MovieChat Forums > Café Society (2016) Discussion > What is there to like?

What is there to like?

posted 8 years ago by opera_lover
5 replies | jump to latest

I posted this as a reply to another thread, but I felt that I genuinely want to hear from some die-hard Allen's fans to explain what is there to like. So I will copy and paste it here as a separate topic. The question was 'Why did this movie do so badly?'

I responded:

Because it's bad? Rhetorical question.

Setting aside the beautiful cinematography, and the usual cult mentality among Allen's disciples, WHAT ON EARTH IS THIS MOVIE ABOUT? I rather liked his earlier movies, but his entire work of recent years consists of bland movies, trivial stories, and just mind-boggling banality.

'Boy moves to LA, starts working for his rich uncle, meets his secretary, falls in love, but she is sleeping with his rich uncle and chooses him. Boy moves back to NY, starts working for his gangster brother, meets a girl, gets married, then the uncle comes to NY, he sees the original girl, they longingly look at each other. Then he goes to LA , sees original girl there, they longingly look at other and decide not see each other again. She is looking dreamily into the night in LA, he does the same in NY.'

End of story. Try to tell if there is anything more to it. And oh, yes, every few minutes somebody is getting buried in cement. And a couple of kind of funny one liners. Basically, my reaction was 'And the point is ??????' . If it was not for excellent cameramen, lighting etc, this is not worth even a short story in Reader's Digest. One-dimensional characters, no depth whatsoever, just like a soap bubble, popped the second I stepped outside the movie theater. I have given up on Allen's movies long time ago, ever since after seeing his movies I started feeling that I wasted money and wanted a refund. Well, at least this time I did not pay. But I sure want the 1 hour and 39 minutes wasted on this banality back .
I think Allen is like Emperor's New Clothes, in certain circles you just have to say that you like him, it's a sign of belonging to those who are 'in'.

[–] gorkee23 8 years ago

I have not seen 1 single Woody Allen movie.

Kristen Stewart kissing Jesse Eisenberg makes me understand why she turned lesbian.

Woody Allen is a synonym for auteur - a movie maker only snobs and socialites know how to appreciate.

We, lovers of "summer blockbusters and idiotic summer commedies", are not supposed to understand his achievements.

[–] best_of 8 years ago

OMG! What do you expect? Your 'explanation' of what Cafe Society is about misses the forest for the trees. It is reminiscent of the criticism years ago of Barry Levinson's movie Diner, as being "about a bunch of guys just sitting around talking about a ketchup bottle." That criticism was idiotic then, as is your critique of Cafe Society today. What Woody Allen does, and he has done this for decades is create situations wherein different aspects of human nature can interact. He always does it with intelligence and wit and often sophistication. His films continue to be a sparkling oasis in the barren desert of the multi-plex. If you don't get his films, it says more for you than it does for Woody Allen. Thank heavens for The Woodman!

[–] RenderedToast 8 years ago

I have rarely walked out of a film but I left Cafe Society right after Carell dumps Stewart and she goes to Eisenberg's hotel room in tears.

I was kind of with it all the way up to when it was revealed that her boyfriend was Carell all along, at which point the film just completely fell apart. Why the hell did Carell introduce Stewart to Eisenberg at all?! There was a pretty blonde girl at reception, she couldn't have done the "show the new guy around" job? What was with Carrell's character starting off as a big shot Hollywood player who was seemingly deliberately trying not to meet his nephew but when they finally do he hands him a job happily?

So I didn't even get to the part where Eisenberg moves back to NYC and becomes a gangster (I was wondering what the hell the point of all the cutaways back to Bob were about) but given that's already 40 minutes into the 96 minute running time, obviously that whole portion of the film is equally poorly paced and edited.

[–] Nakedjaxx 8 years ago

this basically sum up the movie. what a stupid film.

[–] shelemm 8 years ago

You asked an honest question, so here is my honest answer, copied from another thread:

Of course the movie has ideas beyond what you are stating.

It's a movie about frustration. It is pessimistic. After all, the entire movie is about lovers being frustrated and ending up that way. But there is some happiness in the film; they both reach happiness at some point, and their love is requited, so if they veer betwen happiness and frustration, well, then that's not so bad, is it? Frustration, while being frustrating, is not sadness. So even a pessimist's take on the whole is not so awful.

Frustration and happiness are not opposites.

There, that's the 'more' of the story.