen outfit, gave him the same hairdo, sparse curly hair plastered down, unkempt looking, both are homely little nebishes, and every syllable and gesture sounded and looked exactly like Woody Allen.
Good try, Woody, but no cigar.
A Disney-esque version of the Paris art scene in the 20's.
#46Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/29/11 at 4:49pm
permanently pursed lips and penis nose
I honestly hope Parker and Stone steal that for their next Broadway musical.
#47Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/30/11 at 12:05ami found the movie to be delightful, but i LOVE your review, besty ... i can clearly see where you're coming from with each of your points ... the weakest part of the movie for me was the unbelievability of those two total opposites being engaged to each other in the first place ... but i was able to overlook that for the rest of the fun ... and i did have fun watching it.
henrikegerman
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/29/05
#48Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/30/11 at 8:48am
As Best12 has said, to each his own.
I know people who find Owen Wilson to be very good looking. I am NOT one of those people. But I thought he had a very engaging look for MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, and was actually adorable in it (no one was more surprised at this than me).
That's all subjective, yadayadayada. But, what shocks me is this:
That anyone would have preferred Woody in this role. I, like many, much prefer to see Woody Allen movies these days WITHOUT Woody Allen. Especially when he is playing opposite much younger women like McAdams and Cotillard. I thought there at least could be consensus that Woody romancing younger women in romantic comedies at this point is unbearable, if not revolting.
#49Midnight in Paris
Posted: 12/30/11 at 8:50am
"the weakest part of the movie for me was the unbelievability of those two total opposites being engaged to each other in the first place "...
Exactly-good point. I don't think there was one scene or one moment in the film where the two of them got along, or where she wasn't cutting him off, shutting him up or telling him off. I wondered why they were engaged.
Videos