I don't know if this movie serves any purpose other than a chance for Woody Allen to realize some childhood fantasy.
An all star cast with Eisenberg plodding on as his alter ego, running a night club and hitting it off with glamorous ladies.
There is no substance here. Very nicely shot but that is all. This is as forgettable as they come.
Right. Entirely lacking in anything beyond wardrobe and set design.
shareI get it to some degree. The characters and plot are not developed enough for a movie like this..with the emphasis placed almost entirely on the annoying narration , the characters remained 2 dimensional. So much more could have been developed but it seems, as long as W. A. is funded to continue with his annual project , that quality film - making is not going to be the focus but merely indulging his own whims. He's churning out very mediocre efforts in recent years...one should encourage him to bow out gracefully...if that's even still an option.
shareI'm glad WA has never taken your advice. Despite a rash of some bad earlier efforts, he came back with two great contributions, Midnight in Paris and Blue Jasmine. Irrational Man, which hews closely to Crime and Punishment, was fascinating and unnerving. Cafe Society is good and interesting, but far from satisfying.
Overall quite a good record if you look at his last six films.
Too much is made of Magic in The Moonlight by fans and the critics dealt with Irrational Man, leaving it on a shelf to collect dust, despite the acting talents of its leads.
Cate is the major reason that Blue Jasmine is remembered more favourably, fully deserving the Oscar for a very raw and exposing performance. Her performance is what lifted the movie and gave it genuine punch.
Originality is clearly not a word in W.A.'s vocabulary. It would be hard to argue against the suggestion that he is, historically, a self - indulgent film maker. He really is the Marmite of the movie world. Each to his own...we all take our own subjective view and W.A. is always going g to split opinions but I find it is hard to claim that his Cafe Society characters are as fleshed out as they could have been...knowing that the 2 leads are capable of much more depth in their performances.
...and 'Magic in The Moonlight' is my personal dig at 'Midnight in Paris'...because it wasn't. Just wanted to clarify that so you dont have to waste time correcting my post...
share[deleted]
Interesting...please note I am merely sharing an opinion on a movie I expected more from...which is the purpose for which these boards are used among others. You, on the other hand, have chosen to make personally derogative remarks and linking me to some very unpleasant individuals. This speaks volumes about the level at which we each work...I ensuring I maintain a respectful tone whereas you...well you've just demonstrated the gutteral level at which you work.
To clarify...it can only be described as niåve to think that any film maker can command unrivalled love and admiration...simply because all opinion is subjective, hence all the variables.
If you are unable to comment without being personally insulting then please keep your opinions to yourself... I , for one, will not waste my time in reading them!
You did not just share your opinion of a single movie, you went on to make some rather ridiculous sweeping statements that make me think you are trolling for a response.
shareTrolling seems to be a word you haven't grasped the meaning of let alone its correct use...showing your true colours again.
My bad fortune that the individual whose chosen to respond to my comments is not one of the intelligent and engaging ones who enjoy discussing the world of cinema...rather than bandying around the word 'troll' without the first idea what one is...evidently!
Now go away and find a hobby...
Your statement "Originality is clearly not a word in W.A.'s vocabulary" is a great example of trolling. Sorry, it fits you perfectly.
shareAs I say...you show your confusion in the use of this word you are throwing around. A troll is not someone is has a different opinion than you on the subjects of film, directors, scripts etc. A good example of trolling is actually what you are doing to me. Now you won't be able to accept that due to your clear inanity to grasp any opinion but your own.. ..this is utterly tedious now...zzzzzz
shareA troll is someone who is looking for an argument by making outlandish, ridiculous comments, as you have done on this thread.
share...as I said before.. take the time to check the dictionary definition of the word troll. It's a better use of your energy than bullying those who have a different view than yours! Such unpleasant and aggressive posting is not welcomed in here by anyone.
shareDictionary checked. Your comment is in it.
shareYou really are just unbelievably stupid ...but then so are all those who have this need to insult people who don't hold to the same views...now go and play with your toys and leave the adults alone...just utterly bored with this now. ...and your next childish comment so you can have the last word is.....
shareDon't say ridiculous things that you can't back up, and maybe you'd have an easier time of it.
share[deleted]
It did look great indeed, but it also had some good performances IMO and some laugh out loud scenes "My son is now a murderer and a Christian, I don't know what's worse" lolol...
And it's always nice to see Eisenberg and Stewart together they are always good together.
Death to mainstream cinema!