What's Woody Allen's most underrated film??

Started by Alexandro, October 09, 2003, 10:01:50 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions

Alethia

#15
October 09, 2003, 06:22:46 PM
small time crooks


and mighty aphrodite is wonderful

bonanzataz

#16
October 09, 2003, 06:35:04 PM
my mom really likes alice.
The corpses all hang headless and limp bodies with no surprises and the blood drains down like devil's rain we'll bathe tonight I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls Demon I am and face I peel to see your skin turned inside out, 'cause gotta have you on my wall gotta have you on my wall, 'cause I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls collect the heads of little girls and put 'em on my wall hack the heads off little girls and put 'em on my wall I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls

cine

#17
October 09, 2003, 08:27:34 PM
It's sad that out of all the films Woody Allen has done, we've listed about 60-65% of his films as being underrated.

godardian

#18
October 09, 2003, 09:05:59 PM
I think that as long as Husbands and Wives doesn't sit firmly at the top of the list, it's being underrated.

There's also Stardust Memories, which is my third favorite Woody but is downright vilified in some quarters.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

#19
October 09, 2003, 10:05:33 PM
I used to hate Stardust, but after re-watching it this week, I think it's fucking brilliant.

"You wanna help humanity? Tell funnier jokes."
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

luctruff

#20
October 10, 2003, 05:40:56 AM
woody' most underrated are his newer films, or at least films from the 90's:
Everyone says i love you
Sweet and Lowdown
Deconstructing Harry

I think every decade woody comes out with a span of great films.  and the 90's are no different.  I've heard that he lost it after 'husbands and wives', but the ones mentioned above rival most of anything he's done before.  they're no 'crimes and misdeamenors' or 'manhattan' but they're damn good.  i just hope his new film coming out this fall will be up to par with his greats.  it does have chloe sevigny, and i've never known her to do a bad film, in which i mean, a bad, mainstream film; she's been in risky independent films that aren't so great, but in woody's hands, with her, it can't be that bad.
"Every time I learn something new, it pushes out something old! Remember that time I took a home wine-making course and forgot how to drive?"

Alexandro

#21
October 10, 2003, 03:53:22 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: Alexandro
Quote from: MacGuffinCrimes And Misdemeanors

I think is one of his most celebrated films.......I mean for critics is right up there with Manhattan, Annie Hall and Hannah and her Sisters, right???

You didn't specify for critics or not.  And it doesn't seem like anyone is agreeing with me, hence, my choice would be valid. You could ask anyone: best Woody Allen film and the three you listed would be tops. "Crimes" wouldn't necessarily come to mind.


I personally think Crimes and Misdemeanors is his best film...next is Manhattan...

ElPandaRoyal

#22
October 10, 2003, 04:22:52 PM
QuoteI think every decade woody comes out with a span of great films. and the 90's are no different. I've heard that he lost it after 'husbands and wives', but the ones mentioned above rival most of anything he's done before. they're no 'crimes and misdeamenors' or 'manhattan' but they're damn good. i just hope his new film coming out this fall will be up to par with his greats. it does have chloe sevigny, and i've never known her to do a bad film, in which i mean, a bad, mainstream film; she's been in risky independent films that aren't so great, but in woody's hands, with her, it can't be that bad.

I totally agree. I mean, in the 70s we had Love &Death, Annie Hall, Interiors and Manhattan. The 80s brought Stardust Memories, Zelig,The Purple Rose of Cairo, Hannah and her Sisters, Radio Days, Another Woman and Crimes and Misdemeanors. And the 90s were no diferent, I mean, Husbands & Wives, Manhattan Murder Mistery, Bullets Over Broadway, Mighty Aphrodite, Everyone Says I Love You, Deconstructing Harry, Celebrity and Sweet And Lowdown... damn, this is why I really like Woody Allen as a director. Because to me, he has great films all over his career. He makes them really good and very regularly.

Pitty that the 00s didn't bring us a Allen masterpiece yet, but that will come soon, I believe.
Si

TheVoiceOfNick

#23
October 10, 2003, 05:57:27 PM
I think that What's Up Tiger Lilly is his most under appreciated work... heck, even HE has disowned this film!!!!  It's pure humor, though.

mutinyco

#24
October 11, 2003, 08:13:36 AM
His films are so small that it's easy for anybody to look at any of them as being underrated. But as much as I love Interiors, I think since DVD it's begun to find an audience. The one I would point to is Another Woman. It's so obscure I never even knew it came out until I stumbled across it in the video store mid-90s. It's very much like Wild Strwberries, to a certain extent, but it just had a wonderfully restrained, yet content quality about it. Great performance by Gena Rowlands too. Very Bergman. Sven even shot it I think.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

mutinyco

#25
October 11, 2003, 08:14:50 AM
As for Tiger Lilly... "Wait! Give me back my vibrator!"
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

ElPandaRoyal

#26
October 11, 2003, 09:28:42 AM
Yeah, I think his serious dramas are generally underrated, although I've never really cared for September, but I'd like to see it again. Interiors, I think, as a fantastic performance by Diane Keaton. And Gordon Willis shot it really beautifully.
Si

Alexandro

#27
October 11, 2003, 11:56:24 AM
"Shadows & Fog," the new film from Woody Allen, is even less substantial than its title. No matter how you slice it, there's nothing to grab onto here -- it's a bowl of steam. Never in Allen's career has his work seemed murkier or more inchoate. It's as if the movie itself had never emerged from the pea soup of the director's own head.

Allen is a puzzlement, and his performance here stands well as a metaphor for how lost as an artist he is. By every stylistic choice, Allen indicates that his comic goal is a kind of Eastern European-style shtetl surrealism in which the fantastic and the magical cohabitate with the banal.

By Hal Hinson
Washington Post Staff Writer
March 20, 1992

NEON MERCURY

#28
October 11, 2003, 07:58:04 PM
Annie Hal.l

horrorchick76

wo
#29
October 11, 2003, 10:36:58 PM
WOW too much to HANDLE there..
poo
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions