By Chlotrudis Independent Film Society
Rating: 4 cats
Director: Woody Allen
Starring: Kurt Fuller | Michael Sheen | Mimi Kennedy | Owen Wilson | Rachel McAdams
Country: spain, united_states
Year: 2011
Running time: 94
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1605783/
Thom says: “I was all prepared to like this brilliant film from all the rave reviews but I had no idea I’d love it this much. The story: a successful but frustrated Hollywood screenwriter (Gil, Owen Wilson) travels to his beloved Paris to supposedly work on finishing his firstnovel. Along on the trip are his bitchy, spoiled fiancee (Inez, Rachel McAdams) and her conservative parents (John & Helen, Kurt Fuller & Mimi Kennedy) (the dad has some business deal brewing in Paris). While being dragged from pillar to post by first his fiancé & future in-laws & then by a pedantic professor & toadying wife (friends of Inez’ who happen to be there because the man is going to teach a class at the Sorbonne). One evening he finds himself separated from the group and he is picked up by an old limousine that is a transport to the past world of Paris in the 1920’s that he has always dreamed of being a part of. In the car are F. Scott & Zelda Fitzgerald and they take him to a rousing party. At first he has trouble believing what has happening to him but once he does (discovering that he has to be at the same spot at midnight to connect with the time-machine limousine) he immerses himself into the past, going so far as to fall in love with the mistress of Pablo Picasso (she is unhappy in the 20s and wants to return to an even earlier Paris, La Belle Epoque). Along his hilarious and touching forays into the past he meets Gertrude Stein, Picasso, Ernest Hemingway, Salvador Dali, Alice B. Toklas, Luis Bunuel, Josephine Baker, Henri Toulouse-Lautrec, Henri Matisse, Djuna Barnes, Edgar Degas, Paul Gauguin, Man Ray, T.S. Eliot, & others. Allen wisely has chosen almost all unknowns (at least to American audiences) to play the famous people from the past except Kathy Bates as Stein (she scores by underplaying the part) & Adrien Brody as Dali (he’s a bit too broad but then Dali was a kook so it fights well-enough). Wilson brings enough spark & charm to the ‘Woody Allen’ character to leave a vivid impression, easily his best acting to date. McAdams throws herself into her difficult role and carries it off brilliantly. I’ll happily admit that a great deal of the comic turns might well go over the head of many viewers due to obscure references but that increased the value of film for me. Many of the bits involve Gil knowing the future of the characters and giving advice to them to little avail. One bit: Gil tells Bunuel an idea for a film script where a group of people go to a party, interact, & when its time to go they can’t leave the room. Much later in time, adapting Jean-Paul Sartre’s NO EXIT to film in THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) does that very suggestion, but Allen has Bunuel deflate Gil’s idea with a, ‘That doesn’t make any sense, why can’t they just walk out of the room?’. Artistic, philosophical, and cultural patterns all are delightfully exploited. Personally I love the fact that all the characters from the past never question Gil’s clothes which are noticeably out-of-place. Maybe Allen’s best film, and that’s saying a mouthful. 5 cats”
Bruce says: “Scott and I saw MIDNIGHT IN PARIS on our last night in Paris, a wonderful send-off. I, too, loved the film. Basically a love song about Paris, her physical beauty and her contribution to our own cultural heritage, the film is nearly plotless, A simple, pure pleasure.
“I might add that Marian Cotillard is radiant as the woman who yearns for le temps perdu.”
Diane says: “I agree: MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is a pleasure. The theme that stood out for me was the false pull of nostalgia, which I seem to have been haunted by the last year or so….
“Owen Wilson is a great lead: his self-doubt is not as annoying as Woody’s, and he can achieve a naïveté that Woody can’t. Thom loved ‘that all the characters from the past never question Gil’s clothes which are noticeably out-of-place.’ I liked that, too. The red tie, the disheveled long hair…your eye meets them with shock when Gil is in the background of a 1920s nightclub scene–but the open-minded artistes of Gil’s ‘golden age’ aren’t fazed.
“The opening scenes of Paris are way too long, and repetitive. I did find some of the literary and artistic references embarrassingly broad. The film has a wonderful soundtrack. Brush up on your French before you go, or you’ll miss a lot of the dialogue. 4 cats.”
Marilyn says: “OK, it may be the best Woody Allen movie in a long time but he was due, wasn’t he? I agree about Wilson not being as annoying as Allen but I found he came close by the end. He did not vary at all throughout, the same twitches and tilts—the real saving grace is that it was not Woody! And the French—yes, for those of us who do not speak French or bring someone with us who does, we were left out at times which seemed to me a little snobbish snubbery from the little man himself. Oh yes, one more observation, just about every woman in the movie was at best, haughty or flawed and at worse, unbearable, from the mother to the daughter and all the ones in-between, save one. I think our Woody does not have positive feelings towards women generally but it was interesting that the one he allowed to be likable was docile, spoke French, and bore a striking resemblance to a young Mia Farrow!!! 3 cats”
Brett says: “I see the film as a great divider. To some degree, it’s a ‘nerdy guilty pleasure’ with plenty of laughter opportunities. But, it is equally pedantic, just as the character it criticizes as such. Perhaps what the film suffers most from is a uneven teetering of ‘artsy’ inside jokes with just flat out lazy references that struggle at just blending in as well as some of the more subtle ones. It’s kind of like a great sarcastic joke-teller that captivates with a one-liner, but then he/she ruins it by saying, ‘Did you get that one? If so, here’s another one I’m *sure* you’ll enjoy!’
“Before I just let it rest at that, however, I do want to backtrack and admit that I *did* certainly laugh at some of the more lazy’ references that I earlier criticized. However, the context was different with some of them. For those who may be a little too critical of Allen in that regard, I like to think that Owen Wilson’s character Gil was the one creating these caricatures; therefore, the references at times were indeed appropriate for what his ‘Hollywood-bred’ character would know at a very basic level about the personalities from the past. To me, that actually made some of the ‘simple’ references a bit funnier than they otherwise would have been. But, back to the earlier criticism, I do think there is a consistency snag or two in that Allen is trying to play off of an educated audience *and* a bit of a dunce (Gil) at the same time, which is obviously going to be difficult consistency-wise.
“And in response to some saying that Allen was due a ‘good one’ or that this is one of this recent best, I still give that advantage to MATCH POINT.
“Michael Sheen, Alison Pill, and Corey Stoll were my personal highlights in supporting roles. The Hemingway caricature was probably the most consistent over-the-top obsession of how Gil might perceive an interaction with him, yet Allen and Stoll worked wonders in creating a paradox or two for the audience that worked on a greater ironic level at times. The reason I’ll probably see this film again a year or two down the line is due in large part to the Hemingway diatribes.”
Chris says: “The Wood-bot’s latest European diversion is not only one of his biggest hits but also by far his most charming film in well over a decade. Much of this charm is due to its neat central conceit: an American in Paris (Owen Wilson) magically steps into a 1920’s version of the city of light where he gets to hobnob with the likes of Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Salvador Dali and other period luminaries. Charming, right? So is Wilson. Often misused in stupid comedies, here he’s a surrogate wise enough not to engage in a Woody impersonation. Instead, his laid-back (but thoughtful) persona almost effortlessly gels with the material. This doesn’t resonate like a classic Allen fantasy (see THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO) and Rachel McAdams exudes no charm whatsoever as Wilson’s shrew of a wife. But during its 1920s sequences, the film is as airy and sweet as a meringue and Paris through Allen’s lens proves a pleasant confection. 4 cats”
Julie says: “I am big on nostalgia for the past, especially so with artists and writers, so hard not to love this as that aspect was done so well.
“I am not an expert on the timeline of Allen’s films since I lost interest long ago as so many of them did seem repetitive and annoying. (MATCH POINT was different and very good I agree- (I forgot that was his!)And VCB was pretty good as I recall maybe a bit forced?). So, like Michael it was hard for me to put this in the cd player and start it up, but once I did I was mesmerized. I loved all the 1920’s sequences, so aptly described below by Chris as ‘airy and sweet as a meringue and Paris through Allen’s lens proves a pleasant confection’. This was one of Wilson’s best performances I agree, and again Chris describes this perfectly: ‘often misused in stupid comedies, here he’s a surrogate wise enough not to engage in a Woody impersonation.’ I loved all the obscure/not obscure references and will have to watch it again sometime just to go through those scenes.
“And yes it was very amusing that no one questioned Gil’s out of place clothing. But one can see that as artists they would be open to a different ‘individual’ style.
“The only sore spot was that Gil’s fiance was just such a horrible person, it’s really unfathomable that those two would ever have been together.
“It was just such a pleasure to watch this film considering I forced myself to put the cd in the player.
“I sure wish I could catch that midnight Peugot Limousine for a foray into the past, but I’d want to be assured I could come back into the now. 4.65 cats”