Scarlett Johansson Almost Earns Her Pay In A Crappy Woody Allen Murder Mystery: Scoop

The Good: Scarlett Johansson's acting almost impressed me, Cameo by Anthony Head
The Bad: Woody Allen is very much Woody Allen here, Predictable plot, Character, Not funny
The Basics: In an overall disappointing movie, Woody Allen breaks character to portray his most famous persona and Scarlett Johansson's acting channels one of the leads from That 70s Show.


For that one person who is following my reviews (or the likely more who are fans of Scarlett Johansson and find my reviews and continually get irritated as I fail to find a performance from her that impresses me), my quest to find a movie where Scarlett Johansson's performance justified my faith and interest in her almost came to an end when I saw the woody Allen film Scoop. My experience with Woody Allen thus far is fairly limited. I have seen Small Time Crooks (reviewed here!) and Everyone Says I Love You has been on my list for years. There is a wonderful joke in The Simpsons where one of the characters asks, "Did you see the latest Woodsy Allen movie?" to which the response is "No . . . I like Woodsy Allen movies, except they always have that nervous guy in them." Watching Scoop, I came to feel that way rather quickly.

When veteran newspaper reporter Joe Strombel dies, he learns the identity of a serial killer stalking the streets of London and escapes death to give the tip to a budding American journalist who is in London. Sondra Pransky meets the spirit of Strombel while in a magic trick being performed by Splendini, commonly known as Sid Waterman. Sondra enlists Sid's help in tracking down the wealthy Peter Lyman, son of Lord Lyman. Sondra begins to search for clues that Peter is actually the Tarot Card Killer, though she inadvertently falls in love with him.

And so it goes.

Scoop suffers as a comedy because it is, quite simply, not funny. I laughed once during the movie and that was near the very end. Sid makes a comment about helping the police because "They've never solved a murder investigation" here. It's well-timed and well-delivered. It's also not enough to sit through the other ninety-five minutes for, though. As a murder mystery, the movie fails because it is not serious enough; it is not a real investigation.

But most of all, Scoop fails because for far too much time in the movie, Woody Allen dominates the screen. I write that not because Allen is not talented, but because the character of Sid is not Sid long; he very quickly degenerates into Woody Allen performing for our benefit. And it's nothing new. Nervous, awkward, fast-talking, deliver a witty line (a la Oscar Wilde) and walk around, that's the performance Woody Allen almost universally gives and here it is no different. We get the schtick, it's just not funny anymore. We've seen it before. Ad nauseam.

But even that simply does not fit organically into this story. All of the rest of the characters click on some level and their failures revolve around their acceptance of Sid. So, Sondra - portraying a woman named Jade who she interacts with Peter as - first gets her clues from Sid, but then she keeps him around for no compelling reason. After the initial meeting, once Sondra has the information from the ghost of Joe Strombel, Sondra has no practical reason for keeping Sid around. There's no justification for continuing their relationship or his place in the movie. Except, as writer and director, Woody Allen keeps him around. All other plot activity that keeps Sid in the movie - i.e. Strombel's ghost appearing to him later on - happens only because the movie is engineered that way.

Sid - and Allen - are like a bright blue puzzle piece in an otherwise solid red puzzle.

And that brings us to the other actors. Hugh Jackman is wonderful as Peter Lyman. He gives a strong, cool dramatic performance that sells us completely on his character. Charles Dance appears too briefly as the newspaper editor Sondra goes to, but he is wonderful in his scenes and convincing as a knowledgeable expert in the field. And Anthony Stewart Head (a favorite of fans of VR.5 and Buffy The Vampire Slayer) delivers his lone line wonderfully in his cameo at the end of the movie.

But much of the film hinges on Woody Allen, who is not so much acting in this movie as presenting his usual shtick and one-liners, and Scarlett Johansson. I was enjoying Johansson's performance in the beginning of Scoop. It was different from anything I had yet seen her in. She was not merely playing dress-up as in A Good Woman and has a substantial role, unlike in The Prestige (reviewed here!). The problem, for me, arose when she began to emote. When she had to raise her voice and express an emotion (starting with anger and a lack of patience with Sid), she lost me because I sat watching her performance and saying "I like this, but it feels real familiar." And then I realized why that was. Scarlett Johansson plays Sondra like Laura Prepon (of That 70s Show) would. Johansson is playing Prepon playing Sondra. The acting here is completely imitative and Johansson takes on the cadences, facial expressions and body language of Prepon for her presentation of ire.

That was pretty much the last straw for me in an already weak movie. Johansson's failure to pop and present a performance that remained original and relevant - and in character - sucked down an already weak script and character concepts. Everyone Says I Love You is still on my list to see, but I can honestly say even fans of Woody Allen will not find anything to crow about in Scoop.

For other works with Ian McShane, please visit my reviews of:
Snow White And The Huntsman
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice
Coraline
Death Race
Babylon 5: River Of Souls

3/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

A Crooked Woody Experience: Small Time Crooks

The Good: Amusing, Good acting, Good dialog with fast deliveries.
The Bad: Predictable plot, Under-use of actors
The Basics: Fun to watch, not overly serious, Small Time Crooks is an adult fable with the theme "Be yourself and enjoy life" delivers with quick dialog and good acting.


First off, Small Time Crooks was my first experience with Woody Allen. I'll begin my review by saying, I'm sure it won't be my last. Since originally watching this movie, though, I've found it left almost no impression.

This somewhat average film begins with Ray and Frenchy Winkler (played by Woody Allen and Tracy Ulman, respectively), an aging couple who have been together for some time, though the reasons for their union are unclear. Ray comically threatens Frenchy with violence he never seems capable of dishing out, much like the old "Honeymooners," but with someone of Woody Allen's build doing the threatening. The film opens with Ray teaming up with some old friends from prison with a cagey scheme to rob a nearby bank. Soon to join their efforts is Benny, played by Jon Lovitz.

The plot is amusing: Four men plan a bank robbery by renting a restaurant and the front (a cookie store) turns out to be where the real money is. Frenchy finds herself overwhelmed running the cookie store and when Ray's attempt to rob the bank fails, the thieves turn legitimate.

And rich.

What follows then is the conflict between joining upper class society and simply being oneself, played out as Frenchy (who goes back to using her full name of Francis) takes lessons to become classy and Ray goes on an eternal search for a simple cheeseburger. That entire aspect of the plot, while predictable, is funny.

When the conflict becomes the central story, the plot becomes predictable. That is to say, when the story becomes about Frenchy's quest to join society essentially forces her to abandon Ray, the character arcs follow the most predictable, Hollywood, directions possible. There come no surprises in terms of the way the movie progresses from that point on and it ends in exactly the way one suspects it might for a rags to riches type story.

What isn't predictable is the quality of the characters and the caliber of the acting. The characters continue to be interesting and while the plot is predictable (that is, we have a pretty good idea of what the characters will do), the dialog remains sharp, witty, and fast paced. The characters remain fluid and interesting. So, for example, while we know Francis is probably going to end back up with Ray, her attempts at being a "person of society" are laughable and fit her character quite well.

Ray's quest for a simple cheeseburger is amusing and the idea that a character could be motivated by something so very simple is a clever concept and director Woody Allen executes it well.

The actors, who by the middle of the film include Hugh Grant as David, the society-driven art dealer who is giving Francis lessons in being classy, continue to deliver well as good actors. But none of the roles truly challenge any of the actors. Grant is an excellent example of this: We've seen him play slick and societal in such movies as Love Actually (reviewed here!) and he's much better there because the role has some real significance. This movie seems to be a better feat of casting (i.e. putting actors in roles that perfectly fit their known talents) than acting (pushing the borders of performances we have seen from a specific actor).

Where the film fails is in its use of the actors. Tracy Ulman gives a great performance and is used well, the rest of the cast, not so much. The usually charming Hugh Grant is underused, but even more so is the comically brilliant Jon Lovitz. 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft has almost as much airtime as Lovitz. Woody Allen appears far too much in comparison to the rest of the cast. While such a statement seems obvious given Allen wrote and directed the film, it is more problematic than that; Allen creates interesting peripheral characters and fleshes them out with exceptional actors. And then . . . neglects them. It's unfortunate to the viewer.

Overall, the film is interesting, fun as a diversion, but not of such substance as to be analyzed beyond what it is, a simple adult fable. That's not bad, it's just not as great as it could be.

For other works with Brian Markinson, check out my reviews of:
Charlie Wilson’s War
Chasing Freedom
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - “In The Cards”
Star Trek: Voyager - “Faces”
Star Trek: Voyager - “Cathexis”

4.5/10

For other films, check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Annie Hall: I Get More Allusions, But This Just ISN'T The Romantic Comedy I Was Promised!

The Good: Some good lines, Decent direction
The Bad: Characters are tough to like, Poor on-screen chemistry, Incoherent narrative, Largely not funny.
The Basics: Light on humor and even lighter on romance, Annie Hall is a surprisingly bad romantic comedy that was big in 1977 and may be safely avoided now.


A while back, I found myself at a screening of Julie & Julia and the one lasting feeling it left me with was the desire to accomplish something I set my mind to. So, shortly thereafter, I started a program at my local library, which involved watching every film that won the Best Picture Oscar every two weeks, but it was put on hiatus when summer came. It looks like it might stay on hiatus and if that is the case, I had a feeling that I would never get around to watching all of the movies that won Best Picture. So, with the message from Julie & Julia in my head, I decided I would do a disciplined race to the end of the year and I would complete my Best Picture Project (available here!) this very year. That means almost every day for the remainder of the year, I will be watching and reviewing another film that won Best Picture until I have seen them all!

Today, then, I returned to this task by watching Annie Hall, which has the distinction of being one of my mother's favorite movies. It also has the distinction of being the film that beat Star Wars: A New Hope (reviewed here!) for the Best Picture Oscar in 1977. Usually, I argue that romantic comedies do not get enough respect and that there are some classic romantic comedies, but having sat through ninety-three minutes with only a dozen laughs, I am left thinking that Woody Allen got lucky on this one. As one of the films that supposedly everyone who likes comedy enjoys, I was seriously let down. I was more excited when I caught references used in Family Guy to Annie Hall ("I Dream Of Jesus's" scene with Jesus telling George W. Bush he knows nothing of his work is taken directly from this!) than virtually any other aspect of the movie. The reason for this is pretty simple. While I am able to appreciate wit, especially from nervous protagonists, Annie Hall is largely not funny and when it is, it is largely humorous in ways that have absolutely nothing to do with the main characters and their relationship. In other words, this is barely a romantic comedy and while it has its quirks, it does not work in far too many places.

Divorcee Alvy Singer is broken up about his breakup with Annie Hall, so he considers the relationship in retrospect. He recalls meeting her for tennis and the insane drive home. He recalls his first two wives and what didn't work with them and how Annie needs to smoke pot in order to relax enough to make love. He remembers how she wanted to go out more and how she began to sing because he encouraged her.

But Alvy is a nervous comedian and playwright and he's not as social as the younger Annie is. He finds himself preoccupied with death and dying while her therapist encourages her to live more and experiment.

Annie Hall is a love story told out of order, with frequent digressions and let me dispel any theories that I did not enjoy Annie Hall because of the narrative techniques. I love atypically-told films and I particularly enjoy movies that are daring enough to force the viewer to piece the movie together on their own by putting things out of order. Even with the weird digressions in Annie Hall, the time element works fine and the movie is not a challenge to piece together for that reason.

Instead, what Annie Hall suffers from is an on-screen couple that has absolutely no sexual or romantic chemistry, digressions that are far funnier than the actual narrative of the movie and a sense of its own self-importance (and that of New York City) that is almost embarrassing to watch. The first point is almost impossible to argue. Weird on-screen pairings can work, especially when the man is the weird one. Look at When Harry Met Sally...; Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan make the romance work because the two have great on-screen chemistry. Woody Allen and costar Diane Keaton have no spark between them on-screen and watching them together is like watching a romance where one knows the actors are brother and sister. At least as significant is the lack of scenes where their characters seem to enjoy the company of the other. Alvy and Annie are more often seen discussing or experiencing their dysfunctions than actually illustrating their affections for one another. So in addition to the actors not seeming to be into one another, the characters never seem truly drawn to one another.

The digressions in Annie Hall are one of the movie's actual strengths and they are funny. In addition to a bold narrative technique that sets the various aspects of the relationship between Annie and Alvy out of order, Annie Hall has social commentary thrown in that is off-the-wall funny. So, for example, during one of their early conversations, Alvy and Annie have a straightforward (if esoteric) conversation on the art of photography while on screen there is a subtitle of what each of them is thinking at the time. The difference between what they are saying and what they are thinking is cute. However, most of the digressions have nothing to do with the relationship. For example when Alvy meets Annie's family, director Woody Allen switches to a split screen to show off Alvy's family for contrast. While the boisterous Singer family is funny, it is essentially a callback to an earlier joke that poked similar fun at Alvy's parents.

Throughout Annie Hall the story is broken up by schtick wherein Alvy tells jokes and stories and some of them are funny. However, their connections to his relationship with Annie are only passing and the links are more forced than real. In a similar way, Christopher Walken's scene where he tells Alvy about his desire to drive into oncoming traffic only sets up a joke where Duane (Walken's character) drives Alvy and Annie to the airport. It's amusing, but it does not feel like the same movie; it distracts from the story of Alvy and Annie.

Alvy, in fact, talks more about New York City than he does Annie. More than being a romance between Alvy and Annie, Annie Hall is about one man's obsession with staying static in New York City. This is not to say that Woody Allen does not make some great points as Alvy. I completely agree with Alvy's distaste for drugs and the feeling that they are utterly unnecessary for love or relationships, but he is resistant to all change. So, he tries to change Annie to meet his needs. In the course of the film, Annie takes his advice and realizes she is too good for Alvy. The humor is subtle, but that's the problem with Annie Hall; it is either being witty about everything but relationships or it is utilizing such obvious humor (though I did laugh when Alvy sneezes and blows a whole fortune of cocaine across a room!) that the film might as well have a laugh track.

On DVD, Annie Hall appears as a double-sided disc, with one side having the widescreen version and the opposite having a pan-and-scan version. As well, it has the original theatrical trailer. That is all.

I'm glad I watched Annie Hall, but truth be told, it is overrated and while it adequately captures the look and feel of the mid-1970s, it is a fractured film with no genuine sense of chemistry and what sense of character there is is mortgaged by the lack of connection between the lead characters. There are other romantic comedies do everything this film tried better and Annie Hall might be classic Woody Allen, but it is only reinforcing the idea that I might not be a fan of his works.

For other films with Christopher Walken, please check out my reviews of:
Excess Baggage
Batman Returns
The Deer Hunter

5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |