Woody Allen’s slump continues with Melinda and Melinda, an amateurish novelty film that tries to prove the close relationship between tragedy and comedy. Made up of a frame and two narratives (one comic and one tragic) joined by a main character you want to bitch slap, it makes one wonder what happened to the filmmaker behind Crimes and Misdemeanours and Hannah and Her Sisters and if he’s ever going to come back. Beginning with the first scene, the film disrupts any potential rhythm through terrible editing that culminates in a dissolve to a restaurant conversation that sounds like an aging Allen talking to himself. The artificial tone remains and the cast is never natural or convincing while exchanging titbits about classical music, theatre and small, candlelit restaurants. Annie Hall and Mickey Sachs would avoid these characters and Michael Caine and Diane Keaton could act circles around the actors playing them. In the end, neither the comedy is comic enough (with the notable exception of Will Ferrell’s antics) nor tragedy tragic enough (with affairs, murders, and mental asylums kept unexplainably off screen) to equate the two as anything other than mundane. It doesn’t help that everything in the film is a rehash of other, better Allen films. The only notion Melinda and Melinda truly proves is that comedy and tragedy can both suck.
Rating: 1.0 / 4.0
Article comments
1 - sydney
I havent seen the movie yet but despite my anticipating bad reviews and a mediocre woody film, I am still anxious to see it.
Despite the fact that woody hasnt been "on" since Sweet and Lowdown, HE is still America's greatest director (though, Scorcesse is a close second). Woody's movies are still so packed with aesthetic beauty and intelligence yet we fail to recognize it since we've already seen his best work. No use looking at woody movies in teh context of his career. Try to enjoy each on its own merits.
He is a master, and I enjoy seeing all of his movies even if they do pale in comparison to his 70's and 80's gems.
2 - Quack Corleone
Maybe you're right about the folly of comparing every new Allen movie to his great ones (though I strongly disagree about Allen being America's greatest director), but I think Allen has passed the point of making bad Woody Allen pictures and crossed over into just making bad, or sometimes average, pictures in general. I enjoyed Edward Burns' "Allen-esque" (to put it politely) Sidewalks of New York more than Melinda and Melinda. And that's scary.
3 - Nicolette Rivers
They loved this movie at Soon-Yi's playgroup!
Seriously, I've bever been an Allen fan. I have never been impressed by any of his movies, and at this point I don't think it will happen.
4 - sydney
Allen definately has never had reall mass appeal, even with annie hall.
However, his influence on film makers round the world is obvious, and there is no American film maker who has captured so many magical moments on film (with the exception, maybe, of Scorcesse).
I agree that his movies have slipped recently. However, personally, I watch them and stil enjoy the intelligent dialouge (no matter how relentless and old-hat it may sound), and the cinematography. He still carries off a one liner really well too. Always two or three memerable lines per movie.
One thing, I wish he would move towards doing more high dramas like Three sisters, and Another Woman. He seemed such a master at those types of movies and it seems fitting that he would move towards them in his older age since comedy is not ussually the forte of a 65 year old man.
5 - Eric Berlin
Nicolette -- There's just something so pure and New York about films like Annie Hall... it's hard to describe. I love that movie. I'm a big fan of Crimes and Hannah as well.
It's really sad how obvious Allen's decline has been. Maybe he should have been doing fewer movies instead of the constant churn that we seem to see? Occasionally the output is all right, but Woody should be shooting for something higher?
Perhaps all the trouble with his persoanl life drove him to work for its own sake?
Nice job Quack.
6 - sydney
I agree. I think he’s a tad neurotic, like his onscreen counterpart.
He’s made 36 movies now I believe, one per year for 30 years roughly. Remarkably prolific, and stubborn. He has acted in a handful in that time as well. And he also plays in his jazz band each Monday night.
I wish, too, that he would slow it down and collaborate a bit.
7 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
quack, another great, articulate review, but one i can't for a second agree with. I've just watched the flick in question, and i'll point out first that woody allen is my favourite director of all ever, and made my favourite flick of all ever (manhattan), so there is the chance i'm slightly biased. but i still know when he's off-form. shadows and fog, for example, looks gorgeous but, alas, is fairly terrible. small time crooks is fun but terribly uneven.
this, though, i thouroghly enjoyed from start to finish. despite the disengagement possible through the narrative-skipping antics, i felt truly attached to the whole shebang. I cheered to myself at certain points, and did that "no, don't go in there!" thing at certain other moments.
i loved this, really loved it.
and i re-watched Anything Else the other night, incidentally, a flick i initially felt dissapointed by. on a second viewing, i loved it.
but melinda and melinda is one of his best of the past decade (i think Deconstructing Harry and Celebrity are under-appreciated masterpieces), as far as i'm concerned. i truly loved it.
8 - Bennett
"I cheered to myself at certain points, and did that "no, don't go in there!" thing at certain other moments."
You crack me up Duke.