315 reviews
Magical film about the city and those looking for love
Woody Allen once said that, whereas Scorsese had generated a host of imitators, he had generated none. This may be true; films like Manhattan certainly come along far too infrequently.
That this is such a gorgeous film may strike those following the formulaic, Hollywood approach to cinema as strange and heretical. The story is unexciting (restless male in love triangle), most of the characters are unsympathetic, at least on the surface (particularly Isaac), Allen leaves lose ends lying around all over the place, and there's certainly no action (unless you count the car-chase-without-a-chase-scene involving Diane Keaton, Woody Allen and a VW Beetle).
So why should any self-respecting member of the MTV generation spend time on this film? Well, here are a few reasons.
The script is wit of the highest order. This is not gag-a-minute humour like Friends, but an altogether more acute art form stemming from character, some wonderful dialogue and a fair amount of darkness (I love the bit about Isaac trying to run over his ex-wife's lover). Allen is also prepared to turn his biting satire to personal issues, such as being Jewish. Just don't expect someone to look shrug their shoulders, slap their forehead and with mid-rising intonation say d'uh! It's not that kind of comedy.
Then there is the gorgeous cinematography. Woody loves Manhattan and you can certainly tell. If there is one criticism of the film, it is that it leaves a rather picture postcard impression of the city, but I suppose if it's love, then it's love. Much of the film appears to have been shot at either sunrise or sunset to soften the light, and there are spectacular views of the towers, bridges and waterways of America's finest metropolis.
Then, I suppose, there is the fact that Manhattan is probably the archetypal Woody Allen film. Other films may be better, like Annie Hall or Hannah and Her Sisters but, in Manhattan, all the elements of Allen's style are in perfect balance. There's the jazz, the neurotic, unsympathetic lead, the choice between stable and highly-strung women, the self-mocking humour (hilariously done in the opening voice-over), the railing against intellectual snobbery, the deep unease with popular culture.
And there are great performances. Allen is at his most difficult and in some ways his least likable. As Isaac, he's trying to do the right thing, but is rarely selfless enough to follow through with it. Diane Keaton is great as Mary, the lynchpin between the two love triangles vain, pretentious and yet you can see why Isaac falls for her. Well, all the actors are great, and very believable, but special mention must go to Meryl Streep, who manages to steal the show with her tiny cameo as Isaac's ex-wife, writing a book about their break-up and living with their son and her lover. She is magnificent.
Of course, the film will also do nothing to dispel the popular rumour that New Yorkers are neurotic, self-obsessed and self-indulgent at least that narrow social circle Allen so often writes about. If you don't mind that, though (and I'm English, so what do I care) you're in for a treat. As with the city itself, the memories of this film will stay with you forever.
That this is such a gorgeous film may strike those following the formulaic, Hollywood approach to cinema as strange and heretical. The story is unexciting (restless male in love triangle), most of the characters are unsympathetic, at least on the surface (particularly Isaac), Allen leaves lose ends lying around all over the place, and there's certainly no action (unless you count the car-chase-without-a-chase-scene involving Diane Keaton, Woody Allen and a VW Beetle).
So why should any self-respecting member of the MTV generation spend time on this film? Well, here are a few reasons.
The script is wit of the highest order. This is not gag-a-minute humour like Friends, but an altogether more acute art form stemming from character, some wonderful dialogue and a fair amount of darkness (I love the bit about Isaac trying to run over his ex-wife's lover). Allen is also prepared to turn his biting satire to personal issues, such as being Jewish. Just don't expect someone to look shrug their shoulders, slap their forehead and with mid-rising intonation say d'uh! It's not that kind of comedy.
Then there is the gorgeous cinematography. Woody loves Manhattan and you can certainly tell. If there is one criticism of the film, it is that it leaves a rather picture postcard impression of the city, but I suppose if it's love, then it's love. Much of the film appears to have been shot at either sunrise or sunset to soften the light, and there are spectacular views of the towers, bridges and waterways of America's finest metropolis.
Then, I suppose, there is the fact that Manhattan is probably the archetypal Woody Allen film. Other films may be better, like Annie Hall or Hannah and Her Sisters but, in Manhattan, all the elements of Allen's style are in perfect balance. There's the jazz, the neurotic, unsympathetic lead, the choice between stable and highly-strung women, the self-mocking humour (hilariously done in the opening voice-over), the railing against intellectual snobbery, the deep unease with popular culture.
And there are great performances. Allen is at his most difficult and in some ways his least likable. As Isaac, he's trying to do the right thing, but is rarely selfless enough to follow through with it. Diane Keaton is great as Mary, the lynchpin between the two love triangles vain, pretentious and yet you can see why Isaac falls for her. Well, all the actors are great, and very believable, but special mention must go to Meryl Streep, who manages to steal the show with her tiny cameo as Isaac's ex-wife, writing a book about their break-up and living with their son and her lover. She is magnificent.
Of course, the film will also do nothing to dispel the popular rumour that New Yorkers are neurotic, self-obsessed and self-indulgent at least that narrow social circle Allen so often writes about. If you don't mind that, though (and I'm English, so what do I care) you're in for a treat. As with the city itself, the memories of this film will stay with you forever.
"Chapter One. He was as tough and romantic as the city he loved. Beneath his black-rimmed glasses was the coiled sexual power of a jungle cat."
After the phenomenal success of 'Annie Hall,' the hilarious Oscar-winning comedy detailing the romantic exploits of neurotic Jewish comedian Alvey Singer, Woody Allen had become of America's most respected filmmakers. In 1979, he released what is generally accepted as his second great masterpiece, 'Manhattan,' a poignant tribute to the city that Allen loves so dearly. Written by Allen and his 'Annie Hall'-collaborator Marshall Brickman, 'Manhattan' stars Allen as Isaac Davis, a twice-divorced, 42-year-old comedy writer who is intimately involved with a 17-year-old high school student, Tracy (an Oscar-nominated Mariel Hemingway). Meanwhile, Isaac begins to fall for Mary (Diane Keaton), who is the secret mistress of his best friend (Michael Murphy). Adding to all of Isaac's troubles, his former second wife, Jill (Meryl Streep), who had originally left him for another woman, has plans to write a tell-all book on their failed marriage.
If this all seems very confusing to you, then you're not alone. Just as in 'Annie Hall,' Allen plays the hopeless romantic who is struggling desperately to understand the maddening complexity of human relationships. Though Tracy is only seventeen years old, she is arguably the most honest and mature of the women in Isaac's life; nonetheless, he doesn't treat her seriously. In his mind, anything that she says is quite obviously influenced by the naivety and downright ignorance of the young. Their relationship was never meant to be anything more than a brief "fling," and so he feels no guilt for seeing another woman behind his back, an act that makes him livid when it ultimately happens to him.
'Manhattan' was shot in beautiful crisp black-and-white by Gordon Willis, who has also worked on, among countless other films, 'Annie Hall' and the three installments of 'The Godfather.' The cinematography offers New York City a romantic 1940s feel, reminiscent of how Allen claims to remember the city as a child: "Maybe it's a reminiscence from old photographs, films, books and all that. But that's how I remember New York. I always heard Gershwin music with it, too. In 'Manhattan' I really think that we that's me and cinematographer Gordon Willis succeeded in showing the city. When you see it there on that big screen it's really decadent."
Mysteriously, this film remains the least-liked by the director himself, though, at the same time, it was also his most commercially successful. As you've no doubt already noticed from this review, 'Manhattan' is often likened to 1977's 'Annie Hall,' perhaps due to the repeated casting of Allen and Keaton (a not uncommon occurrence) or its similar attempt to uncover the elusive secrets behind love and relationships. In terms of film-making style, however, the films are quite dissimilar. Unlike the highly-energetic 'Annie Hall' which cut back and forward in time, visited old memories, broke the fourth wall and made conversations with passing extras 'Manhattan' boasts a more classical approach quiet, softly-spoken and accompanied by a wistfully slow jazzy soundtrack, also relying heavily on the works of George Gershwin.
If this all seems very confusing to you, then you're not alone. Just as in 'Annie Hall,' Allen plays the hopeless romantic who is struggling desperately to understand the maddening complexity of human relationships. Though Tracy is only seventeen years old, she is arguably the most honest and mature of the women in Isaac's life; nonetheless, he doesn't treat her seriously. In his mind, anything that she says is quite obviously influenced by the naivety and downright ignorance of the young. Their relationship was never meant to be anything more than a brief "fling," and so he feels no guilt for seeing another woman behind his back, an act that makes him livid when it ultimately happens to him.
'Manhattan' was shot in beautiful crisp black-and-white by Gordon Willis, who has also worked on, among countless other films, 'Annie Hall' and the three installments of 'The Godfather.' The cinematography offers New York City a romantic 1940s feel, reminiscent of how Allen claims to remember the city as a child: "Maybe it's a reminiscence from old photographs, films, books and all that. But that's how I remember New York. I always heard Gershwin music with it, too. In 'Manhattan' I really think that we that's me and cinematographer Gordon Willis succeeded in showing the city. When you see it there on that big screen it's really decadent."
Mysteriously, this film remains the least-liked by the director himself, though, at the same time, it was also his most commercially successful. As you've no doubt already noticed from this review, 'Manhattan' is often likened to 1977's 'Annie Hall,' perhaps due to the repeated casting of Allen and Keaton (a not uncommon occurrence) or its similar attempt to uncover the elusive secrets behind love and relationships. In terms of film-making style, however, the films are quite dissimilar. Unlike the highly-energetic 'Annie Hall' which cut back and forward in time, visited old memories, broke the fourth wall and made conversations with passing extras 'Manhattan' boasts a more classical approach quiet, softly-spoken and accompanied by a wistfully slow jazzy soundtrack, also relying heavily on the works of George Gershwin.
Neurotic in NYC
Woody Allen has been churning out mediocre films for so long now that it's easy to forget how good some of his older films were. "Manhattan" is the product of Allen's "mature" 1970s phase, the phase that also produced "Annie Hall" and "Interiors," and it's a wonderful film. It's not the plot that makes it singular -- it's typical upper-crust New York Allen, full of neurotic people in therapy cheating on one another and making mistake after mistake in their pursuit of what they think will make them happy. No, what makes "Manhattan" so effective is its style. Filmed in black and white (because, as Allen's character says in an opening voice over, New York is a city that has always and will always exist in black and white), the film is a love letter to NYC, and it suggests that the neuroses that fill its denizens are as much a part of the city's character as its architecture, culture and diversity. I would instantly be annoyed by the people that populate Allen's films if I met them in any other context. As it is, I can't imagine any Allen film (at least not one set in New York) without them.
Grade: A
Grade: A
- evanston_dad
- Feb 3, 2008
- Permalink
A maddening tribute to an egomaniac
I used to hold this film as somewhat of a sacred cow when I first saw it in 1979. I was a proscribed Woody fan and
although I still like a few of his movies, this is no longer one of them, on recent review.
I recently purchased copies of Manhattan and Annie Hall.
I watched the latter first and it charmed my socks off again. One classic scene after another signals the height of Allen's art in this hilarious masterwork. Manhattan is a different story.
Perhaps my recent viewing of Wild Man Blues has hipped
me to what an whining, pampered egomaniac Mr. Allen is.
Perhaps it's the irony of his Chaplin-like dalliances with young women that have set me against him. But I now watch Manhattan
and see a pathetic, overblown Allen literally feeding lines to his
fellow actors to give him some smarmy comeback that never fails to show how intellectually superior he is. Different from Annie Hall, Allen is no longer the underdog but an ugly, obnoxious
over-lord...
His characters in Manhattan, are cardboard. They are not real and
the situations are not real. I have no feeling for anyone in this
movie, except Woody, who I feel contempt for, given his massive
and unfunny self-indulgence. It's pathetic to see Allen set up
Hemingway with lines that a teenager would never say in a million
years, just to trump up his flaccid ego. Everyone in this movie actually feeds him lines to trump up his ego.
Like Stardust Memories, this one shows Woody at his self- indulgent worst. This movie looks wonderful and sounds wonderful with the Gershwin score, but on further review, this
one's hollow and ultimately a maddening tribute to an egomaniac.
although I still like a few of his movies, this is no longer one of them, on recent review.
I recently purchased copies of Manhattan and Annie Hall.
I watched the latter first and it charmed my socks off again. One classic scene after another signals the height of Allen's art in this hilarious masterwork. Manhattan is a different story.
Perhaps my recent viewing of Wild Man Blues has hipped
me to what an whining, pampered egomaniac Mr. Allen is.
Perhaps it's the irony of his Chaplin-like dalliances with young women that have set me against him. But I now watch Manhattan
and see a pathetic, overblown Allen literally feeding lines to his
fellow actors to give him some smarmy comeback that never fails to show how intellectually superior he is. Different from Annie Hall, Allen is no longer the underdog but an ugly, obnoxious
over-lord...
His characters in Manhattan, are cardboard. They are not real and
the situations are not real. I have no feeling for anyone in this
movie, except Woody, who I feel contempt for, given his massive
and unfunny self-indulgence. It's pathetic to see Allen set up
Hemingway with lines that a teenager would never say in a million
years, just to trump up his flaccid ego. Everyone in this movie actually feeds him lines to trump up his ego.
Like Stardust Memories, this one shows Woody at his self- indulgent worst. This movie looks wonderful and sounds wonderful with the Gershwin score, but on further review, this
one's hollow and ultimately a maddening tribute to an egomaniac.
Rhapsody in NYC
Manhattan is an exhilarating American romance set against the backdrop of New York of the late 70's: my favorite New York, the New York of painters, poets, punks, and Pauline Kael. Three great, very American talents -- Woody Allen, Gordon Willis, and George Gershwin -- intertwine their respective gifts to create a comedy that manages to satisfy both the brain and the heart, and even, perhaps, the lower regions.
Allen is so brainy and such a nebbish that he can get away with gestures that would be painfully sentimental in the hands of any other director: when he begins the movie with fireworks cut to Gershwin, it isn't to soften you up for a soap opera, but to remind you that however much his neuroses may seem to drive the scenes, its the love of New York that drives the movie.
The entire cast is note perfect: Meryl Streep as his caustic bisexual ex-wife, Diane Keaton as a nervous journalist from Philadelphia, and especially Mariel Hemingway, whose performance as Allen's 17-year old girlfriend is charming, heartbreaking, and wise.
Allen's comedy here is at its absolute finest. The fact that it is interwoven with a genuinely moving love story told with a subtlety and indirection that is unheard of in today's mainstream cinema only makes the laughs that much richer.
Gordon Willis' cinematography is good enough for the Museum of Modern Art. Scene after scene leaves a grin on your face as his moving (in both senses) black and white photography floats across the screen.
And finally underlying everything is the music of George Gershwin, whose exubertant melodies propel the movie forward at every turn.
This is Woody Allen's best movie, a great movie, and an American movie in the best sense. As an homage to the city of New York it will surely remain unsurpassed.
Allen is so brainy and such a nebbish that he can get away with gestures that would be painfully sentimental in the hands of any other director: when he begins the movie with fireworks cut to Gershwin, it isn't to soften you up for a soap opera, but to remind you that however much his neuroses may seem to drive the scenes, its the love of New York that drives the movie.
The entire cast is note perfect: Meryl Streep as his caustic bisexual ex-wife, Diane Keaton as a nervous journalist from Philadelphia, and especially Mariel Hemingway, whose performance as Allen's 17-year old girlfriend is charming, heartbreaking, and wise.
Allen's comedy here is at its absolute finest. The fact that it is interwoven with a genuinely moving love story told with a subtlety and indirection that is unheard of in today's mainstream cinema only makes the laughs that much richer.
Gordon Willis' cinematography is good enough for the Museum of Modern Art. Scene after scene leaves a grin on your face as his moving (in both senses) black and white photography floats across the screen.
And finally underlying everything is the music of George Gershwin, whose exubertant melodies propel the movie forward at every turn.
This is Woody Allen's best movie, a great movie, and an American movie in the best sense. As an homage to the city of New York it will surely remain unsurpassed.
A love song to Manhattan disguised as romantic comedy
I won't rework the thorough comments which preceded mine here, because all the accolades I would give this film are stated quite eloquently. It is his best film; it does contain brilliant insights into human nature; it is visually breathtaking. I just want to mention a few aspects from my point of view.
It has been on my list of the five best movies ever made ever since I saw it in 1979, chiefly for its realistic dialogue and probing commentary on the desperate nature of human beings in search of love, but I had never seen New York with my own eyes, so I could only try to accept but not fully understand Woody's love for Manhattan, which is firmly stated in the introductory narration.
After my recent 4 day trip there, I have a new perspective - the city itself is so charmingly and compactly laid out, so full of history and culture and everything famous, that you can't go to New York without falling in love with it. After only 3 days I felt I wanted to live there. It is the city of not only Woody Allen but Bob Dylan, Tennessee Williams, Edgar Allan Poe, George Washington, Paul Newman, Jacqueline Onassis, and hundreds of other illustrious and creative people of the past and present. The tour guides can't possibly squeeze in the whole story of every district and every building; the air just vibrates with this knowledge that you are in the greatest city in the world.
The beauty of Manhattan that Woody conveys so perfectly in every camera shot and through the music of Gershwin has new meaning for me because I was there. It's not so much a physical beauty but a feeling that all is right with the city, that this is what a city is supposed to be. It puts other cities to shame.
All I can say is he fully succeeded in conveying what New York City is like. Not to mention that I now understand the obsession with delis; they have the best food in the world.
I would also like to add my new perspective on the story itself - a very 70's plot of several people switching romantic partners back and forth at the drop of a hat. Diane Keaton's Mary remains the most perfect of the characterizations as the neurotic free spirit who despite her total self-absorption inspires our sympathy and affection. The 17 year old played by Mariel Hemingway is more irritating with the passage of 20 years, not because Woody's real-life obsession with young girls came to light, but because Mariel is a truly vapid non-actress with no ability to convey any depth or feeling. The constant commentary about her stunning beauty falls flat because she merely has a strikingly angular face, no personality and really possesses nothing except the bloom of youth and shiny hair. Mary rightly tells Isaac that his first wife becoming a lesbian "explains the little girl."
The denouement seems more unsatisfactory now than in previous viewings, and I want to shake the characters awake. But it was the seventies, and this is how people acted. It captures the times perfectly. I can't discuss who ends up with whom without spoiling the end for those who haven't seen it, but the problem for me is that the characters seem to live for the moment and if they can't have the one they want, they simply change partners without much strain.
This attitude does not play quite so charmingly at the end of the 90's when fidelity is valued more highly than it was in the 70's.
Nevertheless the beauty of the city stands alone no matter what the characters' desperate machinations.
And as a hilarious commentary on the human instinct to find someone to love no matter what the consequences, there is nothing finer. Though I might not approve of Isaac's final choice, his almost religious experience which brings him to that conclusion is a stunning climax to the film. Whether he changes his mind about who is the right one for him, he has learned something crucial about what really is important to him in life.
The true stars of the movie are Manhattan, never more beautiful, and Diane Keaton, never more brilliant.
It has been on my list of the five best movies ever made ever since I saw it in 1979, chiefly for its realistic dialogue and probing commentary on the desperate nature of human beings in search of love, but I had never seen New York with my own eyes, so I could only try to accept but not fully understand Woody's love for Manhattan, which is firmly stated in the introductory narration.
After my recent 4 day trip there, I have a new perspective - the city itself is so charmingly and compactly laid out, so full of history and culture and everything famous, that you can't go to New York without falling in love with it. After only 3 days I felt I wanted to live there. It is the city of not only Woody Allen but Bob Dylan, Tennessee Williams, Edgar Allan Poe, George Washington, Paul Newman, Jacqueline Onassis, and hundreds of other illustrious and creative people of the past and present. The tour guides can't possibly squeeze in the whole story of every district and every building; the air just vibrates with this knowledge that you are in the greatest city in the world.
The beauty of Manhattan that Woody conveys so perfectly in every camera shot and through the music of Gershwin has new meaning for me because I was there. It's not so much a physical beauty but a feeling that all is right with the city, that this is what a city is supposed to be. It puts other cities to shame.
All I can say is he fully succeeded in conveying what New York City is like. Not to mention that I now understand the obsession with delis; they have the best food in the world.
I would also like to add my new perspective on the story itself - a very 70's plot of several people switching romantic partners back and forth at the drop of a hat. Diane Keaton's Mary remains the most perfect of the characterizations as the neurotic free spirit who despite her total self-absorption inspires our sympathy and affection. The 17 year old played by Mariel Hemingway is more irritating with the passage of 20 years, not because Woody's real-life obsession with young girls came to light, but because Mariel is a truly vapid non-actress with no ability to convey any depth or feeling. The constant commentary about her stunning beauty falls flat because she merely has a strikingly angular face, no personality and really possesses nothing except the bloom of youth and shiny hair. Mary rightly tells Isaac that his first wife becoming a lesbian "explains the little girl."
The denouement seems more unsatisfactory now than in previous viewings, and I want to shake the characters awake. But it was the seventies, and this is how people acted. It captures the times perfectly. I can't discuss who ends up with whom without spoiling the end for those who haven't seen it, but the problem for me is that the characters seem to live for the moment and if they can't have the one they want, they simply change partners without much strain.
This attitude does not play quite so charmingly at the end of the 90's when fidelity is valued more highly than it was in the 70's.
Nevertheless the beauty of the city stands alone no matter what the characters' desperate machinations.
And as a hilarious commentary on the human instinct to find someone to love no matter what the consequences, there is nothing finer. Though I might not approve of Isaac's final choice, his almost religious experience which brings him to that conclusion is a stunning climax to the film. Whether he changes his mind about who is the right one for him, he has learned something crucial about what really is important to him in life.
The true stars of the movie are Manhattan, never more beautiful, and Diane Keaton, never more brilliant.
For anyone who's been in love, or anyone who loves New York.
No-one can question Woody Allen's status as one of America's premier film directors, and anyone well-versed with his works should not hesitate before nominating 'Manhattan' as his finest film. This movie is a masterpiece; visually and intellectually, it shows Woody Allen at the absolute peak of his art. Shot in a stylistic black and white widescreen format, the cinematography of 'Manhattan' is breathtaking, and Allen's dialogue and command of situation are even better than usual, if that is possible. The heartfelt angst and bittersweet hopelessness of the characters are uncamouflaged even by the sleek cinematographic style of the movie. This movie is Woody Allen's valentine to the city he has such a symbiotic relationship with, and nowhere have I seen New York filmed as artistically as here. Mariel Hemmingway and Diane Keaton give inspired performances around Woody's perfectly played character resulting in what can only be considered a modern masterpiece.
- Scorsese-2
- Jan 2, 1999
- Permalink
Allen's best
'Manhattan' looks beautiful in black and white. It is definitely Woody Allen's best. Two years after 'Annie Hall' we have Woody Allen and Diane Keaton together again. Allen plays Isaac who is dating the 17-year old Tracy (Mariel Hemingway). He has a friend, the married Yale (Michael Murphy), who is having an affair with Mary (Diane Keaton). Isaac falls in love with Mary and stops seeing Tracy to start things with Mary. In a sub-plot we have the ex-wife of Isaac publishing a book about their sex-life. Now she is living with a woman. The ex-wife Jill is played by Meryl Streep. Her appearances are short and not very often but she is more than great in her scenes.
'Manhattan' is even better than the great 'Annie Hall'. The black and white cinematograpy, done with a good reason, gives a little extra to the movie. Like I said Streep is terrific and so are Allen, Keaton and especially Hemingway (she was nominated for an Oscar). The monologues Allen had in 'Annie Hall' are still present, smart, interesting and funny. A great story, very intelligent, of course written (and directed) by Woody Allen himself.
'Manhattan' is even better than the great 'Annie Hall'. The black and white cinematograpy, done with a good reason, gives a little extra to the movie. Like I said Streep is terrific and so are Allen, Keaton and especially Hemingway (she was nominated for an Oscar). The monologues Allen had in 'Annie Hall' are still present, smart, interesting and funny. A great story, very intelligent, of course written (and directed) by Woody Allen himself.
Great Execution, But Creepy Content
From a technical standpoint, this film is top-notch - the acting is brilliant, the cinematography is beautiful, and the George Gershwin soundtrack is excellent.
But the content of the film is another thing. Basically, Woody Allen comes across as an egomaniacal creep who writes parts for himself in order to make him look like he's God's gift to women (there are so many references to his sexual prowess one could start a group drinking game based off it).
And anybody with even a beginner's understanding of adolescent psychological development knows that men who pursue teenage girls are sick and sadistic bastards who find joy in ruining promising young lives.
So my summary is: Like the film for its craft, but loathe the creator for his statement.
But the content of the film is another thing. Basically, Woody Allen comes across as an egomaniacal creep who writes parts for himself in order to make him look like he's God's gift to women (there are so many references to his sexual prowess one could start a group drinking game based off it).
And anybody with even a beginner's understanding of adolescent psychological development knows that men who pursue teenage girls are sick and sadistic bastards who find joy in ruining promising young lives.
So my summary is: Like the film for its craft, but loathe the creator for his statement.
- hinfinityl
- Jul 28, 2007
- Permalink
Not just one of Woody Allen's best films, but a tie with Annie Hall as his masterpiece
Woody Allen is not for everybody and he is not the most consistent of directors, being hit-and-miss since Husbands and Wives(personal opinion that is). His best work to me spanned from late 70s to early/mid 90s, and Manhattan is a fine example of Allen at his best. Visually it is one of Allen's most technically accomplished and beautiful films, the cinematography is so fluid and Manhattan has to have one of the best depictions of New York on film. George Gershwin's music fits perfectly, whether upbeat, seductive or melancholic. How it meshed with the imagery and cinematography further added to the poignancy. The screenplay is one of the best of any Woody Allen film(personal vote for best is Annie Hall, one of the greatest scripts ever), one of his wittiest, most acerbic- the opening voice-over stands out- yet also perhaps his most emotionally investing. The trademark self-mockery and sharp observations are all here, and you could go as far to say that Manhattan is also one of Allen's most truthful, a lot of what is picked upon is true and come across so bluntly that it's painful which makes it all affecting. The story is paced deliberately but the telling of it is very compelling, with its fair share of hilarious and touching moments. If there was a list of Woody Allen films that merged comedy and drama the most effectively, Manhattan would definitely be on the list and towards the top. The characters are very human and handled gracefully rather than being boorish. They are not likable by all means, but considering Allen's tendency to make fun of things and people and to funny and honest effect it's clear that Allen wasn't intending them to be likable. The performances are top-notch, Allen admittedly works better in the comedic moments but he's still great, it is fun to see Meryl Streep in an early role and Michael Murphy and Anne Byrne are fine in support roles. Mariel Hemingway's vulnerability helps you relate to her without manipulating you to do so, but the best performance comes from Diane Keaton, at home in both comedy and drama she is wonderful throughout. All in all, a Woody Allen masterpiece, and don't let the 17/42-age relationship distract you too much as it is handled much more tastefully than it could easily have done. 10/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Feb 23, 2014
- Permalink
Not as I remembered
On the basis of one viewing about 20 years ago, I always considered this my favorite Woody Allen film. Upon further review, I am not so impressed. The cinematography is wonderful (I'm a sucker for New York, too), the acting is ok (Mariel Hemingway better than ok), and there are some good one liners, but, overall I found it boring and self-indulgent, especially in the directing. This film has no real reason for being...it's ultimately inconsequential. That makes me sad and now I have to watch my other favorites to see if they hold up. I still have hopes for Hannah, Misdemeanors, Purple Rose, & Love & Death. This one isn't in the pantheon anymore.
Girls mature faster than guys... The growing pains of a man and a woman in the heart of metropolis.
- Howlin Wolf
- Feb 10, 2008
- Permalink
A disgruntled love letter
I seriously doubt that this story is going to resonate with anyone more than a movie like Annie Hall. This includes people from Manhattan, too. In the same self-flagellating gesture, Allen yet again sums up that customary (for his circle) romantic relationships are perpetuated by nothing more than foolhardy children, who half of the time don't know what they want and the other half lament not knowing.
Gordon Willis has finally shown him all the ropes, helping him make probably one of the most striking black-and-white pictures of the 1970s. Exceptional blocking and amazing work with shadows and silhouettes. The direction and cinematography probably absolve the movie of the myriad things I have issues with. If Annie Hall was unassuming but effective, then Manhattan is so caught in its menagerie of cuckholds and hypocrites that by the end, Isaac's relenting smile means 10 times less than a peeping shot from a cafe. I also do not enjoy anything about the cast's performance beyond the theme they are play-acting. Not from Hemingway, not from Michael Murphy. Even Keaton feels like she is just imitating her previous character, with less presumptuousness and creativity in the portrayal of the doomed relationship. But I guess people would eat Woody Allen alive if he had animated cutaways and comical flashbacks in this one too.
Gordon Willis has finally shown him all the ropes, helping him make probably one of the most striking black-and-white pictures of the 1970s. Exceptional blocking and amazing work with shadows and silhouettes. The direction and cinematography probably absolve the movie of the myriad things I have issues with. If Annie Hall was unassuming but effective, then Manhattan is so caught in its menagerie of cuckholds and hypocrites that by the end, Isaac's relenting smile means 10 times less than a peeping shot from a cafe. I also do not enjoy anything about the cast's performance beyond the theme they are play-acting. Not from Hemingway, not from Michael Murphy. Even Keaton feels like she is just imitating her previous character, with less presumptuousness and creativity in the portrayal of the doomed relationship. But I guess people would eat Woody Allen alive if he had animated cutaways and comical flashbacks in this one too.
- tonosov-51238
- Nov 12, 2023
- Permalink
What kind of people are these?
- fearless2003
- May 18, 2014
- Permalink
Nice cinematography but annoying characters
I watched Manhattan recently because i had never seen Woody Allen's films and heard this was one of his best.
I can see why people love this film, it certainly is quite original and a convincing snapshot of a group of friends in New York, but I found Woody's character just too excruciating self-possessed and irritating to enjoy the film overall.
I guess you either love him or hate him, but he reminded me of George Costanza on Seinfeld - i just wanted to shake him and say 'get over yourself!'.
As for the humor, there were a lot of attempted wit there but nothing that made me laugh out loud. I won't be a hurry to see any of his other films.
I can see why people love this film, it certainly is quite original and a convincing snapshot of a group of friends in New York, but I found Woody's character just too excruciating self-possessed and irritating to enjoy the film overall.
I guess you either love him or hate him, but he reminded me of George Costanza on Seinfeld - i just wanted to shake him and say 'get over yourself!'.
As for the humor, there were a lot of attempted wit there but nothing that made me laugh out loud. I won't be a hurry to see any of his other films.
"You should meet some stupid people once in a while"
- nickenchuggets
- Sep 22, 2021
- Permalink
A study about a troubled man
Let me get this out of the way: I'm a big Woody Allen fan. And this flick is absolutely and utterly his. From the black and white to the ambience and, of course, the dialog, it all screams Woody Allen as loud as it can.
As most of his movies, Woody is not simply playing a character, nor simply being himself. It is a mix, a blend between a real man and a made up persona. And, as always, the line is weirdly blurry, making it so, at times, you're watching a documentary.
The plot itself is not the central point of the story and, at times, it is hard to understand exactly what it is leading to. No, the focus of the story is the characters. Characters like Isaac, Yale and the city. Specially the city. It is an homage to a now distant past of history, viewed from the lens of a troubled mix of a real and fictional man.
It is hard to defend most of Isaac's actions. And it is way harder to get mad at them. It is a movie about imperfection, ego, society, intellectuals and love. And it is great. A great movie to be rewatched as many times as you can.
- lucasespindola-91322
- Jan 12, 2021
- Permalink
Woody at his Prime...
One of Woody Allen's best films was the quietly beautiful MANHATTAN, an economic and cleverly mounted comedy drama which stars Woody as a divorced writer (Allen) who is having an affair with a high school student (Mariel Hemingway) but feels the relationship is dead-end and then drifts into a relationship with his best friend's mistress (Diane Keaton). This is classic Woody, filled with snappy dialogue, unexpected plot twists and sparkling performances, especially by Keaton, Hemingway (who was nominated for an Oscar), and Michael Murphy as Woody's best friend...and it's all filmed in glorious black and white. I don't think the city that Woody loves so dearly has ever looked more glorious than it does in this film...this is definitely Woody's valentine to New York and it is a film made with delicacy and grace and, like most of Woody's films, features a beautiful musical score, a loving tribute to the magic of George Gershwin. If you're a Woody-phile, this one is a must.
Very possibly the best B&W movie in the modern era
First of all I have to say that I am biased. I just love Woody Allen movies. But what is different about this movie, the thing that sets above most other Woody Allen movies, is the B&W photography. While the writing and then dialogue is wonderful, this is a movie that you can watch with the sound off. That is with the exception of the Gershwin score which is wonderful.
- martinchambers
- Jan 14, 2021
- Permalink
Manhattan Review
Manhattan is an interesting film by Woody Allen, The story and dialogue between the characters is more serious and believable than in the only other film I saw Annie Hall. The humor also didn't seem forced or written in just to make something funnier, the jokes were naturally funny. I still don't like the fact that Woody Allen casts himself in the lead part when he could easily get someone much better to play the part. The supporting cast is also really good as it usually is in these kinds of Woody Allen films. The style of the film I also enjoyed with the black and white and great use of shadows gives it a old timey feel to it that helps the film in a way. Overall, Manhattan isn't a bad film, I enjoyed it more than I did Annie Hall, but there were still some things I would've liked to see Woody Allen do differently along the lines of the story and cast. That is why Manhattan gets a 7/10.
- hourmatt326
- Dec 16, 2014
- Permalink
Cinemascope well used
we all are fascinated by the cinema scope(CS) vision and what beautiful image it gives us. it is a debatable weather it resembles our normal vision or not but one things for sure we hardly give importance to things too far left and right of our vision. keeping this in mind its really not advisable to make use of it in each and every film. i have spent so much time writing so much about cinema scope is bcoz after watching several films i finally got to see an extremely good use of this sort of aspect ratio, WOODY has definitely made an important decision and has made the most of it.
the introduction of Manhattan in the early scene, the long walk of two friends after dinner, wide roads of the city, woody's apartment, Murphy's phone conversation, all shout out the brilliant use of CS. woody very smartly squeezes the frame by placing something in the foreground, or keeping the actors in a closer frame as and when required.
overall it gives us an expression of vastness of city and makes a exuberant locale for the characters to play their part. gordon willis' ligting also helps in making the picture look life-like and get the feel of manhattan(check out the use of no light,blackout) well to say the least i have never seen manhattan (with my own eyes) but because of such a detailed work i have a glimpse of it.
good work woody (your films have never failed to fascinate me no matter how many times i may see them)
the introduction of Manhattan in the early scene, the long walk of two friends after dinner, wide roads of the city, woody's apartment, Murphy's phone conversation, all shout out the brilliant use of CS. woody very smartly squeezes the frame by placing something in the foreground, or keeping the actors in a closer frame as and when required.
overall it gives us an expression of vastness of city and makes a exuberant locale for the characters to play their part. gordon willis' ligting also helps in making the picture look life-like and get the feel of manhattan(check out the use of no light,blackout) well to say the least i have never seen manhattan (with my own eyes) but because of such a detailed work i have a glimpse of it.
good work woody (your films have never failed to fascinate me no matter how many times i may see them)
- naveen_pun
- Jan 9, 2008
- Permalink
Manhattan (1979) **1/2
Probably Woody Allen's most overrated work. I've seen MANHATTAN a few times now and I'll be damned if I'm still not sure what the point of it is. Allen followed his acclaimed ANNIE HALL with this, his plush black and white stylized tribute to New York City and director Ingmar Bergman, but it's not as good and doesn't offer much for the viewer other than the glitz. Allen plays a middle-aged writer of 42 named Isaac, who is divorced from his ex-wife (Meryl Streep - who is now living with another woman in a lesbian relationship), and now dates and sleeps with a 17 year-old high school student (the emotionless Mariel Hemingway). But he gets his head turned when he meets Diane Keaton again, which is becoming more than a little redundant after PLAY IT AGAIN SAM, SLEEPER, and ANNIE HALL. Diane is involved in an affair with a married friend of Woody's, a guy who isn't sure whether to risk his marriage or not.
The artsy gray backdrop of New York is really at the heart of the film, but the conflicting relationships themselves here don't really go anywhere. The only point I can surmise from all of this is that romance can be complicated and partners will tend to play musical chairs and use each other if need be, just out of to keep from being alone. Nowhere is this clearer than at the self-centered conclusion of MANHATTAN, which coughs up one of the most abrupt and unsatisfying endings of all time. (One comment for the many people who are so repulsed by "middle-aged Isaac dating the 17-aged student": just relax -- in the movie, Woody exclaims that she's nearly 18... so what, do people think that in just a few weeks the girl's suddenly mature enough overnight?). **1/2 out of ****
The artsy gray backdrop of New York is really at the heart of the film, but the conflicting relationships themselves here don't really go anywhere. The only point I can surmise from all of this is that romance can be complicated and partners will tend to play musical chairs and use each other if need be, just out of to keep from being alone. Nowhere is this clearer than at the self-centered conclusion of MANHATTAN, which coughs up one of the most abrupt and unsatisfying endings of all time. (One comment for the many people who are so repulsed by "middle-aged Isaac dating the 17-aged student": just relax -- in the movie, Woody exclaims that she's nearly 18... so what, do people think that in just a few weeks the girl's suddenly mature enough overnight?). **1/2 out of ****
- JoeKarlosi
- Jan 29, 2013
- Permalink
A Film I thought I would Hate, But Actually Loved
Manhattan is a stunningly shot film. Beautiful scenes of the city permeate throughout and the music of George Gershwin punctuate the visuals nicely. You can really sense Allen's love for NYC and I admit, though not a New Yorker, I fell for the city too.
As for the plot, ok it's a film that couldn't be shot today as it deals with a 42 year old, twice divorced man, a father no less, who is dating a 17 year old high schooler. Getting past that, this is a story of a group of neurotic, self absorbed people who project so much authority and opinion about the lives and endeavors of others, but yet are unable to project much of anything other than dysfunction in their own lives.
There is a particularly painful scene when Issac, played by Allen, is breaking things off with Tracy, played by Mariel Hemingway. You really feel for the girl, she is young, inexperienced, has fallen in love with the older man and is now experiencing rejection and heartbreak for the first time. There is also a lot of humor in the film. What I especially enjoyed is the humor didn't sink to vulgarity or cheap talk about bodily functions or anatomy jokes. The subject was handled with maturity and wasn't insulting. Towards the end of the film Issac attempts to persuade Tracy not to go to London to study, but Tracy is a precocious young lady telling Issac that he must have faith in people insinuating she'll return to him. Just an overall good film about the complications of adult life told in a humorous yet mature manner. Enjoy.
As for the plot, ok it's a film that couldn't be shot today as it deals with a 42 year old, twice divorced man, a father no less, who is dating a 17 year old high schooler. Getting past that, this is a story of a group of neurotic, self absorbed people who project so much authority and opinion about the lives and endeavors of others, but yet are unable to project much of anything other than dysfunction in their own lives.
There is a particularly painful scene when Issac, played by Allen, is breaking things off with Tracy, played by Mariel Hemingway. You really feel for the girl, she is young, inexperienced, has fallen in love with the older man and is now experiencing rejection and heartbreak for the first time. There is also a lot of humor in the film. What I especially enjoyed is the humor didn't sink to vulgarity or cheap talk about bodily functions or anatomy jokes. The subject was handled with maturity and wasn't insulting. Towards the end of the film Issac attempts to persuade Tracy not to go to London to study, but Tracy is a precocious young lady telling Issac that he must have faith in people insinuating she'll return to him. Just an overall good film about the complications of adult life told in a humorous yet mature manner. Enjoy.
- brileyvandyke
- Nov 29, 2021
- Permalink
Allen is unbelievable!
- JohnHowardReid
- May 18, 2017
- Permalink
Arrogant
It seems Woody Allen wanted to denounce the pseudo-intellectualism, yet Manhattan is overly arrogant, like its ultra verbose dialogues, based on almost ridiculous, pedant and excluding accumulations of art references.
The viewer finds himself enduring this long and boring movie, oozing self-sufficiency, which script boils down to a succession of scenes more boring one from another. The different angles don't work, or with difficulty: it is sometimes funny but it is too sporadic, the drama lacks stakes; only the romance aspect manages not too badly, and still, it is far from excellent.
If there was anything to save, it would be the stylish cinematography with some well thought-out shots, but it's just not enough to make Manhattan a good film.
The viewer finds himself enduring this long and boring movie, oozing self-sufficiency, which script boils down to a succession of scenes more boring one from another. The different angles don't work, or with difficulty: it is sometimes funny but it is too sporadic, the drama lacks stakes; only the romance aspect manages not too badly, and still, it is far from excellent.
If there was anything to save, it would be the stylish cinematography with some well thought-out shots, but it's just not enough to make Manhattan a good film.
- christophe92300
- Apr 17, 2013
- Permalink