Midnight in Paris — Page 2

That review is a lie!

Well it's far from the best movie ever. I'm starting to think you didn't even see it.

Lol. He was a bit over the top, I'll give you that. But nowhere near as horiffic as Kenneth Branagh in CELEBRITY.

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.

---

Updated On: 12/28/11 at 09:07 PM

besty, did you like Arianda? I thought she was hilarious.

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

---

Updated On: 12/28/11 at 09:10 AM

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.

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.

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."

---

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!

---

permanently pursed lips and penis nose

I honestly hope Parker and Stone steal that for their next Broadway musical.

---

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.