Š-DR- LE DERNIER VOL de Karim Dridi (2009) p7

06/09/2014 12:30 par tellurikwaves

• 

  Š-DR- LE DERNIER VOL de Karim Dridi (2009) p7

  06/09/2014 12:30 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR- LE DERNIER VOL de Karim Dridi (2009) p6

06/09/2014 05:08 par tellurikwaves

• 

  Š-DR- LE DERNIER VOL de Karim Dridi (2009) p6

  06/09/2014 05:08 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR- LE DERNIER VOL de Karim Dridi (2009) p5

06/09/2014 05:06 par tellurikwaves

• 

  Š-DR- LE DERNIER VOL de Karim Dridi (2009) p5

  06/09/2014 05:06 par tellurikwaves

Revue de presse frenchy(extraits)

*

Première et Le Parisien trouvent ce film mauvais[...]Excessif.com se montre moins catégorique: c'est un «film qui étonne dans la filmographie de Karim Dridi». C'est un «plaisir» de le voir «passer dans un autre style, mais son film n'est pas exempt de défauts»: « légèrement perdu entre la volonté parfois étroite de coller au réel et l'épanouissement dans l'éclat de la passion. »

" Le réalisateur a sans doute raison de chercher à s'éloigner des modèles, à refuser le cliché en s'intéressant véritablement au contexte de son récit et en suggérant l'histoire d'amour bien plus qu'il ne l'expose", voilà, c'est un film à voir pour son histoire, « parce qu'il ne montre pas les touaregs comme des objets du décor et pour une rencontre amoureuse terriblement belle. » Le Figaro le situe »entre film à grand spectacle, paysages grandioses et drame intimiste" et le Figaroscope pense qu'il "serait un subtil mélange entre le film d'aventures et le film intimiste".

 Quant au jeu du couple glamour français, Canet et  Cotillard, voilà ce qu'il en est dit: "[...l'acteur, souvent bon par ailleurs...] [Ironiquement, c'est dans les scènes où son personnage est faible ou malade qu'il est le plus convaincant. D'un bout à l'autre, Marion Cotillard incarne cette femme à vif, passionnée, ne versant pas une larme, ou presque, et quel presque. A croire que son oscar n'a fait que libérer tout le potentiel d'une jeune actrice d'exception".

Š-DR- LE DERNIER VOL de Karim Dridi (2009) p4

06/09/2014 04:59 par tellurikwaves

• 

  Š-DR- LE DERNIER VOL de Karim Dridi (2009) p4

  06/09/2014 04:59 par tellurikwaves

Une tempête emporte l'avion et le fait basculer

Š-DR- LE DERNIER VOL de Karim Dridi (2009) p3

06/09/2014 04:56 par tellurikwaves

• 

  Š-DR- LE DERNIER VOL de Karim Dridi (2009) p3

  06/09/2014 04:56 par tellurikwaves

Cast
Marion Cotillard : Marie Vallières de Beaumont
Guillaume Canet : lieutenant Antoine Chauvet
Guillaume Marquet : capitaine Vincent Brosseau
Saïdou Abatcha : Saïdou
Frédéric Épaud : Louis
Michaël Vander-Meiren : Vasseur
Nabil Imtital : Tchalou
Halimata Graille : Amana
Mohamed Kounda : Adoua
Mohamed Ixa : Limane

Š-DR- LE DERNIER VOL de Karim Dridi (2009) p2

06/09/2014 04:29 par tellurikwaves

• 

  Š-DR- LE DERNIER VOL de Karim Dridi (2009) p2

  06/09/2014 04:29 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR- LE DERNIER VOL de Karim Dridi (2009)

06/09/2014 04:26 par tellurikwaves

• 

  Š-DR- LE DERNIER VOL de Karim Dridi (2009)

  06/09/2014 04:26 par tellurikwaves

Malgré les critiques médiocre de la presse frenchy,(ou l'absence de critiques)j'ai apprécié ce film romantique et triste.En ce qui me concerne il vaut plus que 7 ou 8 films de Woody Allen (je n'ai pas voulu trop insister et me suis limité à quatre...)

*

*

Le Dernier Vol est un film français réalisé par Karim Dridi, sorti le 16 décembre 2009.

*

*

Jeune aviatrice, aventurière obstinée, Marie, part à la recherche de son amant disparu dans le désert saharien lors d'une tentative de record de traversée Londres-Le Cap. Cette arrivée impromptue vient bouleverser le quotidien d'un poste avancé de «méharistes » français au prise avec la montée de la rébellion Touareg. Antoine, capitaine en conflit avec sa hiérarchie, décide d'aider Marie dans cette quête désespérée au milieu d'un océan de sable grandiose et hostile...

Męme Woody...etc (fin)

05/09/2014 19:11 par tellurikwaves

• 

  Męme Woody...etc (fin)

  05/09/2014 19:11 par tellurikwaves

Les acteurs sont excellents,la réalisation : rien à dire...Mais  pas une miette d'espoir. Je me suis senti extrêment déprimé à la fin de l'histoire. Dans ses films "d'avant" il y avait  une vague bienveillance quand même dans son humour (bien que toujours grinçant il faut bien le dire...)ça fait longtemps -10 ans sinon plus- que Woody Allen ne me fait plus rire !

*

*

no there there

Author: zken-1 from United States
16 August 2013
 

Woody may have once been a comedian, but he now has produced one of the most depressing movies in years. Even Cate Blanchett cannot save this derivative, dark and pointless study in modern melt downs a la Bernie Madoff. He also makes the ultimate cardinal sin of modern film making; letting the geography completely contradict the action and tone of the film. What is left is an emotional jumble that never lets the audience breathe. And the ultimate problem is that Woody just has not only lost his sense of place, but the characters do not work when the emotional drift is all down hill. Woody, San Francisco may not be your cup of tea, but as a back drop, it is not New Orleans. If you are going to do Streetcar Named Desire, you have to be able to show a little more of real emotion, and realistic doom and despair. This film is an idea that was never worked out. Because the real tragedy here is the film itself, not the plot.

---

 

I have no idea what movie the people who rated this highly were watching. It certainly wasn't the one that me and a couple hundred other people watched today. Every conversation I overheard walking out was about how the acting was great but the movie was awful. There were a few people whose conversations I didn't overhear because they left the movie early.

The acting, and in particular Cate Blanchett's, was outstanding and the only reason my wife and I didn't join the others leaving early.

Let me put this in perspective: I am a big fan of Woody Allen, but this movie so was so awful that I was compelled to create an IMDb account and express my displeasure.

---

 

Kate Blanchett gives one of the most "Oscar-worthy" performances imaginable in a horrendous film from scene one to THE END. I say that those who extol this film must find staring at dirt thrilling. Alec Baldwin is a philandering bore and should keep to TV. The movie is simply the s.o.s about the wife of an adulterer moving to the West Coast to live with her likewise adopted sister who's preference in men range from dingy dirtbags to dingy scumbags. The story of Kate who was living in the lap of luxury in New York, not knowing her husband was a Madoff style "multi" to a heartbroken one who had to escape. Woody Allen's constant and annoying flashbacks add confusion and his jazz music, perhaps trying to emulate that of the super brilliant "Midnight in Paris" falls flatter than flat. Through all the misery of this movie, one has to be astonished by the artistry, skill, poise and grace of the maaaahvelous Ms. Blanchett whom unquestionably will be an Oscar nominee come Jan.'15. I WANT A REFUND.

---

 

Jasmine lives in her sumptuous New York apartment leading the privileged life of a socialite - until everything falls apart when her handsome, smooth-talking husband is exposed as a philandering real estate fraud and commits suicide in jail, leaving behind a mountain of debt. In an attempt to recover from this setback, Jasmine moves to San Francisco to live with a despised sister, who has been reduced to cramped rental properties and stereotypical blue collar, Italian boyfriends.

The film's narrative unfolds through hackneyed plot devices, and is populated by the usual collection of generic caricatures that pass for real personalities in Woody Allen's cinematic universe. It's hard to feel much sympathy for Jasmine since she's a neurotic, self-absorbed, self-pitying snob who patronizes the other characters in the same way that Allen does. While upending her sister's life, she proceeds to make another mess of her own, as she drinks too much vodka, whines about her misfortune, pops pills and tells lies to a promising new romantic prospect. Neither comedy nor drama, 'Blue Jasmine' is about as tasty and nutritious as a stale cupcake, although it does possess a few more crumbs of substance than a typical Allen film.

---

 

This movie didn't sit well with me, and it's taken me a while to figure out why: it left me wanting.

Cate Blanchett is undeniably one of the most talented actresses around. Her performance was strong. Very strong. But at the end of the day, her character's only motive was a fixation on the Park Avenue lifestyle. She goes through the motions of a complete breakdown, but that's all we get. I wanted more. I wanted to know how/why her obsession with money and status began. More importantly, I wanted to understand why it was worth self-destructing over. Many people become compelled to pursue their own definition of success, be it a house in the Hamptons or an Olympic gold medal. One's drive to obtain these things is part of complex, nuanced tale that makes it all the more compelling when they earn these things...or lose them entirely. Woody Allen does not take us on that journey. Instead, he gives us a woman skirting the edge for no other reason than a hunger for material wealth. Blanchett does a painfully wonderful job with the material she has been given, and it's a shame Woody Allen chose to write such a shallow character because it would have been a delight to see what she could do with a more substantial role.

Another thing that left me wanting is Woody Allen's attempt to portray painfully raw circumstances such as suicide and rocky family relationships. Does Alec Baldwin's character even come close to showing the horrible desperation of a man who feels overwhelmed enough to take his own life? Never. Even when he is arrested, he coolly asks about the charges and when he will be able to consult with his lawyer. He's a disposable plot device, and the film suffers for it. Baldwin's character is as one-dimensional as they come, and yet somehow we're supposed to understand that his death was a catalyst for Blanchett's meltdown? Even though we've never been shown anything other than a calculating business man intent on making money and philandering? Allen forgets again that a complex character would make this film infinitely more compelling.

I'm usually just fine with an ambiguous ending. (Life is full of ambiguity, and I often appreciate its depiction in film.) We leave Blanchett's character on a bench, where she is rambling to nobody save herself and looking utterly beaten. But her journey has been a roller coaster ride that examines nothing of substance, and so I was simply left exhausted with no understanding of why I should have invested in the journey.

---

 

This is just another typical Woody Allen film, full of emotional upheaval and short on anything else. It is a contrived story about two unrelated women, who were adopted by the same parents years ago. One (Jasmine) has "superior" genes to her "sister" (Ginger), but both end up beaten by the game of life. Jasmine from New York comes in to Ginger's life in San Francisco because of her successful husband's downfall. Through flashbacks, we see Jasmine and hubby living "the good life", full of clichéd snobby dialogue, gestures and hammy bad treatment of Ginger and first husband years ago. Fast forward to the present, where all is lost! Superficial Jasmine has become pill-popping, vodka-swilling stress bunny extraordinaire, sighing, moaning, lip-curling over Ginger's orange apartment and her loser boyfriends. Somehow, although the action is San Francisco, everyone we meet has a strong Bronx accent, and of course, the usual Woody Allen New York jazz-style soundtrack follows the action wherever we are. Simplistic and shallow as it is, Cate Blanchett tries very hard to channel Lauren Bacall and make something of her role, but cannot overcome the dumb plot and poor script.

---

 

"Blue Jasmine"'s ineptitude angered and offended me. Moviegoers deserve better than this amateurish botch. This review reveals key plot points. Don't read this review if you don't want to know what happens. Let's face it, though, not a lot happens in "Blue Jasmine." What does happen on screen is devoid of artistic truth, verisimilitude, insight or craft.

Jasmine (Cate Blanchett) is the beautiful widow of Hal Francis, a Bernie-Madoff like corrupt wheeler-dealer. The FBI has caught up with Hal and arrested him. He commits suicide in prison. Jasmine travels from NYC to San Francisco to live with her sister, Ginger (Sally Hawkins). Ginger used to be married to Augie (Andrew Dice Clay) but Ginger is currently involved with Chili (Bobby Cannavale.)

Jasmine tries to make a go of it. There is some tension as she is living in her sister's apartment. Jasmine gets a job, meets a man, and studies interior decorating. Things go badly and the movie ends exactly as it begins: with Jasmine talking to herself.

And that's it. That's the entire waste-of-your-time movie.

The premise is tremendous: how the wife of a Bernie-Madoff style wheeler dealer copes with her sudden stratospheric loss of income and prestige. Does she sink or swim? Is she redeemed or doomed? "Blue Jasmine" does nothing with those fascinating questions. Things are at the end of the movie exactly as they were at the beginning.

Woody Allen wrote a lifeless, inept script.

Allen tosses one potential plot element into the film after another: the aforementioned loss of money and status, mental illness, abusive relationships, adultery, prescription drugs, class relations, sister relationships, adoption, step parenting, sexual harassment at the workplace. Then Allen does absolutely nothing with any of these.

We see Hal kissing women not his wife. We see Augie talking to Hal about money. We see working class people drinking beer and watching sports on TV. None of this goes anywhere. It's all just aborted, disjointed scenes with zero verisimilitude; hollow scenes that arouse not one whit of care or involvement. I didn't believe anything in this movie. Every character's dialogue sounds so similar that I was painfully aware that it was not real people's speech, but words written by Woody Allen. Events occur with no believability.

Jasmine drops a dime on Hal as soon as he tells her that he wants to leave her for another woman. A con artist of Hal's magnitude would not do something so naïve as to tell his wife, who knows of his financial misdeeds, that he is going to dump her. She would obviously get revenge the only way she can – by immediately phoning the FBI.

Ginger is a two dimensional character. No reason is given for her to do anything she does, including taking in Jasmine. Jasmine had been rude to her earlier in the film, and Ginger is not a particularly nice person. The movie takes pains to tell us that Jasmine and Ginger were adopted, and this information serves no point whatsoever. There's no reason for Ginger to have two men: Augie and Chili are virtually the same character. Jasmine has a step son; there's no reason for him not to be her real son.

The movie tells us that Jasmine is on edge, alone and without resources. The movie lies; in other scenes, the movie tells us that Jasmine is utterly irresistible to men. Every man she meets wants to make love to her, date her, and marry her. Surely one of Hal's friends, as soon as Hal went to prison, would have scooped up luscious Jasmine, and Jasmine would have accepted.

The movie tells us that Jasmine is the kind of resourceful woman who can be born poor and marry one of the richest men in the country. How did that change and how did Jasmine become a pathetic basket case? It's just not believable.

A diplomat proposes marriage to Jasmine after dating her for about fifteen minutes. Not believable. Then he immediately cancels the engagement because Jasmine is not what he had thought. Also not believable.

It's impossible to care about any of the characters in the film, from the smarmy dentist to the diplomat who proposes to Jasmine, not just because none of them are nice or even rational people, but because they are boring, two dimensional, and lifeless.

Cate Blanchett's performance is excellent. I did get sick of the tic Allen had her, or allowed her, to perform over and over: shaking Xanax tablets out of a brown prescription bottle into her hand and swallowing them down, followed by a swig of vodka. This gesture was repeated so many times it became stale. Yes, yes, we get it – Jasmine is a nervous wreck.

This movie bugs me because it is so amazingly badly made. The most basic manual on how to construct a plot or develop a character would have steered Allen away from the choices he made. I'm angry that reviewers gave his mess a thumb's up. It's troubling that there are gifted scriptwriters out there who can't get produced while Allen's big name lures filmgoers.

---

 

Jasmine (Cate Blanchett) is a wealthy socialite living in Manhattan. She's got everyone's idea of a dream life. She has lots of money, a handsome investment banker husband named Hal ,(Alec Baldwin) and a son Danny, (Charlie Tahan, Alden Ehrenreich) going to Harvard. Slowly, the dream turns into a nightmare as Jasmine hears rumors of government investigations into Hal's business dealings, and rumors of his illicit affairs with other women. Jasmine pretends to be blissfully unaware as long as she can maintain her posh lifestyle. Both rumors are true, and Hal is dragged off to jail where he unceremoniously hangs himself. Jasmine is devastated by the turn of events, and decides to live with her blue collar sister Ginger (Sally Hawkins) and her husband, Augie. (Andrew Dice Clay) Augie loses a bundle in one of Hal's investments, and leaves Ginger. Ginger starts living with a guy named Chili (Bobby Carnavale)

Jasmine tries to re-invent herself by taking night classes to learn how to be computer literate, and working at the front desk at a dental office. That plan goes horribly awry when the dentist, Dr. Flicker (Michael Stuhlberg) attacks Jasmine after she rebuffs his many advances. She quits her job and begins dating Dwight, (Peter Sarsgaard) a diplomat and a recent widower. Jasmine lies to Dwight about her occupation, the circumstances of her husband's death and her not having children, but plans to marry him anyway. Does the truth come out about Hal and Danny? Are Jasmine's plans for wedded bliss headed for ruin?

Blue Jasmine is another pedestrian effort by writer director Woody Allen. It seems like a lot of the critics like this movie, because it is written by Allen, and stars such A-List talent like Cate Blanchett. This movie aims to be the Philadelphia Story, but misses by a lot. Cate Blanchett tries to play the Katherine Hepburn role of wealthy socialite who has to mingle with the rabble, but Kate Hepburn plays a haughty diva much better than Cate Blanchett, and The Philadelphia Story is a much funnier film. Blue Jasmine feels trite, and perfunctory, it tries to adapt the same class-based themes as The Philadelphia Story without nearly as many laughs. Allen doesn't really have an ear for other ethnicities, so the Italian characters sound like stereotypes.

Blanchet is good playing an aristocratic condescending snob, but then writer Allen adds another wrinkle to her role, and now she becomes, pill popping, neurotic, aristocrat who talks to herself, and that's too much for even Blanchett to handle. She overplays the crazy lady part, and that ruined an otherwise good performance. Director Allen probably encouraged her over the top craziness, because that's how Allen played those roles himself in his early films. Sally Hawkins is horribly miscast as Blanchett's blue-collar sister. Blue collar British yes, blue collar New Yorker, no. She was fighting her accent a lot in this movie. Alec Baldwin plays Hal as a caricature of a super-rich businessman, much the same way he played Jack Donoghy on 30 Rock. But I thought Baldwin was aware of the satire in 30 Rock, but apparently not. Andrew Dice Clay plays Andrew Dice Clay, which is to say, he is a walking stereotype. Peter Sarsgaard plays the same whimpering imp he plays in all his roles. Louis CK is woefully underutilized.

One last bone I have to pick with director Allen is the pacing of this film, it's dreadfully slow, it clocked in at under two hours , but it felt much longer. The Ginger/Chili subplot was wholly unnecessary and made the story meander. Some editing would have helped pick up the pace.

Blue Jasmine: Left me green under the gills.

---

 

I am not an artist or get that whole artistic view of life with these movies so this is your fair warning. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I watch a movie to be entertained and this left me feeling horrible for her and everyone involved, including myself. I don't want to be left with a figure-out-your own-ending or a sad ending. My purpose in watching a movie is to be entertained. I want to be left with a happy feeling for the end of the movie.

If you are an artist maybe you'll get the whole meaning to this, but I left depressed for everyone in the movie. I will not be watching another Woody Allen movie ever again.

---

 

After abandoning the successful early film ideas for an approach that includes the usual jazz music, pretty city scenes, obnoxious characters we don't care about, and a thin, boring, facile plot (with some kind of "happy ending"), we get something very new here. The fact that it's beyond awful (others have pointed out how laughably flawed it is in several significant ways) may not be all that important. It's been time for Woody to move on for a long time now, and now he has, producing a movie that demonstrates how clueless he can be. Up to this point, my sense was that he had become largely detached from society (and his films were never specifically political, and rarely indirectly political), though in this film it's almost like he wanted to tell us that explicitly. Moreover, one wonders if he is experiencing mental lapses, and I truly fear for his health.

If that's not the case, then the other explanation that makes sense to me is that he is exploring a new kind of self-deprecating absurdism. It's a fresh new idea, and while it falls flat on its face here, one hopes that Woody can figure out what went wrong (which could take quite a bit of time, due to the quantity) and reorganize it into something that actually works. My advice would be to introduce clearer and more frequent magical realist elements, as was the case in some of his early films. He is one of the few Americans auteurs who was willing to "go there," and he did it successfully. Instead, he creates something like this; the thought that kept entering my mind while watching it was, "Woody, what are you going for here?"

"Blue Jasmine" is "all over the map" and not enjoyable in any way. Everything Woody tried to do here has been done already in a much more convincing way. After his recent "successes" (as some apparently believe), why shouldn't Woody explore his "dark side" in an upcoming film? How often have we heard him talk about his fear of death? Why isn't that in any of his recent films, as he is now of an "advanced age?" If he has come to terms with his mortality and is at peace with it, why not make a film about it and "let us in?" He could have done that vicariously through the Cate Blanchett character, but instead we see a pampered woman who has to face the "tragedy" of being one of the "masses." Quelle horreur! Seriously, his recent films not only scream out, "I'm selling out totally," but they are a bit of an insult to us "common folk."

Wasn't this the same guy who made fun of "puckish satires of contemporary mores" in one of his early films? What would young Woody say to 2014 Woody? I don't think it would be pleasant to witness !

Même Woody Allen ? Not possibeul !..Eh si (3)

05/09/2014 18:57 par tellurikwaves

• 

  Même Woody Allen ? Not possibeul !..Eh si (3)

  05/09/2014 18:57 par tellurikwaves

*

*

Unbelievably bad

Author: potato2
24 January 2013
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Four unrelated vignettes involving tourists, newlyweds, and quirky locals play out in Rome. The characters are neither sympathetic, likable, interesting, nor memorable. The plots are like fantasy daydreams but still manage to be incredibly tiresome. I was so glad when the movie was over.

On the plus side, the photography is exquisite. Rome is filmed in a warm, golden light that makes it look like a fairytale city for lovers. Some very good actors get stuck with trite material and Woody Allen is still playing the same loser character he's been doing for forty years.

Terrible movie.

---

 

Growing up and currently living in Rome, where it all began, and where a large portion of the movie was filmed, we rolled out the red carpet for the film crew and everyone they brought into our city. Though European, we are not living in the past as this movie highly portrays the "folks" of Rome. If you think that we all were in the same mindset and living quarters of Allen and his crew, think again. The Giomani house, better known as the Roman house is by far the worst looking house in the district, in fact, if it wasn't for this movie, it would have been torn down just as any dilapidated house in Rome is. We have several large manufacturing businesses in our town that do nation wide and international wide business. As for dogs running across main street, you won't find any as portrayed in the opening shot of the movie. We don't drive old beaters for car, yes, we too in Roman town own Cadillacs, SUVs, and other nice vehicles just as the rest of the world. We do have running water, cable TV, and the internet. We do not dress in overalls, wear straw hats, and chew on pieces of straw as was also seen in the movie. For treating the film crew as good as we did, I feel that they did not do us any favors in return, in fact, the portrayal of our town was very misleading and erroneous. Not to mention they were very adamant in keeping the stereotype of Rome alive. It was a good hearted story, but keep in mind it wasn't done just for good-hearted-ness, a buck was to be made. And if a buck was to be made, it isn't hard for them to stretch the truth to make things more "interesting".

---

 

This is the worst movie I've ever seen. Stupid dialogs, bad acting...The whole movie is like some introduction to movie for adults...bad, bad. I'm so disappointed that some well known actors accepted the role here. It's a pity that they used such beautiful city in the name of this disaster. I couldn't believe what I was watching. I hadn't expected a lot, but such a disaster, no. . . . Just don't waist money. I tried to watch it till the end, just because of nice captures of Rome, but I wasn't able. :) That is enough from me. I hope I convinced you not to waist your money if you're thinking to buy this movies.

---

 

Horrible movie. First off let me preface this review by saying I am a Woody Allen fan, I've seen all his movies. Some better than others but none insult the audiences intelligence the way this one does. The only way to watch it is with the sound off so you can enjoy the spectacular cinematography and make up your own story. By doing this, even a three year old could make up a story more interesting and with more logic and sense than this. If you'll read a few reviews with more stars than mine, you'll notice no one mentions the plot/s of the movie. Some don't even really praise the movie in any way but the reviewer still gives 3 or 4 stars. Why? Because it's a Woody Allen movie and critics, actors and the public can't bear to say anything negative about the sometimes brilliant Woody Allen. My guess is after the fine actors were shown the final cut of this film, many frantically called their agents trying to get cut from the film. It's that bad! Nothing makes sense in the movie and suspending disbelief is just to arduous a task here as it is required constantly throughout the film. If you want to be as infuriated as I was that you wasted 2 hours of your life, or want to see how far a film icon like Woody can fall, by all means knock yourself out. You should do what I wish I had done, watch Vicky, Christina Barcelona again and remember Woody for the genius he can be. Please Woody, get a co-writer and/or someone you can trust to be honest with you. This script, or lack there of, should never have been made. Your legacy suffers.

---

 

I am a fan of Woodie Allen, even if I didn't always like all his movies (but I have many favorites). Even in movies I didn't enjoy I understood the point - "To Rome with Love" HAS NO POINT. The acting at times is bad, the stories are incoherent and the script surprisingly feels written by a 9 year old child... Something I never expected from a Woodie Allen movie.

I left the theater feeling I had undergone a social experiment by someone who wanted to see, after the success of "Midnight in Paris", if someone would stand up and shout "The king is naked!".

Of the 4 parallel story lines only 1 was somewhat watchable and that's because of Alec Baldwin, and even that storyline started so incoherently that it was hard to enjoy it for the rest of the movie.

---

 

Hope springs eternal. You see his name on a movie. You think back nostalgically to "Annie Hall". You ignore how much you hated his last movie. You try to be optimistic that this will be better. You think the movie can't be worse than the last. But it always is. Woody Allen becomes more irritating with each new movie: the bumbling persona that hasn't been funny for 25 years , the pretentiousness, the pseudo-intellectual fantasy mumbo jumbo, etc etc. wore out their welcome long ago. And yet he persists in making yet another version of the last movie he made. He never grows. He never changes.

I've reprogrammed by DVD zip control. I now have to fast, very fast, extra fast and Woody Allen movie. Next time I'll e prepared.

I gave 1 point for the shots of Rome. The rest is a dead loss.

---

 

Well, having an handful Allen's movie under my belt now (just because he casts actresses I like like Amanda, Natalie, Monica), i wasn't expected much of this movie. As it's indeed dull, i'm not disappointed.

If it's a comedy, it's not funny. If it's a romance, it's not moving. I cannot say either if it's an Italian movie that speaks sometimes English or the contrary, but in the end, the double languages are tiring. The story is nonexistent as it's exploded between 4 separate threads that are as flat as each other. Finally, even the locations are trashy: sure, you explore Roma a lot but the golden cinematography kills everything! Allen even succeeds to give Monica the worst part in her career: she really has nothing to do here!

With the recent watching of "Nine", it's funny to see big American directors failing disastrously to catch "bella vita"! Coppola should laugh...

---

 

The scene opens with a small red haired guy sitting in a movie theatre staring at the flickering images on the screen. The black and white images are reflected in his black framed glasses. His eyes are wide in wonder and awe, he holds a bag of popcorn in his hands but he never eats any. The movie finishes and he remains transfixed as the sparse audience leaves the darkness of the cinema.

"I gotta make this movie in Rome, Fellini made his movies in Rome"

The red haired guy is now a grey haired old guy and he's talking to someone in staccato, stuttering phrases.

"Whaddya mean, I'm no Fellini? Did Fellini ever win an Oscar?"

A woman's voice replies like a patient parent trying to explain to a five year old he has to go to bed.

"And Bergman made his movies in Sweden but you never went there did you?"

"Yeah, I know but Sweden is cold and gloomy"

"So were all your Bergman homage movies"

"Whaddya mean? hey I gotta tell ya, I got great reviews for those movies and.."

"...very few paying customers"

"It's not all about money, Fellini never made any money either"

"That's the only thing you have in common with Fellini"

"Oh, funny! who writes your screenplays?"

"Not you, obviously"

"Listen, I'm going to make this movie in Rome and that's that"

"Enjoy your holiday"

"It's not a holiday, I'll be making a movie"

"With you it's the same thing"

"Listen honey, people will love it, I guarantee it"

"Sure they will, everyone loves to look at holiday snaps"

"Oh! you really gotta start putting this stuff down on paper"

"And you should stop making holiday movies"

"Fellini never had to put up with kind of stuff"

"He didn't think he was Woody Allen"

This is a terrible movie. Don't waste your time. Woody Allen has lost any plot he may have had, as has this movie. It is a hopeless attempt by the once great director to be Fellini and it fails on every level. Apart from the nice photography it is rubbish. It is with a heavy heart that I must write these words about a man that has produced a few of the truly great movies, but I'm afraid I must. Midnight in Paris was bad but this is even worse. Except this doesn't have Owen Wilson, which is the only saving grace I can think of.

---

 

Woody Allen must not be allowed to work again based on this film midnight in Paris was OK , acceptable and even charming in places , however this is not it is excruciatingly predictable and the plot devices are primary school level. All Europeans must repel this infidel, the insults to our way of life from this pail of rancid milk cannot be tolerated , he is way past his sell by date. Why I have to write ten lines for this review? I can say it in three words IT IS SHITE

Mr Allen has made a touristic video made of his sanitized view of Rome using hacks and actors who can now be considered as puppets to his whims - BAH!

---

 

Woody Allen's worst movie ever? Quite possibly and after some recent hits this one makes me wonder whether age has finally caught up with Woody Allen, who is now 76 and who, by judging from this film, may be well past delivering an even passably enjoyable movie.

What a sad waste of an opportunity to enjoy the marvels of a fantastic city like Rome and its wonderful people and culture. The plot attempts to weave three stories, with quirky characters involved with the magic of this city, through to something for the audience to enjoy. Sadly it is a complete flop. There are basically only three jokes in the whole movie that get relentlessly tortured over and over until they have you squirming in your seat waiting for the movie to end. Not the least bit funny or amusing, and they become increasingly boring.

What a sad waste of a competent cast including Alec Baldwin, Judy Davis, Roberto Benigni (from "Life is Beautiful") Penelope Cruz, and Ellen Page etc. The only joy for me in this film was the brief time that Penelope Cruz spends on the screen; she at least marvelously delivers her small part as only she can, despite everything else dragging this movie down.

The role for Roberto Benigni's character is terrible; a simply ridiculous and distracting annoyance throughout the film.

The ending of the film was simply underwhelming.

This film had all the right ingredients, like some of Woody Allen's other European based movies, so why did it turn out so badly ? Hard to say exactly why, but obviously the buck must stop with Writer/Director Woody Allen.

A waste of two hours of my life that I will never get back.

Même Woody Allen ?...Not possibeul ! Eh si (2)

05/09/2014 18:47 par tellurikwaves

• 

  Même Woody Allen ?...Not possibeul ! Eh si (2)

  05/09/2014 18:47 par tellurikwaves

Sur les 4 films (il en reste deux) celui-ci est sans conteste le pire pour moi

*

*

Don't listen to 'audiowells': this film is truly Terrible, Awful, painful...

Author: mrmikeyhenry from currently BERLIN, Germany
1 August 2008
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Rebuttal by Mr Michael Henry to 'audiowells' review of Cassandra's Dream. 1st August, 2008.

Dear Sir, I fear you may have had your eyes closed the entire film. Mr Woody Allen has died and left the camera running.

Below is a quote from one of the actors appearing in the movie: "Most of the scenes play out in a single frame," McGregor explained. "There is a lot of dialogue. There are not many takes – it's wonderful. You get home at 4.30pm in the afternoon. You can have a life." (actual quote from Venice Film Festival after premiere screening in 2007)

Now if that isn't an admission of lazy film-making... I don't know what is... I would have rather worked to 8pm every night and got a Better Performance! The acting was truly abysmal. Here's a bunch of decent actors on autopilot, reading directly from a poorly written script... nothing rang true. It was all bad acting... All of it.

The cinematography was dreadful. Stilted shots, far too objective and detached for a story centred around internal conflict. Virtually not a closeup in the entire film. Very little depth to any of the shots. Vilmos Zsigmond I am afraid has also died on the job.

But Mr Allen. Please stop making films. Seriously. Your thematic concerns were rammed down our throats at every possible moment... we get it - its a Greek friggen tragedy!'... Many scenes were repeated and repeated... How many time do we have to hear Ewan McGreggor tell his father he's going to leave the family business... and how beautiful his new girlfriend is... ON and ON and ON... Jesus someone stop him.

No tension... Poor dialogue... 20mins too long... We seriously destroyed the DVD disc after watching it... to prevent another human being for having to sit through that ordeal and sacrifice just under 2 hours of their precious lives.

Ah... that felt good to get off my chest.

Now I feel clean again.

---

 

I've just seen this film and couldn't believe how bad it was. Utterly predictable ending, which I won't give away as I can't believe anyone couldn't figure it out after about half an hour. The script and story were very badly, vaguely drawn I felt, what exactly was Ewan McGregor's plans in the restaurant trade, what did his Uncle do which was so bad etc?

The cinematography was pretty flat, why no close-ups? Was it because there wasn't anything in the story exciting enough to merit giving any of the actors a chance to say anything of import?

The characters were, at best sketchily drawn and I actually felt sorry for the actors having to try and deliver such tosh.

The cast did, I felt the best they could, but they were really fighting a losing battle with the script. The only member of the cast I felt acquitted themselves well, was Tom Wilkinson, he did though, have the only part with any decent lines/scenes.

If I hadn't known it was a Woody Allen film, I could never in a month of Sundays have guessed. I think it's time for Mr Konigsburg to announce his retirement and stick to playing clarinet.

---

 

How bad is "Cassandra's Dream"? Well, the only reason I watched the whole thing was so I could write this review.

What was Woody Allen trying to make here? A rom-com murder-mystery buddy-picture caper flick? As a thriller, it doesn't thrill. As a morality play, it doesn't take a moral point of view. As a study of people and relationships, the relationships felt forced, and I didn't care much about the characters anyway. At one point, as Colin Farrell is emoting for all he's worth, I thought Aha: it's supposed to be a comedy! But it wasn't that funny. And as a travelogue--as others have noted--it didn't give the viewer any sense of London. Allen's main concession to "local colour" was to make sure his main characters had accents that were almost unintelligible to American audiences.

Why do brilliant comedians insist on becoming "auteurs" anyway? What's with the need to be "serious"? Good comedy is one of the reasons for living. We shouldn't look upon it as less important than drama.

Philip Glass' score was one of the only things I liked about "Cassandra's Dream," and I don't like Philip Glass.

Not recommended.

---

 

"Cassandra's Dream" was worse than I was told by our leading critics after Venice. I saw it at an exhibitor's preview where critics were allowed in: there were two people left at the end of the screening, me (and I have mobility problems) and an exhibitor who had agreed to give me a lift, and abused me all the way home for making him sit though it.

Has it been reedited since then? That was late last year.

There's not a heck of a lot more I can add to pad this out to 10 lines.

The acting was fine.

The Cinematography excellent.

The script stank, which was the problem.

Could somebody please tell us down under if this debacle was changed before release, as it appears to have been from the other posts? At the moment, it is headed for direct for DVD release later this year here, which would be a pity if the film was improved.

---

 

I had to turn this movie off. I could not stand it. I could not believe me eyes and ears. Being a fan of Both Colin Farrell and Ewan McGregor I was shocked to see the amateur acting with the film being clipped together. The high point which made me turn the movie off was the awful accents of Colin and Ewan. I don't understand why they could not cast someone with a natural London accent rather than these two. London is awash with excellent actors who could have made this movie so more bearable to watch. I realize the bankable attraction of Colin and Ewan. It was because of these two I hired this movie. I alway feel ripped off when I see a movie because of the actors and the movie turns out to be rubbish.

---

 

Does anyone believe Woody actually watched the finished Cassandra's Dream and said, 'Great. Let's go with it.'? One must believe he is being held captive somewhere and that trash-orists are responsible for this atrocity.

For lifelong Woody sycophants, it's painful to watch such a master bait his adoring audience into theaters with dishwater. Except for the fetching marquee poster that lured me into this last-in-the-series rip-off, there wasn't one redeeming morsel of the classic Allen psyche. The genius that could have gilded these expectant young actors' credits never showed up. Instead, they all grayscaled into the dull, overcast sky that earmarked the hyper-predictable plot and soggy setting. While those are usually the straws that Woody spins into Zeitgeist gold, it became distressingly clear that there would be little new, or old, inspiration found in this one.

Even the editing was grotesque in this slam-dunked, advance-filler. There were speed bump splices that jumbled the viewer with same-day to some-weeks-later time warps. Only the original Jack-In-The-Beanstalk cartoon could achieve such segue. In this utterly careless, one-take, drive-by-shooting, I had a spasm of wakefulness and witnessed a bumbled and repeated line that was pitifully left un-cut in Uncle Howards's panic scene. Tom Wilkinson, to be sure, cannot be very happy about it. Only the mike boom was missing in the final cuts.

Really, Woody, get somebody to locate your jocular strap and either put in back on or hang it up. But don't let it get kicked around on the ground.

---

 

I would not at all have been surprised to learn that this movie was from a first time director with a budget of 50 pence. Hard then to believe that a writer/director of Woody Allen's caliber with a cast of this stature could turn in quite possibly one of the worst films I've ever seen but, sadly, he did.

Mr Allen might as well have phoned in his direction given the lack of artistic flair in the camera work. The film looks flat, dull and cheap throughout.

The cod-English dialog and terrible characterizations clearly demonstrate that he has no ear for anything other than New York psychobabble.

The performances are cringe-worthy, two dimensional cardboard cut-outs.

And the plot? Don't get me started! As preposterous as the dialog.

All in all, a waste of two hours. At best it is a vanity project that should have been shelved.

---

 

This may actually be the worst movie I've ever had the displeasure to watch. I am so confused as to some of the reviews labelling it as "brilliant." Brilliant what? It stinks. It feels like a case of The Emporer's New Clothes. Are people simply afraid to call the great Woody Allen a lazy loser? Cause with the creation of this mess that's the title he now deserves. The acting is shameful, the writing doesn't exist, the plot is...well, stupid, is the only word that could apply. I threw my DVD into the trash after watching it and that is the first time I have ever done that. If it was possible to rate this movie as a MINUS 10 that is what I would give it.

---

 

i'm sorry, i love Colin and Ewan, but this is absolutely shocking. it features the worst accents i've ever heard. Colin is Irish and Ewan is Scottish - why make them work to have English accents, when they plainly aren't related in terms of genes? this is amongst the worst 40 Min's of a movie i've ever seen. I can't lie to you - we walked out. hey, the ending might be spectacular! We were dubious as this is a Woody Allen film, and we're not that keen on him - he does tend to misfire, but the rest of the cast seem to be jobbing actors who try not to make mistakes. The plot line, action, acting and dialogue are truly dreadful - it's one of those films that reminds me of the emperor's new clothes - he's naked remember!

---

 

I'm a big fan of Woody Allen's work and I've enjoyed seeing him move into writing and directing movies he doesn't act in. "Match Point" was intriguing, compelling, original and memorable. "Scoop" was clever and funny. Woody Allen writes well, picks talented actors and gets the best from them – usually.

This movie has a good plot – a little heavy-handedly linked to Greek Tragedy but that's not unusual for Woody Allen – some talented actors (although choosing and Irishman and a Scot to play two Londoner brothers produced some distracting accents) and some strong dialogue.

The problem is that this great potential evaporates through poor execution.

Ewan McGregor practically sleepwalks his way through this role, delivering his lines with all the charisma of a member of a Greek Chorus.

The score, typically a strong point in Woody Allen's movies is thin and Philip Glass' music does nothing to support the emotional content of the scenes.

Although Colin Farrell puts energy into his role and is convincing as a not so bright man blown around by fate and destroyed by guilt, he never quite manages an English accent and the rapport between him and his brother (Mc Gregor) is patchy at best.

The editing of the movies has done it no favours: The scenes are stitched-together set-pieces which rob the movie of momentum and emotional impact.

I've never before watched a Woody Allen movie where my main reaction has been, "how could he not know how bad this is?"