The Purple Rose of Cairo review

 Number 562 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's fantasy romantic-drama 'The Purple Rose of Cairo.'

Set in Depression-era New-Jersey, 'the Purple Rose of Cairo' follows cinephile Cecilia (Mia Farrow) seeking escapism from her abusive marriage to brutal husband Monk (Danny Aiello) through frequent visits to the movies. While watching the Purple Rose of Cairo, she falls in love with archaeologist Tom Baxter (Jeff Daniels) who also falls in love with her and leaves the film world to see her.

My long-term reader(s) will know that I'm not a fan of Woody Allen films. They're not funny and Woody Allen always plays the same character. And we're not even going into his numerous controversies. Sufficed to ay, I was not expecting to enjoy the Purple Rose of Cairo. However, I was pleasantly surprised.

I wouldn't go so far to say I enjoyed the Purple Rose, but I also didn't outright despise it. It helped that Woody Allen didn't appear in his film like he usually does. And, when he does, he is always playing the same character - a middle-aged, neurotic, Jewish comedian/writer. Basically he's playing himself.

Instead you had Mia Farrow in the lead and she was fine. She was inoffensive and rather charming. She brought an enjoyable wide-eyed innocence to Cecilia. But despite starring a naive starlet, she soon found the courage to lead her abusive husband Monk.

Monk was played by Danny Aiello who I found disappointing. This was six years before he gave an Oscar-nominated performance in Spike Lee's 'Do the Right Thing.' He was much more convincing there than here. Sure he was menacing, but only in so far as romantic-comedy villains can be. At least he had more charisma than Jeff Daniels who was a bit of a wet blanket as Tom Baxter.

Although the film's concept was novel enough with plenty of meta-humour - not only does Tom Baxter become self-aware, but so do the rest of the characters in Purple Cairo. I don't think it was enough to sustain a whole film. Despite how the runtime was only a paltry eighty-two minutes, I was longing for it to finish by the end. Some of that was down to the clunky dialogue too.

Like I say, I actually liked the Purple Rose of Cairo. It was one of Woody Allen's least inoffensive films, but that isn't saying much really.

Hannah and her Sisters review

 Number 340 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's comedy-drama 'Hannah and her Sisters'

Hannah and her Sisters follows the entwined lives of three couples across a twenty-four month period. The first story focusses on TV writer Mickey and the destruction of his marriage with his wife Hannah (Mia Farrow,) all told in flashback. The second focusses on Hannah and her new husband Elliot (Michael Caine) as he falls in love with Hannah's sister Lee Barbara Hershey. The third story focusses on Hannah's other sister Holly (Dianne West) a former cocaine addict who is trying to break into Broadway with her friend and rival April (Carrie Fisher.)

I have yet to come across a Woody Allen film that I have actually liked. Hannah and her Sister was no exception. In fact, it had everything I don't like in a Woody Allen film: Woody Allen, inappropriate relationships and a distinct lack of laughs.

Woody Allen always seems to play the same character in his films: a neurotic, middle-aged Jewish writer. The novelty ran out five films ago. Now this character has become incredibly tedious. Mickey was no exception especially considering his hypochondriac ways. This hypochondria then stems into an existential crisis as Mickey starts looking for religion - a religion other than Judaism. This wasn't a character that I wanted to root for. At least he wasn't dating a seventeen-year-old.

The inappropriate relationship was saved for Michael Caine's character Elliot who cheats on his wife with her sister. Sure you can argue that Allen was depicting a true fact of life, but it didn't make the character very likeable. I'm also going to be controversial and say that Caine didn't support the Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Sure, he was the best part of a bad film, but that didn't mean he gave an Oscar-winning performance. The same goes for Dianne Wiest who won for Best Supporting Actress.

The biggest problem about the film was that all the characters were unlikeable. They seemed to spend all their time fighting with each other from Mickey to Hannah to Elliot and Hannah to April and Holly to Hannah's parents. The whole barrel was rotten. There wasn't one character I cared for or even wanted to care for.

It didn't help that the film was so expository with title cards doing the cinematic equivalent of telling and not showing. As is par for the course for a Woody Allen film, Hannah and her Sisters was just not funny. I didn't crack a smile until the thirty-five minute mark and I don't think I laughed more than three or four times.

This is the sixth Woody Allen film that I haven't liked. Who knows? Maybe I'll like the next one. I'm not holding my breath.

Crimes and Misdemeanours review

 Number 278 on the top 1000 films of all time is Woody Allen's 1989 comedy-drama Crimes and Misdemeanours.

Crimes and Misdemeanours follows two characters. The first is the ophthalmologist Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau) whose marriage is threatened when his mistress Dolores (Angelica Huston) threatens to tell his wife about their affair. The second character is the married TV producer Clifford Stern (Woody Allen) who falls in love with his fellow producer Halley Reed (Mia Farrow),

If it bends, it’s funny.

If it breaks, it is not.”

 

This film must have been broken, because I didn’t find it funny in the slightest. I can’t think of one occasion where I even cracked a smile. It wasn’t like there were jokes that fell flat, there was barely any jokes at all. Just annoying characters and faux-philosophy.

I’ve never hidden the fact that I don’t like Woody Allen, as a writer, director or actor. He always plays the same character of the middle-aged Jewish, neurotic writer going through a midlife crisis. That would be fine if his characters were likeable, but they’re not. They’re whiny and irritating. Clifford was no exception.

He was absolutely insufferable, as the pathetic film writer trying to rationalise having an affair on his affair. Note how I said pathetic, not pititful – he deserved no pity whatsoever.

He was a bland, unengaging character. I felt no reason to care or root for his romance with Halley Reed at all. I can say the same for Judah. He was similarly pathetic in his desperate attempts to keep his mistress away from his wife. If anything, he was worse than Clifford, because at least the latter had some gumption. Judah was very much ready to roll over and die.

Clifford spends a lot of his time taking his niece to see classic Hollywood films in the cinema – we would often see these films play on the screen too. I found this a peculiar choice. It was like I was watching more of these films than I was Crimes and Misdemeanours. And those films were highly more interesting.

Would it be going too far to say that even making this film was a crime and misdemeanour? Perhaps. But it was a tiresome film with two of the most annoying protagonists ever.