| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| mampers11 |
Posted - 01/20/2007 : 15:24:21
Now I have recently seen Manhattan, after putting it off for ages. However it caught my eye when I was in the library and I decided to rent it. Now we all know from friends, and well heeled film critics that is a classic movie, however when I watched I did not feel that at all.
Dont get me wrong, it had the ingredients there. A pithy story about a neurotic New Yorker (major stereotype) who hates his job, does not love his jailbait girlfriend and is embrassed with ex wife and her publishings of her kiss and tell book about him. This all changed when he meets his friends lover, whereby he falls somewhat in love with that person. There are some great lines, obviously written for protagonist (Woody Allen). The cinematography is absolutely superb, with the use of black and white film and great wide shots of NYC. I also do not want to forget about Gershwin's opening bars, which has been used many a time since after this movie.
However though I have given a lot of superlatives to this movie, could I deem this as a classic? Sorry to disappoint some people here, but I just did not find this movie as this. I find this movie funny and great to look at, but will I watch this again and again, or instantly start quoting from it? No I dont think I will. Will I want to be like Woody Allen's character? No not really.
In conclusion, do I like this movie? Yeah, it was enjoyable, but did I think this was a classic? No I do not.
Please talk about this and Woody Allen fans I wanna hear from you and you try to persuade me
Mampers
|
| 8 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| GHcool |
Posted - 01/21/2007 : 19:08:18
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Regarding neurotic NY Jews, if you ask me, Woody just took what Neil Simon started, Mel Brooks continued and then Allen stepped it up from there.
All three comedians got their start working together on Sid Caesar's "Your Show of Shows" so they probably influenced each other a great deal on a personal as well as artistic level. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 01/21/2007 : 07:13:27
Regarding neurotic NY Jews, if you ask me, Woody just took what Neil Simon started, Mel Brooks continued and then Allen stepped it up from there.
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 01/21/2007 : 02:59:11
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
You mention the neurotic jewish NY stereotype, but Allen pretty much invented it...
To the best of my recollection I have only once met a NY Jew who was not neurotic (IMHO), so, no, I don't think Woody invented this stereotype. 
Yes, Manhattan may not be perfect but it is a classic. If you don't want to agree with that, it's fine with me. Be wrong.
It's interesting to consider the parallels between Manhattan and Lost In Translation.
|
| demonic |
Posted - 01/21/2007 : 00:15:19
It never particularly struck me when I first watched it either - probably as a student - apart from the beginning which is inspired work. I think many of your (and probably my) problems with the film is our familarity with Woody Allen now, as Randall and BB pointed out at the time of release Allen was a very different commodity. You mention the neurotic jewish NY stereotype, but Allen pretty much invented it - lest we forget he wrotes roles perfect for himself, and he knows himself pretty well. Apart from "Annie Hall" I much prefer Allen's films where he takes a back seat and just directs or appears fleetingly - two of my favourite comedies are "Bullets over Broadway" and "Sweet and Lowdown". |
| GHcool |
Posted - 01/20/2007 : 19:40:32
I agree with mampers7. Manhattan is a good film, but not a great film. Annie Hall is more my style. According to IMDb, Manhattan was Woody Allen's least favorite of his own films. Although I sharply disagree with this assessment, I think its an interesting indication that opinions vary widely. |
| randall |
Posted - 01/20/2007 : 18:58:15
It will also grow in stature as the years pass because it is a wonderful time capsule of New York City at the time: sights, sounds, customs, mores. Because of the Gershwin and b&w cinematography, it also hearkens back to Manhattan's Gilded Age a few decades previous, making the characters seem a bit small for the town [I think deliberately], as if they somehow don't, well, deserve it.
For those who like the Woodman, it's one of his first attempts to make that turn between comedy and drama within the same story. [This of course excludes his Bergman imitations, which I don't particularly like.] ANNIE HALL is a far better crowd pleaser; if you don't care for that one, then Woody Allen just doesn't relate to you.
Plus, Michael O'Donoghue has a cameo! |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 01/20/2007 : 17:23:03
I agree, it's not a classic, but it does have some wonderful things, and, as Benj says, marks Woody's transition from comic-who-happens-to-direct into director-who-happens-to-be-a-comic.
The multiple openings, though, touch comedy genius and recall Woody's desire to emulate various literary and filmic styles, as well as setting out the premise that we're in for a [comedic] examination of the difference between love, infatuation, lust, and passion, including his own toward NYC.
Classics need many decades before they prove themselves, no matter how cannily we think we can predict the classics of the future. 
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 01/20/2007 : 16:17:20
I'm a big Woody Allen fan, although not so much of the films, more his inspired comedy mind. In this way, Manhattan, as one of his films where he was starting to become a serious filmmaker isn't one of my favourites. It's not without the great lines, but it did start to bore me in places.
I don't deem it a classic myself, but I can see how some people might. Filmed in notoriously hard-to-work-with black and white and yet beautifully shot, marking a real transition from romcom to drama for a now highly regarded director, such a film is easy for bluffers to label a classic.
Please note: I'm not saying those who say this is a classic don't know what theyre talking about, just that there are some people who don't and this sort of film (for the reasons above, plus probably a few more) attracts the label. |
|
|
