150W: Interiors

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...

Interiors (Dir. Woody Allen/1978)

Woody Allen’s first foray into drama is a delicate musing on family, divorce and depression. Daughters Joey (Hurt), Renata (Keaton) and Flyn (Griffith) are coping with the divorce of their parents, Arthur (E.G. Marshall) and Eve (Geraldine Page). Interior-designer Eve desperately hopes Arthur will return to her – but we, and the daughters, suspect this won’t happen. Wild-child Flyn is a TV actress and her sister’s boyfriend obsesses over her. Joey’s high-strung and intense attitude cloaks her fears. Renata, though honest with her mother, ignores her Mother’s aching sense of loss. Allen toys with nostalgia, flashing back to their childhood as they play on the beach. Temporal sandy-shores hint at ongoing changes in life while crashing-waves irreversibly affect relationships. Lacking energy, Interiors is beautifully shot with deep-shadow to illustrate the depression that clouds the mind. Far from perfect, Interiors is still poignant, tapping into isolation none of us want to feel.

Rating: 6/10

150W: Sleeper

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...

Sleeper (Dir Woody Allen/1973)

The poster of Woody Allen’s Sleeper mocks James Bond. Rather than alluding to the suave-spy, it would’ve made more sense to note the influence of slapstick-star Charlie Chaplin. The playful, silent acting, set within a sci-fi context, serves to support a meeting of like-minded comedians as Woody Allen gets his closest to non-verbal, physical performance. Musician Miles (Allen) is frozen for 200 years, inevitably falling for Diane Keaton, as Luna Schlosser. Using actor Douglas Rain to provide a voice, as he did in 2001: A Space Odyssey, this is Allen leaning on sci-fi stimuli and using H.G. Wells and George Orwell as source material. The tone is what established Woody in his early years, and his disguise as a robot (a plug in his mouth creating a motionless face akin to Buster Keaton) is amongst the best sequences in his career. Sleeper is solid, straight-up comedy without the intellectual chitchat.

Rating: 8/10

150W: Manhattan Murder Mystery

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...

Manhattan Murder Mystery (Dir. Woody Allen/1993)

Could you be living next door to a murderer? This is the question Linda (Keaton) poses to her husband Lenny (Allen). His response is how “Well, New York is a melting pot…”. Woody Allen is on top form in this comedic, sensitive portrayal of married life. Our couple, Linda and Lenny, suspect foul play when neighbour Mrs House unexpectedly dies - and Mr House seems a little too comfortable. Initially, it is merely conversations over dinner, and phone-calls at night, but the plot thickens as we realise that the death of Mrs House isn’t as clear-cut as it seems. Running parallel, Linda and Lenny have their own demons they need to face as Linda flirts with recently-single Ted (Alan Alda) and Lenny considers playing away himself. Considering this was born of the Annie Hall script, it is clear this is one of the insightful and intelligent comedies that got away!

Rating: 8/10

Again, I wrote a review of this in 2010 and - if interested in seeing some rambling thoughts, click here

150W: Annie Hall

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...

Annie Hall (Dir. Woody Allen/1977)

Vintage Woody Allen is where you start. Annie Hall is the specific spot. Alvie Singer (Woody Allen) is reflecting on his relationship with Annie Hall (Diane Keaton). By breaking the fourth wall in the first few seconds, you are caught off-guard. Allen is being honest with you; his audience and friend. He is confiding in you with his innermost feelings and personal outlook – cynical, narcissistic and incredibly funny. He darts from his childhood (“I like leather”) through to his New York Jewish family. Gordon Willis captures deep shadows and warm colours and Christopher Walken appears for mere-minutes in an unforgettable appearance as Annie Hall’s brother. Annie Hall hints at a darker edge – a pessimism that often lurks amongst Woody’s films, but it remains timeless – unlike many Best Picture Oscar winners – and comedians including Ricky Gervais and Larry David owe Woody Allen here. Indeed, where would comedy be without Annie Hall?

Rating: 10/10

These 150 word reviews are a part of 'Woody Allen Wednesdays' on Flickering Myth

Manhattan (Woody Allen, 1979)

Now, I have watched this before and, on the first watch I thought a great film. Now, a second time around I realised that there are not so many jokes as there are in 'Annie Hall' - but this is not so much a bad thing. It has to be taken that little bit more seriously.

Everyone is completely flawed - Yale - the cheating husband, Isaac - the paedo-ish guy, Mary - the indecisive broad. Even Tracy is a little naive. Throwing away London for this silly man who, even she should know, is too old for her.

The Gershwin score is awesome - the big band, semi-marching band mixed with the lovely jazz (probably not Gershwin that one...). The great shots - like this mix of conversations with beautiful NYC images. Obviously, the whole section in the planetarium place simply looks stunning. Silhouettes and small highlights - dare I mention Carvaggio or Helmut Newton ...

The ambiguous ending ... clearly Mary is gone, but does Mary and Yale work out? Did Yale split with the wife? Does Tracy stay ... clearly she shouldn't and I feel that little glance from Woody at the end is trying to say how he is, ultimately, thinking of himself. Take away all the glamour and beauty of NYC, ultimately, he is on his own and alien to the emotions of others - to the point that he is willing to, effectively, destroy someone else's life purely to make his own loneliness not in vain. Whereas poor Mary - as cerebral as she was - maybe she was simply looking for love and followed her heart more so than her NYC head ... then again, she was from Philadelphia. With this in mind, this interesting take on a love story ... you cannot help but give ol' Woody Allen his credit. I mean, screw the old mans life now. Maybe he did get it on with his adopted child or something ... but back in '79, he made a damn good film and it was relevant and interesting so ... there you go!

On a side note ... Empire Magazine and the 'Saw' Franchise
So, I like Kim Newman. But I hate Empire magazine. It is so slim and merely plays on whatever sells in the film world ... rather than whatever people want to know and what is important and what people care about. Does it try to educate .. no. Does it try to inform ... only on the films which pay for the coverage. Anyway, my guilty pleasure on cinema is the 'Saw' franchise. I am not going to lie - I love the films, but I am well aware of how they are kinda of pointlessly violent. My personal link was when I first saw 'Saw' I was so scared I thought to myself that maybe the feeling I got was the closest I would get to feeling the same as people generations before me got when they watched 'The Exorcist'. I'm not saying its better than it, but as a 24year old there is a certain element of 'shock' which I don't get anymore. The barrier has been lowered to a certain extent and so horror is a difficult genre to do - don't get me wrong, the frights and scares are one thing, but gore and seeing things that I've never seen before ... 'Saw' is the first horror film to have done that. Maybe I am giving it too much credit but ... it is what it is and I like it alot.

Anyhoo, the reviews are late and I've already seen 'Saw V' prior to reading the reviews and the two magazines I happened to buy this month - 'Sight and Sound' and 'Empire' obviously reviewed the film. Both by Kim Newman.

Interestingly enough the review in 'Sight and Sound' seemed to give it alot more credit than I thought it deserved - mentioning Edgar Allen Poe references and the 'strength- beyond the sheer fiendish ingenuity - is Tobin Bell as Jigsaw' . Though it was clearly ambiguous as to what KM actually felt himself, overall it seemed to be a solid review of not-as-good-as-it-could-be sequel to a decent horror franchise. Though KM made his view clear in Empire. A short review - finally giving it 'somewhat ho-hum franchise extension' and a nod to a tv spin-off of 'celebrity saw' or something. summarising with a two-star. The simple attitude obviously pandered to the masses and thats my problem - is Empire just keeping the medium of film simple? i think so. This will no doubt come up in the future so I shall holdback until I have more leverage. It n't be long before 'Star Wars' or 'Lord of the Rings' is on the cover...