2011 romantic comedyRating: 15/20 (Jen: 13/20)
Plot: A screenwriter-turned-struggling-novelist and his fiance travel to the titular capital with her parents. Gil falls in love with and is inspired by the city, but isn't as thrilled with all the time they're spending with Inez's pretentious friends. He stays at the hotel one night while she goes out partying, and during a late-night stroll, he magically stumbles into the 1920s and meets up with Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Stein, and other literary heroes and artistic luminaries who, along with a mysterious little hottie, inspire him creatively.
It's Woody Allen making a romantic comedy with elements of fantasy, so what's not to like? This one's got the time travel which is cool, and it's fun watching out for all these people I'm going to pretend I've actually heard of. The comedy's more cute than it is funny, and although I almost like Owen Wilson has a goofy Everyman, I was really questioning whether or not he was working here. Ultimately, I decided that I liked the dopiness and naivete that Wilson brought to the character. It helps the viewer experience his story with the same big eyes he's got throughout the movie, and the performance takes any cynical edge this could have had. Like he did with New York City previously, Woody captures Paris on the screen beautifully and in a way that makes it just the type of place where a modern fairy tale like this can happen. I think he's having a lot of fun with all the literature, art, and music allusions, too. I'm not sure Dali had Adrien Brody's nose, however, and I'd like my dad to see this to tell me how good Corey Stoll's Hemingway is or isn't. In other news, I might have a thing for Marion Cotillard. Don't tell my wife!
8 comments:
This got a Best Picture nomination, which under the new rules means that at least 5% of the Academy voters said it was the best movie of the year. I would like to find all of those voters and kick them in the head.
But it's Woody!, and Paris!, and time travel!(never even an attempted explanation) and Hemingway!(blew his brains out), and F Scott! (alchoholic who died at 44), and Lautrec! (died at 36 of alchoholism and syphillis)...it's whimsical Woody and Hollywood wish fulfillment.
Before I continue ranting about this film, let me say it is beautifully shot. There is also maybe a kernal of a concept that may have made a good film by another director not so full of himself (oh yeah, he got a Best Director nod over "Moneyball"s Bennett Miller and Spielberg, who I know did a better job, even though I haven't even seen his freakin' film). "Midnight in Paris" started lovely, and then proceeded to piss me off.
Yeah, but Owen Wilson is so cute and likeable, you say? True, but he's not Owen Wilson in this movie. He's a younger, blonder, crooked-nosed Woody Allen stand-in. He talks like Woody. He acts like Woody. He's spent way too much time around Woody. The famous characters from real life he runs into are all caricatures because none of them have enough screen time to be believable (and their acting generally sucks). To make this fantasy work, you have to a) buy it (nope), and b) pull for the characters (nope, again). Owen Wilson is only likeable in comparison to the intentionally unlikeable prospective family and friends (none of whom act realistically, by the way). Woody misuses the great Michael Sheen and turns Rachel McAdams into a vacuous twit, which is a total waste of hotness.
You liked this more than I did, and the Woody-loving Academy seems to love it. These things are bigger mysteries to me than the idea of time travel was to any of the characters in this silly story. A 10.
14
Two things:
1) I love it when a movie makes you angry!
2) I have no idea who or what is nominated for anything. Haven't bothered checking. Is Mel Gibson nominated for the beaver puppet movie? Is the puppet nominated? You don't have to answer that. I'll check on my own.
Oh, a third thing: You don't need your time travel explained, do you?
Fourth thing: Alyssa Milano told me that 'Moneyball' is good, so I'll see it sometime.
Holy crap! I just thought of a fifth thing! I'm not sure it was Saint Woody's intention (Calm down! I only threw the "Saint" in there to piss you off. If you get pissed off, I win.) but dead Hemingway, Scott, and Lautrec might be part of the point. Owen Wilson is inspired by those figures and the times in which they lived, but he ultimately learns the importance of loving where and when he's at, right?
OK, that's all the things I have right now.
-What's not to like?
Hemmingway and Fitzgerald's characters came from an 8th grader's book report.
The wife is so unlikeable I actually root for adultery! It's the element I usually like least about the Woodster's films. Except Crimes and Misdemeanors. Couldn't stand Match Point which kinda seemed like a remake of Crimes.
I have a thing for that French girl too. I think I'm actually in agreement with Cory on most points.
OK, I thought something was wrong earlier because I couldn't see the words to click to make a comment. Now I see that Cory has a gigantic bunch of space before a mysterious "14" at the bottom of his comment. What's with that?
Larst, I don't think anybody looking for depth is going to be pleased with this one. But as a whimsical romantic comedy, I think it works just fine. And if they were "8th grade book report" simple characters, that might be part of the point, too. Owen's idealizing the era and all, so these characters appearing as caricatures or whatever makes a little bit of sense.
Looked up the Oscar noms a bit ago...I've only seen three of the Best Picture nominees, but have interest in three others (Hugo, Moneyball, Artist)...
'The Illusionist' not eligible for best animated feature?
Didn't finish 'Match Point'...
37.5
In retrospect I can see that the 8th grade book report characters were intentional, but they bugged the hell out of me. I winced everytime Hemmingway opened his mouth.
No decimals allowed.
Decimal withdrawn!
37
I liked this more than Cory. I enjoyed the time travel aspects, and the lesson to be learned. (The past is not always better, it just seems better from the present) I was interested in the film all the way through. It was not a great movie, (Moneyball is much better.) but its decent. If you are going to get pissed about a movie getting Academy Award nominations, you should direct your anger at Hugo. Derivative self congratulatory saccarine fests. Oh everyone loves movies and its movies that make the world a special place.
This Allen picture gets a 15 from me. I will avoid the long space before the score, just to be nice.
My work computer had some issue 3.1415926 that I had no control over, causing unwanted spaces. I don't need to have time travel explained, I just need the characters to have some realistic reaction to it. Something like "Oh, you traveled 90 years back in time tonight. That's a bit unusual, isn't it?". I think this film is getting much more of a pass because it came from Allen. It's a shell of a film, even with its cliche moral.
Post a Comment