Midnight in Paris review

 Number 608 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's fantasy comedy 'Midnight in Paris.'

Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) is a struggling Hollywood writer holidaying in Paris with his nagging fiancee Inez (Rachel Mcadams.) Pender seeks respite with midnight walks in Paris' back streets where he discovers he can travel back to 1920's Paris and meet the famous writers and artists like Hemingway, Fitzgerald and Picasso who once called Paris home. The film's supporting cast includes Adrian Brody, Tom Hiddleston, Kathy Bates and Marion Cotillard.

This is the eighth Woody Allen film I've watched. By now everybody knows that I do not like Woody Allen films. All too often I find them to be pretentious, unfunny or just stupid. I was not expecting to like Midnight in Paris, but by some minor miracle I did. I'm still confused now.

For starters it was actually funny. I actually laughed out loud more than once instead of just sitting stony-faced throughout the whole film. In the past, I have found Woody Allen films to be all set-up and no punchline. But here, I was laughing in the first few minutes.

I enjoyed the playfullness that Owen Wilson brought to the role and the whimsical element that the time travel brought to the plot. The mechanics of it weren't explained. Nor did they need to be. To have done so would have only complicated a film that didn't need to be. Similar to The Purple Rose of Cairo, the time travel was considered more as magic realism rather than convoluted science-fiction. It was treated as established fact of the universe.

It helped the characters weren't insufferable faux-intellectuals except for Inez's faux-academic friend Paul (Michael Sheen) but he was intentionally supposed to be insufferable. In contrast, Gil and Inez were both down-to-earth characters. Gil wasn't pretending to be anything else, but a writer looking for inspiration. Inez wasn't pretending to be anything else, but a tired girlfriend bored with her fiancee's strange antics. There was no pretentiousness with Wilson and Mcadams giving grounded performances. It helped that Owen Wilson is a lot more likeable than Woody Allen who often stars in his own film where he always plays himself.

If there is one thing that has always impressed me with Woody Allen films, it is the cinematography and set design. I loved the 1920's Paris scenes that truly captured the excess and opulence of the jazz era. The likes of Tom Hiddleston, Adrian Brody and the always terrific Kathy Bates also did well in bringing their respective characters to life.

The film touches on themes of nostalgia and looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses. Yet the film ends on the note of Gil resisting the temptation to stay in the past. Instead he returns to the present but with a new perspective. It's not so much the grass is always greener on the other side, but where you water it. Although Allen often likes to include some type of philosophical message in his films, these often fall flat. This was NOT the case here. I was not expecting that at all.

And I wasn't expecting to actually enjoy a Woody Allen film, but sometimes the truth really is stranger than fiction.

Match Point review

 Number 568 on the top 1000 films of all time us Woody Allen's psychological thriller 'Match Point.'

Spoilers ahead

Christ Wilton (Jonathan Rhy Meyers) is an Irish former professional tennis player who marries into an upper-class English family. However, he risks everything when he starts an affair with his brother-in-law's American girlfriend Nola (Scarlett Johansson.)

Let's start with the Jonathan Rhys Meyers-shaped elephant in the room. Chris Wilton is Irish. It's a big part of his character. It's his nickname at one point. Meyers is Irish. Why does Meyers play the character with an English accent? It made no sense.

Anyway...I have seen a few Woody Allen comedies in my time and I have never been a fan. Judging from Match Point, I'm not a fan of his dramas either. He originally conceived this with an American cast and setting, but after failing to get funding, he reimagined it for an British setting and cast. The only exception was Scarlett Johansson who was a last-minute replacement for Kate Winslet.

Match Point divided critics with the Yanks loving it and Brits hating it. Guess what side I fall down on? It doesn't surprise me that American audiences loved this film; it has everything they know and love about British cinema, or think they know and love: good-looking men like Matthew Goode and Jonathan Rhys Meyers, posh English accents, afternoon tea, London landmarks, black taxis and upper-class people doing upper-class things like clay-pigeon shooting. it was like Allen had a list of criteria he needed to hit, I was half-expecting to see Dick Van Dyke singing about cleaning chimneys.

Allen's script was not good. The dialogue was clunky and unnatural with the English characters speaking in American English - Wilson says he was buying a sweater when any other English person would have been buying a jumper. Never mind a silver spoon, it was like the characters were walking around with dictionaries in their mouth. Plus, the plot was rushed. Chris and Nola have an instant-love connection with no catalyst prompting their illicit affair. neither of their parents didn't do anything to deserve being cheated on, not that anybody ever does, but it did make their relationship even more shallow.

Yet this wasn't all down to Allen. Granted the cast wasn't working with the best of scripts, but their performances were not good. Meyers was creepy, Johansson was whiny and annoying - the two of them had no on-screen chemistry at all, and Emily Mortimer, who played Chris' wife Chloe, had all the charisma of a ham sandwich. I understand that she was supposed to be boring, or, at least, too boring to interest Chris, but we saw little evidence of this, before he starts sleeping with Nola.

At two hours and five minutes, this was Allen's longest film, but it could be have been fifteen minutes shorter. The film culminates in the most half-arsed police investigation ever. After Nola falls victim to the surprise pregnancy cliche, Chris is caught in a dilemma to leave Chloe for her or to keep living his double-life. He does neither. He concocts a hair-brained scheme to shoot Nola's neighbour and then her and then stages the scene to look like a drug-fuelled burglary. 

Despite the flaws in his plan, despite how the ghostly apparitions of Nola and her neighbour appearing (the less said about this the better) appear to Chris taunting him about being caught, despite how Chris carelessly drops a piece of incriminating evidence on the script, despite how the police call him in for questioning, despite how everything paints toward him getting caught, he gets away with the crime scot-free.

One of the policemen solves the crime in his dream and is sure that Chris is lying, but is easily persuaded otherwise by his colleague. It's all just ridiculous. it was like Allen was worried he didn't have enough conflict for the final act, so he shoe-horned in this silly police investigation, which he knew wouldn't go anywhere.

Match Point was like every American's wet dream about British culture. But as is often the case, the dream is nothing like the reality. Tennis is a key theme of the film, but Allen served up a complete dud. A while ago, I wrote an article about films that should not be on the top 1000 films of all time. If I were to write another list, Match Point would surely be at the top.

Manhattan review

 Number 293 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's romantic, comedy-drama 'Manhattan.'

Woody Allen stars as Isaac Davis, a 42-year-old TV comedy writer living in Manhattan. He is dating the 17-year-old Tracy (Muriel Hemingway) but soon falls in love with his best friend's mistress Mary Wilkie (Diane Keaton.)

This was a comedy, right? Woody Allen directed it, right? He wrote it too. So, why was it so unfunny? The film was only ninety-six minutes, but it felt so much longer. It wasn't until the forty-sixth minute that I even cracked a smile. The rest of the film rarely elicited more than a chuckle.

And that comes back to Woody Allen who effectively always plays the same character - a neurotic, middle-aged Jewish man with a tendency to psycho-analyse everything. it's all well and good, once or twice, but after a while, it becomes tedious. Tedious is the best way to describe this film. It was just a bunch of would-be academics name-dropping philosopher after philosopher.

Manhattan was also uncomfortable in its depiction of Isaac and Tracy's relationship. He's old enough to be her father. And the romantically inexperienced Hemingway also experienced a lot of discomfort in the role. Considering the allegations that have since been levelled against Allen and considering how he is married to his step-daughter who is over thirty years his junior, it only made things ickier. I know that nothing ever came of the allegations, but it still felt creepy.

If I were to praise the film on anything it would be its cinematography, which was wonderful. Allen shot the film in black-and-white, which gave it a timeless, vintage feel. The scenes of Allen and Keaton in the planetarium where they were silhouetted against the stars were gorgeous.

I've seen a few Woody Allen films in my time. I can't say I like them very much. Even though, they're comedies, they're just not funny.

Seven Pounds review

 Number 658 on the top 1000 films of all time is the drama film 'Seven Pounds.'

Ben Thomas (Will Smith) is a man seeking penitence. He is a man looking for redemption who seeks to change the lives of seven people. Two of these include the blind, vegan, meat salesman Ezra (Woody Harrelson) and Emily Posa (Rosario Dawson) a printing business owner with a weak heart.

Will Smith is a hell of an actor. He first came to fame in the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Although he is goofy in that he also shows his raw potential as a dramatic actor. And that potential came to the fore within Seven Pounds - one of his most mature roles to date.

*Spoiler alert* Ben Thomas causes a car crash that killed seven people including his fiance. To make up for this, he donates his organs to people he thinks really deserve them. he uses his brother's IRS agent's credentials to help track down these people. Sure you could argue that story itself was all very unlikely Ben Thomas proves himself to be a jack of all trades, including repairing a broken printing press, but I was willing to suspend my disbelief.

I do enjoy a good redemption arc. They start with an already likeable character knowing that he's messed up. And now he is hoping to make up for his mistakes. And when you have Will Smith playing that character things are even better. Will The supporting cast were also good.

Both Woody Harrelson and Rosario Dawson were very likeable as the unwitting recipients of Ben Thomas' good deeds. neither of them are in desirable situation, but they always remain positive. Rather than pitying themselves, they still do the best they can.

The same can be said for Ben Thomas. In many ways, he is an inspirational character. And this inspiration lends the film a lot of emotional weight. it becomes the driving force that propels Seven Pounds along.

The true film's structure can be confusing. You have to wait the entire film to discover Ben's true motivations, but I still very much enjoyed Seven Pounds. It showcased Will Smith at his best.

Deconstructing Harry review

 Number 896 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's 1997 black comedy 'Deconstructing Harry.'

Harry Block (Woody Allen) is a neurotic academic and writer driving to his alma matter to receive an honourary degree. En route, he imagines himself interacting with many characters from his work, as well as flash blacking to the most important parts of his life. Tobey Maguire, Robin Williams, Billy Crystal and Jennifer Garner, among many others, all co-star.

Reportedly, Woody Allen was highly influenced by the work of Ingmar Bergman, in particular Wild Strawberries. Wild Strawberries is about an old man having an existential crisis while driving around. Deconstructing Harry has a similar plot albeit with a lot more sexual humour. Thankfully it also has a lot less introspection, silences and dead space than Bergman's work. But it also contains an important question: why? What is the point of all this? Why do I care?

I remember thinking the same when I watched Annie Hall. Yes, it was funny and witty, but, at the end, I couldn't help, wondering what was the point of it all? Sure, the set-up is great, but what's the punchline? Great comedies don't just make us laugh, but they make us think too. There is no doubt Woody Allen is a funny man. This was a comical film. The gag of Robin Williams being out of focus was hilarious to watch, but I'm not sure of its importance.

It's another aspect of Harry that we need to deconstruct. But why should I care about Harry? He's just another of Woody Allen's highly neurotic characters. And I do feel like neuroticism is the only role Woody Allen can play. Yes, he does it well, but it becomes quite one-note after a while.

There is no doubt Deconstructing Harry is a funny film, but beyond its comedy, how much substance does it have? What's the point of it all? What is the punchline?