Meh.

I mean, it's entertaining, but it's not Woody. It's a fantasy that any other director might've come up with. And, by the second/third stroke of midnight, Woody's really just dropping names. It's kinda fun ("Dali, duh!" the entire audience thinks. "Luis...Bunuel?") but it dilutes his message...

...which isn't really clear. Gil's obsession with living in the past becomes inappropriate when another character also longs for the past? Hence, live in the present? So his ex-fiance was right? But then Gil stays in Paris after all? What? Nostalgia is one of his themes, but this didn't go anywhere.

There's a few scenes that are definitely throwbacks to early-70s Woody (e.g., scene towards the end after Inez's Father says the detective's gone missing)...honestly, I think that would've been 100x the movie.

In short, this is a lesser-Purple Rose of Cairo. With Owen Wilson.

In Midnight in Paris, the new film by ever-prolific American writer/director Woody Allen, Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams portray Gil and Inez, an engaged American couple visiting the City of Light with her wealthy parents (Kurt Fuller and Mimi Kennedy). Gil is a successful screenwriter who dreams of moving to Paris and becoming a novelist, a dream Inez doesn't even briefly entertain. The film centers on Gil's nostalgic longing for a time he never knew firsthand: Paris in the '20s, an era populated by Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston and Alison Pill), Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), Hemingway (Corey Stoll), Salvador Dalí (Adrien Brody), and other iconic luminaries.

In a comic fantasy twist, Gil begins to time travel every night at midnight and has the chance to hobnob with his cultural heroes, the chance to witness in the flesh their lives and loves and strokes of genius. He also flirts with Pablo Picasso's (Marcial Di Fonzo Bo) mistress, Adriana (Marion Cotillard), a beautiful woman who is dissatisfied with life in the '20s and dreams of the earlier Belle Époque. These time-travel jaunts draw Gil further away from Inez, as well as Paul (Michael Sheen), a natty pseudo-intellectual whom she adores, and force him to consider the charms and perils of a life defined by nostalgia.

Though nowhere near as compelling or poignant as Annie Hall, Manhattan, Hannah and Her Sisters, or Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Midnight in Paris is a perfectly charming bonbon. It is clear Allen is as in love with Paris as the protagonist he's written, and he and director of photography Darius Khondji bring the city to vivid life. The film opens with an extended montage of scenes of daily life in Paris--Paris in the sun, Paris in the rain, Paris at night, the Eiffel Tower, the Seine River, etc. This light-as-a-feather, deeply whimsical romantic fable is first and foremost an American tourist's love letter to the city and how it lives in people's imaginations as a place abundant with love, art, good food, good wine, etc.

As is always the case with Woody Allen's films, he has assembled a rather stunning cast here. Even the small roles are filled by recognizable faces--Adrien Brody is a hoot in his one scene as Dalí, French First Lady Carla Bruni is understated and elegant as a museum guide. Owen Wilson proves a suitable enough Allen surrogate, ably blending the auteur's neuroses with his own distinct brand of sun-baked, goofy/gangly optimism. The most compelling role, however, goes to Marion Cotillard. At first her Adriana is an alluring enigma, but then a deeper, more complex character--a woman coping with the same perpetual dissatisfaction and romantic confusion as Gil--comes into view. Cotillard plays the role with great, smoky movie-star intensity.

If there is a major disappointment to be had, it is Allen's misuse of the Rachel McAdams character. I can't help but feel a few wonderful opportunities were missed. Gil and McAdams' Inez are very different people, and the film catalogs those differences. But rather than explore their flagging relationship and its troubles with any depth or emotional sincerity, Allen writes her as a one-note, loud-American bitch from whom we almost instantly want poor Gil to escape. (Her parents are even blundering Tea Party Republicans!) There are a few potent laughs to be had in Inez's scenes--particularly when Sheen's hilariously "cultured" blowhard is present--but this sentimental trifle of a film could have had more grit and emotional oomph had Inez been painted in shades of grey, and if Gil's ultimate decision to stay with her or follow through with his dream of living in Paris had been more complicated and difficult.

Still, this is a fine film by one of the most important and endearing living directors. It's also, in its own low-key way, a near perfect summer film. Escape the heat and spend an hour and a half in Woody Allen's gently wistful, effervescent vision of Paris. It's a satisfying trip.

B

Oh, it annoyed me slightly how people in the (nearly sold out) crowd would guffaw every time a person of cultural importance would show up. The minute Wilson recognizes T. S. Eliot, for example, people in the crowd -roared- with laughter, so loudly the next few lines of dialogue could barely be heard.

Seems really odd that they'd do that. Were they drunk? Maybe The Hangover II was sold out so loud-mouthed frat boys decided to see Midnight in Paris expecting a sequel to the Paris Hilton sex tape?


Too bad McAdams' character is so one-note.

I believe they were laughing to signify they recognized the name. Maybe. (The Hangover Part II isn't playing at this particular theatre.)

I'll admit, I laughed the first few times. I laughed when Corey Stoll (who is very good here) gruffly, bluntly introduced himself as Hemingway.

But the parade of famous people became slightly exhausting.

Midnight in Paris is one of Woody Allen's frothiest, most enjoyable films in a long time. For me personally, this is my favorite film he's made since 1996's Everyone Says I Love You with the possible exception of Match Point. Paris is framed beautifully, and the romance and undercurrent of nostalgia running through it all can't be missed. The movie never attempts to explain how/why the lead character is able to jump through time, which is certainly the right call in this fantastical film. Owen Wilson is very good as Gil, and his laid-back persona marks for an interesting contrast with the neuroses of past Allen leads (including Allen himself). Rachel McAdams proves her talent yet again, as the perpetually warm actress successfully manages to have all the warmth of an icicle as a prickly shrew. Marion Cotillard is as beguiling as ever, perfectly at home in these surroundings. There are a number of excellent supporting turns, including Michael Sheen as an insufferable pseudo-intellectual and a pitch-perfect Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway. Kathy Bates and Adrien Brody's cameos are quite inspired, as well. While the film is ultimately a little bit slight, that kind of seems to be the point. It's a feather-light trifle highlighting the city of lights and its glory. A-

I'm a bit bewildered by this film's success. It's good, and I am pleased Allen has a legit hit on his hands, but it just didn't strike me as...significant. I easily prefer Match Point and Vicky Cristina as far as latter-day Woody Allen goes. To be honest, I also prefer Small Time Crooks and even You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger.

... probably my favorite movie of the year so far. I looooooved it.

Owen Wilson has never been so likable.

Woody Allen serves up delectable truffle after delectable truffle - - what's this make now? Eight in a row?!? All the way back to Woody's 2004 rebirth with Melinda and Melinda.

Midnight in Paris is yet another delightfully smart and true farce, and Allen is nothing if not a master of the almost forgotten art of imaginative and daring farce.

Owen Wilson holds his own as this episode's portrayer of the "Woody Allen" character. And the supporting characters in his real and other real worlds are charmingly convincing and yet hilarious.


84 out of 5.*



(* Same score I gave last year's equally great You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger - - 75 year old Woody Allen retains the crown of king of indie directors.)

It's pretty good, but by halfway through Woody casting famous 20s-ers starts to feel more of the end than the means. It's more of Woody having fun with that than its own great movie at points. And the 2nd half, mainly consisting of Wilson walking around with Cotillard meeting cameos, doesn't have "enough" for me. It almost feels like it ends at the end of the 2nd act.

It's definitely no Purple Rose. Purple Rose used the movie character out of the screen device as the means to make a great movie. Here meeting the 20s Parisians is the movie. Which is fine and fun, but I'd have loved to see the alternate 1985 Woody version, treated with the same hand that did Purple Rose - and perhaps actually caring about the McAdams character/relationship with the same hand that made Hannah so important in Hannah and her Sisters

Solid B+, still

Also, going to the 1890s for just 5 minutes was a mean tease. I want Midnight in Paris 2 with Wilson going to find Cotillard again while Gauguin and Van Gogh distract him

Woody Allen's best film in years, with his signature dialogs. Even having an Inception like of time travel within the time travel. Loved it. A-.

The fact people can prefer this to Match Point and Vicky Cristina absolutely boggles my mind.

I enjoyed it quite a bit, but mostly for the superficial delight that comes with a cast of celeb cameos, whether they be modern movie stars or artists of the 20s. The film's "message" is rather silly and trite - especially when spelled out as obviously as it is here - and thus there's not a lot of meat to gnaw on. But I didn't really care. As a trifle, it's brill.

I've never liked Owen Wilson, and the best thing I can say about him here is that he didn't ruin the film. Someone less annoying would've definitely been welcome - though I guess I still would've preferred him to a 75-year-old Woody Allen engaged to Rachel McAdams and chasing after Marion Cotillard. The rest of the cast is suitably solid, but Corey Stoll as the brusque embodiment of manliness definitely stole the show. Perhaps a bit too on-the-nose as Hemingway, but I suppose all the historical figures were rather broadly drawn - that was the point, after all!

One small qualm: Wilson advising Buñuel about making The Exterminating Angel was way too pandering. It was like Woody was testing the audience, seeing who would get his not-so-obscure reference. Didn't feel right at all.

feel like there's a magic school bus episode that does the same thing better

I agree with a lot of your review. I would have preferred Inez not to be so one-dimensional, though I'll admit I found her and her parents to be humorously over-the-top. Their awfulness was pretty funny. Was hoping McAdams would have been given more to work with. But she certainly looked beautiful despite playing such a venomous character.

The "Woody's best movie in years" praise is definitely perplexing. I've enjoyed all of his more recent films a great deal more than this. Melinda & Melinda, Scoop, Match Point, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Whatever Works, etc... All a lot better. I'm cool with Midnight in Paris being such a hit, but I don't understand why it is. It didn't get any more of a marketing push, and I don't see it having more mainstream appeal than them. The great reviews really caused it to break out to this extent? Was it Owen Wilson and Rachel McAdams? His movies always have impressive casts though. Regardless it has to be one of the biggest success stories of the year.

Anyway, a pleasant film. Nothing special, but nice nonetheless.

7/10 (B-)

Vicky Cristina Barcelona is SO much better than this. It honestly boggles my mind how anyone could say this is Woody's best since the '90s when VCB exists.

Or even Match Point. How could people think this is better? If you only like his lighter fare then Melinda & Melinda and Scoop are a good deal better, IMO. It's funny because my friend I saw this with loved it and said it's the best movie they've seen this year. They also love Allen's older films, but haven't seen Scoop, Melinda & Melinda, or Vicky Cristina Barcelona. I told them they should rent them if they liked this as I thought they were better Allen films, and they said no . LOL.

A very good film that is marred by the repetitive music, slow beginning and the one dimensional Inez and her circle. I would have liked to see more scenes with her and Paul to maybe float around the idea that she's not that innocent rather than have her blurt it out in an awkward way during a fight. The ending was pretty good and it was entertaining and charming throughout. Some scenes like when the detective gets lost were hilarious. Owen Wilson has never been more likable to me than in this movie. Rachel McAdams is hot and snooty as Inez. The shots of Paris were amazing except for the beginning where we spend 5 minutes setting the scene and gazing upon Paris in a full day.

B+ (8/10)

Woody has finally gone senile. Nothing works as it should (or could). Clumsy all around. Owen Wilson? No more leads for him, please. 4/10 for a good, if unrealized, idea.

The first Woody Allen movie I've enjoyed in a long time.

Yeah this is likeable for sure. Paris is beautiful and so too is Cottilard. Wilson is perfect in the role but McAdams character was just way too over the top. Good film but not one of Woody's best (not even over the last decade)

8/10 -> B

Woody made a really fine movie here. The basic plot of people always wanting to go back in time because "it was better then" is very dear to me as I'm constantly telling people how dumb they are for thinking that. And Woody more or less agrees with me on this it seems. I wasn't impressed with the cast though. Wilson is a very weak link in this movie and he made the movie less engaging for me.

Watched this again. So charming and funny! Very happy for all the success this had and will continue to have as awards season gears up.