Midnight in Paris

8

kevinnnl123May 29, 2016

Although there was some hate and harsh criticism by my classmates who watched this movie, I came into it with the hopes that it'll be a worthwhile watch. The movie dropped me in right into the action of Paris, into the lives of Gil and Inez.Although there was some hate and harsh criticism by my classmates who watched this movie, I came into it with the hopes that it'll be a worthwhile watch. The movie dropped me in right into the action of Paris, into the lives of Gil and Inez. The movie had a very strong cast of actors and a solid performance from each of them. It was a very creative movie that I really enjoyed watching from start to finish. The story-telling to the movie had great lessons to learn from and an imaginative one as well.
It might be confusing to some people that haven't been exposed to Hemingway since the references would go right over their head. Still, I wouldn't mind recommending this movie to someone who hasn't read some of Hemingway's work yet. It's a great, strong, and creative movie in it's own right with a hint of mystery at every turn. I'm glad that I got to watch this movie and would definitely give it two thumbs up!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

The3AcademySinsDec 24, 2017

Woody Allen makes a wonderful film that really transports the audience away in Midnight in Paris. It's an uplifting watch, and very romantic. It's also got a couple of great morals that will stick with once the credits roll. At times theWoody Allen makes a wonderful film that really transports the audience away in Midnight in Paris. It's an uplifting watch, and very romantic. It's also got a couple of great morals that will stick with once the credits roll. At times the script can be overly verbose and drag a little bit, but the visuals are so gorgeous you might not even notice. Definitely worth checking out.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

8

hypertitan1Jan 18, 2018

The movie is as good as people say it is, but my only problems is the repetitive score, and the lack of ambient sound when a scene is just pure music, and the opening prolongs its visit.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

DawdlingPoetNov 21, 2021

The movie opens with an extended montage featuring shots of different parts of Paris, set to a slow piece of instrumental music that harks back to probably the 1920s-1940s, 'the good old days'. There's quite alot of music used both in theThe movie opens with an extended montage featuring shots of different parts of Paris, set to a slow piece of instrumental music that harks back to probably the 1920s-1940s, 'the good old days'. There's quite alot of music used both in the background and foreground, some Parisienne accordion music and other more general jazzy music, which certainly helped to set the scene. The film also features quite a strong yellow tint to it throughout, the lighting used giving even the modern scenes a quite retro feel. This is a very atmospheric movie, its clearly very nostalgic and quite sentimental. Its pretty slow in pace and a little confusing I suppose when he goes back in time for the first time as its not obvious what has happened (presuming it to be down to drinking too much vino at a wine tasting earlier). The dialogue is quite poignant, with a subtle humour throughout - its a very subtle, sentimental movie overall, though there are some moments that are more funny than others but its not what I'd class as a laugh out loud comedy as such. The depictions of characters including various famous characters from the past (Picasso, Hemingway etc.) all come across quite solidly as it were, with a good cast present (including Martin Sheen, Rachel McAdams and Owen Wilson, as well as some lesser known names playing Gil's idols, apart from Kathy Bates who plays Gertrude Stein, Hemingway's publisher I believe(?)) with the scenes set in the past seeming rather realistic and yes, quite atmospheric. Gil's naive confusion and optimism show clearly, with Owen Wilson once again playing the role of a rather happy-go-lucky, head in the clouds type, I suppose you could say.

This is a very...pleasant movie, I think thats probably the most appropriate term to use, if I had to describe it in one word. One issue could be if you don't feel much interest in the main character Gil, for being clearly rather upper class, the fact that he seems to be slowly distancing himself from his fiancee and her plans and interests while he explores his personal, some could say selfish literary interests may not exactly bring out the tissues as such but I found myself quite curious to follow the story and see what the ultimate outcome was for him and his novel - I can't deny I was rather engrossed by it mid way through, mainly due to the good use of cinematography, the realistic retro feel it had, something about it does pull you in I think, or it did for me.

One thing I would note (though it is rather trivial) - as authentic as it clearly tried to be, having been to Paris myself, I found it a bit unrealistic in the scenes set in the 20s how clean and tidy the streets all appeared to be(!) there's plenty of fog/smog but the pavements and roads seem immaculate, which I don't believe would be the case at all lol but then thats probably more a reflection of Gils mind depicting his dream version of Paris in the 20s. Also I should point out that there is a fair amount of French spoken and there aren't any subtitles, although one of the characters (I can't remember her name, sorry) translates some of what is said back to English for Gil, who (as you might expect) barely knows any French.

There is a message present which becomes clear by the end, one about looking back to the past, although I suppose I shouldn't perhaps spoil it by saying exactly what it is but it does make you think. The movie also features a few plot twists, which are fairly small but quite nicely done, things I (obviously) didn't see coming. Overall, as a movie I enjoyed it, its naive and has some amusing dialogue, plus its very atmospheric and quite engrossing due to that, if your interested enough in the story.

Yes I'd recommend this movie, as I say its quite atmospheric, with a good plot and cast. It may be seen as a bit sentimental or 'namby pamby' to some people perhaps, its certainly not an all out laugh out loud comedy as such, being alot more subtle in comedy but I found it to be pretty engrossing and all in all I enjoyed watching it, so on that basis I'd be happy to recommend it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

8

AJ_13Dec 14, 2021

Charming and lovely. The concept is just genius, Woody Allen really does know how to write a romantic comedy.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

MarcDoyleMay 24, 2011

It's a charming movie, and Owen Wilson is terrific, but the best Allen movie in 10 or 20 years? Hardly. And that's not setting the bar too high, incidentally. I personally enjoyed Match Point much more. But it's a good movie - the earlyIt's a charming movie, and Owen Wilson is terrific, but the best Allen movie in 10 or 20 years? Hardly. And that's not setting the bar too high, incidentally. I personally enjoyed Match Point much more. But it's a good movie - the early writers play it in such a fun yet dead-pan fashion that it really works. I just didn't like it nearly as much as many of the professional critics, which is fine...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

JamesLJun 11, 2011

This film was good but if it had centered as much time on the modern day characters, it would have soared. As it is, it is a one dimensional film where all the attention is great but you realize at the end that you were cheated. Look at theThis film was good but if it had centered as much time on the modern day characters, it would have soared. As it is, it is a one dimensional film where all the attention is great but you realize at the end that you were cheated. Look at the previews, those are the entire story involving the modern day characters.I caught two or three subplots that were totally ignored. I found it to be a light entertaining comedy.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

wishmasterAug 12, 2011

I'm in love with Marion Cotillard, well W. Allen wrote an amazing script and taking good care led many details at first seemed a little boring, but then admitted me into a past-present mess that made the movie a memorable moment.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

metamotivcriticMay 29, 2011

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A generally enjoyable, clever movie with an interesting premise, Certainly the best Woody Allen movie in at least 15 years (which isn't saying much). At the same time, you get the feeling that either Woody is in over his head, or that he really is the kind of humanities major, overly awed hack writer that he he portrays in the main character Gil. (Of course, Woody anticipates this kind of criticism in the character of the pseudo-intellectual Paul, which is itself a kind of set-up.) I would have preferred less (albeit amusing) name-dropping and greater development of the personas of the artists he so admires. My biggest criticism is that Woody seems to feel the need to spell out his point (i.e., about the problems in over-idealizing the past) for the audience, which suggest that most viewers aren't capable of figuring the point out for themselves (which may be true). P.S. Marion Cotillard is luminous, both in her acting and in appearance.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

7

netflicJun 24, 2011

This movie is Woody Allen's love affair with Paris. It is warm and tender. The cinematography is outstanding. Still, I would not call it Allen's best. Some parts of the movie are quite cheesy. Hearing Owen Wilson speak is as if listening toThis movie is Woody Allen's love affair with Paris. It is warm and tender. The cinematography is outstanding. Still, I would not call it Allen's best. Some parts of the movie are quite cheesy. Hearing Owen Wilson speak is as if listening to Woody. I found it somewhat annoying. As if Wilson is playing Woody himself. But overall, quite a good piece of entertainment.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

POVJul 6, 2011

Well...Woody Allen is Woody Allen yet again. Obeying his one movie per year oath, Allen creates Midnight in Paris as a magical, character-driven rom com. Enjoyable characters-not overly neurotic males nor hysterical women, just borderline so-Well...Woody Allen is Woody Allen yet again. Obeying his one movie per year oath, Allen creates Midnight in Paris as a magical, character-driven rom com. Enjoyable characters-not overly neurotic males nor hysterical women, just borderline so- a catchy, albeit fresh twist & reversal-ful plot. A movie that can keep you watching. Will it though? It might.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

BamaFalstaffMay 28, 2011

At first I had a little problem listening to Owen Wilson playing Woody Allen; however, once the story progressed to the "midnight" part, I was intrigued and had a lot of fun. Some of the characters begin to go a little stock towards the end,At first I had a little problem listening to Owen Wilson playing Woody Allen; however, once the story progressed to the "midnight" part, I was intrigued and had a lot of fun. Some of the characters begin to go a little stock towards the end, but all-in-all a nice picture.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

filmtrashreviewAug 9, 2011

A film that sadly doesn't live up to it's hype. Sure, seeing Woody Allen go back to his roots with Owen Wilson that can become a spot on copycat of Allen himself at times is great. However, Wilson's charm isn't enough to film the multipleA film that sadly doesn't live up to it's hype. Sure, seeing Woody Allen go back to his roots with Owen Wilson that can become a spot on copycat of Allen himself at times is great. However, Wilson's charm isn't enough to film the multiple gaps in realism that a film of this fantasy and magnitude needs. Simply, Midnight In Paris tries to be an artsy magical fantasy for adults but falls apart because of the carelessness of the script.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

knuckJun 26, 2011

I liked this movie although not what I expected going in. Owen Wilson does a nice job in his role. and is funny at times. This is a typical Woody Allen movie but more tamed than his other flicks. Enjoyable and worth the ticket price. WouldI liked this movie although not what I expected going in. Owen Wilson does a nice job in his role. and is funny at times. This is a typical Woody Allen movie but more tamed than his other flicks. Enjoyable and worth the ticket price. Would recommend it and its a movie that the whole family can enjoy.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

OutrageousTejasJul 3, 2011

It's not often you can truly relate to someone's love-affair with a city, yet the Paris cityscapes are so mesmerizingly captured, you not only understand, but are enamored yourself. Being an art/literary ignoramus, I missed most of theIt's not often you can truly relate to someone's love-affair with a city, yet the Paris cityscapes are so mesmerizingly captured, you not only understand, but are enamored yourself. Being an art/literary ignoramus, I missed most of the historical references, but the characterization was brilliant and charming; a constrast to the lead cast who felt forced and flat. The backdrop of a rich, snooty, indifferent fiancÃ©e was a bit contrived but forgivable, and one would be hard pressed to find a more inspiring location for the message at heart.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

aozetaDec 8, 2011

I had high expectations for this movie have always been among every "front-runner" list all over the internet. It's not the first time that I saw a movie about a "present-past" coexistence thing, or whatever you might call it in the filmI had high expectations for this movie have always been among every "front-runner" list all over the internet. It's not the first time that I saw a movie about a "present-past" coexistence thing, or whatever you might call it in the film industry jargon. And, I thought that the movie "Moments of Love" released sometime in 2004 (Philippines) with the same concept was even written better. Although "Midnight in Paris" is still worthy of a "good" description, it is undeniable to say that it does not reach the expectations.

Here are my recommendations scores for the movie at movienotesbook.blogspot.com… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

TeriPettitDec 21, 2011

Cute, and the vignettes of Jazz Age literary and musical figures are entertaining, but overall the plot is predictable and the characterizations superficial. Sweet and Lowdown is far better.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

ryflemanFeb 29, 2012

Its suck a unique film that raises a lot of questions, unfortunately some that are left unanswered are plot holes rather than a true reflection. Their are some truly histerical moments, and the acting is really well done but it seems like itsIts suck a unique film that raises a lot of questions, unfortunately some that are left unanswered are plot holes rather than a true reflection. Their are some truly histerical moments, and the acting is really well done but it seems like its a movie that just got to edited. So much just seems missing like someone ripped a chapter right out of a book. Its an enjoyable watch, and unique enough to make it memorable, but not enough to make me really care. Bottom line, its better than almost all romantic comedies but it is so unfulfilled that its almost depressing because you know that had they added a little more it could have been great.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

NedRyerson1Feb 13, 2012

Midnight in Paris was a total surprise. This film not only is a journey through artistic figures but also a ride across Woody Allen’s movies. The bunch of artists that appear in the picture and the way they are characterized takes you to theMidnight in Paris was a total surprise. This film not only is a journey through artistic figures but also a ride across Woody Allen’s movies. The bunch of artists that appear in the picture and the way they are characterized takes you to the edge. The ones that are more remarkable to me are Salvador Dali, Ernest Hemingway, Luis Bunuel, Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald.
About the other movies of Woody Allen, first we have the character established by this director in Zelig, using the body of Owen Wilson. Second, the feeling of belonging and the fear of rejection that has the protagonist about the group of artists, is similar to Woody Allen and Diane Keaton’s about society in Annie Hall. Third, it is evident that the couple relationship of the film is influenced by the ones of Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Hannah and Her Sisters. Fourth, Owen Wilson takes shelter in his book to escape from his life, in the same way Mia Farrow refuges in the movies in The Purple Rose of Cairo. Fifth, the protagonist writes a novel and does not care about what others think about it, as the old man of Whatever Works. Finally, the movie has two big breaks in the plot, like the breaks of Match Point.
The concepts treated by this picture are also amazing, the topic of the golden age and the way it turns into a vicious circle and the story inside a story, because Owen Wilson writes about what he is living without noticing that. Only Woody can manage such great film.… Expand

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

7

EMPFeb 11, 2012

Beautiful photography and scenes â

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

mess888Nov 26, 2012

At first the movie is quite slow and it didn't really fit my "pace". But as i kept watching it i have to admit i was really surprised and i enjoyed very much the old Paris and all its artists. What felt wrong is the dull cliche some characterAt first the movie is quite slow and it didn't really fit my "pace". But as i kept watching it i have to admit i was really surprised and i enjoyed very much the old Paris and all its artists. What felt wrong is the dull cliche some character was, but i guess it was necessary to draw the difference with the wonderful past and the nostalgia for it. In a word: charming!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

Patrick94Aug 3, 2015

I had a smile on my face for most of the movie. Just one of those films where you sit back, relax and enjoy it. Owen Wilson was perfect for this role. The only parts I didn't like were the scenes with Léa Seydoux. I had to Google her just toI had a smile on my face for most of the movie. Just one of those films where you sit back, relax and enjoy it. Owen Wilson was perfect for this role. The only parts I didn't like were the scenes with Léa Seydoux. I had to Google her just to make sure she's an actual actress, and not some random model or something that was given the part because she's pretty. She was absolutely terrible IMO.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

moslegend34Jun 11, 2015

Real depth! A clever depiction of a bygone era. Hemingway and Picasso are really well presented. A brillant idea, although the film lacked a je ne sais quoi. A little suspense as well as that one 'clutch moment.' Still a fine film, well worth a look

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

eva3si0nJun 25, 2019

Midnight in Paris is the good, simple film. A simple plain plot, characters who do not manage to reveal except the main character spoil the atmosphere. Great idea, realization mediocre. This history suits a series format more, than the movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

annbdFeb 6, 2018

Somehow can't explain the oscar for best writing .. it's not bad, but not perfect and deffinetly something was missing. It was a little bit boring on moments, flat, nothing much happend.. But the idea of wanting to live in other century wasSomehow can't explain the oscar for best writing .. it's not bad, but not perfect and deffinetly something was missing. It was a little bit boring on moments, flat, nothing much happend.. But the idea of wanting to live in other century was good and I liked how the protagonist decided at the end to stay where he is, to stay in his time (2010) and to live his own life. The movie was really charming and sweet with not the most original storyline, I must say. Overall it's decent and relaxing movie.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

geewahJan 14, 2021

As someone who finds a lot of Allen's movies to be pretentitous, I didn't mind this effort.
A whimsical ode to the great city of Paris.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

TokyochuchuNov 30, 2013

Midnight in Paris is a nice little wish fulfillment flick from Woody Allen. The film is mildly funny, mildly insightful and mildly romantic. So... Very mild, then. It is stuffed with good-natured charm, though. Not one of Allen's best but still fun.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

HalfwelshmanMar 26, 2012

With Midnight in Paris, Woody Allen attempts to whip you off on a rip-roaring adventure through the very best of 20th Century art and literature. At some points, he succeeds. 1920s Paris is beautifully re-created, and the gradual introductionWith Midnight in Paris, Woody Allen attempts to whip you off on a rip-roaring adventure through the very best of 20th Century art and literature. At some points, he succeeds. 1920s Paris is beautifully re-created, and the gradual introduction of every artist and writer you can imagine sharing a warmly-lit, smokey cafe in 1920s Paris is rather fun. Allen has attracted some real talent to play these icons, with Corey Stoll's grouchy Hemingway and Adrien Brody's brilliantly batty Dali being particular highlights. Concerning the "real people" in the film, Owen Wilson gives a staggeringly good performance as struggling writer Gil Pender, proving he can handle more serious roles as well as the comic ones (though there is still ample opportunity for him to wisecrack as only someone with his boyish charm can). Marion Cotillard also impresses as Adriana, a 1920s resident, a muse of Picasso (Marcial Di Fonzo Bo) and the woman who captures Gil's heart. Rachel McAdams is far less impressive playing Inez, Gil's spoilt, stroppy and selfish wife - she's just plain irritating and you really can't wait until Gil escapes her clutches. Michael Sheen is good as always, but plays a colossal a-hole, Paul Bates, a self-important, faux-intellectual art lecturer, and like with Inez, you can't wait to leave him behind. Though the premise of the film, of a man who is displaced in time and finds new artistic inspiration from a bygone era, is a thoroughly interesting one, the way in which Allen guides his story does not always work. The plot plods excruciatingly for the first 20 minutes or so - rather than moving the story along, it feels as though you're reading a tacky tourism brochure over Allen's shoulder. Things do improve once Gil first arrives in the 1920s, but it does at times feel like Allen is showing off how well-read and art-savvy he is. As sometimes happens with his films, his slightly patronising and arrogant tone can grate. Yes, Woody Allen is a talented screenwriter, and a competent director, but he can also be rather irritating in his tendency to want to shove his intellectualism down your throat. Midnight in Paris does work as a film, and has some nice ideas, performances and a good screenplay. If you're already a fan of Mr Allen's work, then I'm sure you'll love it. If not, then it likely won't convert you, and the film is a bit self-absorbed at times. It's the third Woody Allen film I've seen, and I'm still not certain I can see what all the fuss is about.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

mcc57Jun 4, 2011

Woody Allen's best work is clearly behind him as he turns out one disappointment after another. It is Owen Wilson's portrayal of Gil, more than Allen's writing or directing, that is what shines in this film. Marion Cotillard and Kathy BatesWoody Allen's best work is clearly behind him as he turns out one disappointment after another. It is Owen Wilson's portrayal of Gil, more than Allen's writing or directing, that is what shines in this film. Marion Cotillard and Kathy Bates also deliver stellar performances. Allen reverts to cheap political stereotypes to define Rachel McAdams and her family and relies on the stereotyping rather than writing to define and give dimension to these characters. McAdams character is pointless and while she seems to be doing all she can with the character, there's just not much to work with. Michael Sheen, like Owen Wilson, delivers a fine performance. He's amusing and irritating at the same time. Rather than defining him by throwing a stereotype on him, his character's behavior is what defines him, as it should.

As another said, Allen treats the audience like idiots. Where he once made points using a scalpel, he now uses an axe. The point of our glorifying the past is obvious, but Allen no longer seems able to master his once masterful use of subtlety. Where Allen still shines is in his ability to capture the beauty of the city. The shots of Paris were lovely and make you truly understand why Wilson's character so loves the city. It's hard not to love it when it is portrayed so beautifully.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

ClariseSamuelsDec 23, 2011

Midnight in Paris is fluffy and sweet, but like cotton candy, it is airy and somewhat lacking in substance. However, Owen Wilson's Gil is an original creation and actually outstrips all of Allen's previous incarnations in all his other films.Midnight in Paris is fluffy and sweet, but like cotton candy, it is airy and somewhat lacking in substance. However, Owen Wilson's Gil is an original creation and actually outstrips all of Allen's previous incarnations in all his other films. This is an new kind of character playing the Woody Allen persona. He's not a loser; he's rich and confident. He doesn't get cast aside by the woman he adores because she left him for someone who looks suspiciously like Warren Beatty; he's engaged to be married to the woman he loves, and he's on holiday in Paris, while his rich future in-laws go on a shopping spree to pay for the perfect wedding. The endearing Brooklyn accent is gone because it has been replaced by a hint of a Texan drawl. Gil is blond, waspy, and eccentrically handsome. No schlemiel this intelligent and worldly young man who has his life already measured out in coffee spoons--silver coffee spoons, probably owned by his future father-in-law's company. Like the conventional Woody persona, he's a writer. And like the real Woody Allen, he wants to write a novel, and all his Hollywood screenplays pale in comparison to this one overriding ambition. But the novel eludes him. Dissatisfied with the present and vaguely aware that his materialistic, Republican fiancee may not be the right woman for him, he welcomes the opportunity to become a time traveler. Time travel movies always have severe logic problems, but it is easier to resolve the logic if you only go back in time for the odd evening here and there. Gil goes back to the 1920's, the era he longs for. The real Woody Allen longs for the 1940's, his childhood years. The rather basic theme is that we always long for some Golden Age in the past, and if we go back to that age, we'll find those people longing for something previous to their era. The present is too mundane for those who are actually experiencing it. They yearn for a lost paradise, a perfection that they sense must have existed somewhere else and has somehow eluded them; therefore, it must have been in the past. It's a pleasant film although the forays into the past are not the most authentic period pieces. A mustache for Adrien Brody does not fool the viewer into believing he is really Salvador Dali. It looks a bit like a costume party. The ending is vague and doesn't resolve anything; it only encourages us to dream, nay, to hallucinate about the past.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

spacebawApr 28, 2012

not an avid film watcher, so can't identify much of any tropes/anti-tropes and I'm really not that critical, I tend to enjoy most films. but essentially the film expounds upon a basic proverb I'm sure we all know, "the grass is always greenernot an avid film watcher, so can't identify much of any tropes/anti-tropes and I'm really not that critical, I tend to enjoy most films. but essentially the film expounds upon a basic proverb I'm sure we all know, "the grass is always greener on the other side", set in Paris. To me that's not a very interesting premise, though we are all guilty of falling into the "golden age thinking" portrayed in the film to one degree or another. I don't find the old city of Paris attractive, so the setting appealed to me little, but if you're a hapless maybe-francophile, you might enjoy it However, the main highlight of this film was the historical figures portrayed. As a writer, the main character interacts primarily with writers, artists and musicians of the past. As an art history enthusiast, I especially enjoyed the artist portrayals. Highlights include Jason Brody as Dali, Corey Stoll as Hemingway and Adrien de Van as Luis Bunuel. I thought all of these characters were portrayed accurately enough to not anger those who are familiar with them, but with enough wit and satire to appeal to the non-familiar. But, if you're a fan of surrealism the film might irritate you a tad. Dali is implied to be the de facto leader of the Parisian surrealists (the three in the film being Dali, Bunuel and Man Ray) rather than the indisputable ideological center of the surrealist movement, Andre Breton. I think this was a really missed opportunity as well, since Breton was a passionate socialist, this would have played nicely with the conflict between the main character and his fiance's father (who calls him a communist and tells him to go see Trotsky at one point), though of course it would seem the main character is naught but an average American liberal. But for all Woody Allen gets wrong about the surrealists, the joke about Bunuel's The Exterminating Angel will have you roaring if you're familiar with it. And then there's also the slight implication of Picasso (and by extension, cubism) as avant-garde, the pinnacle of this ridiculous idea being Gertrude Stein dismissing one of Picasso's paintings as "petite bourgeois". But at the end, the characters remain almost pathetically naive and sincere, and I never became attached to Owen Wilson's character, but I suppose I did see elements of an older personal self in him. I've seen this described as Woody Allen's Lost in Translation, which it is certainly not other than the theme of doomed romance. The main characters develop little other than their relationship and Gil remains as frustratingly boring as the beginning. But the historical figures make this definitely worth seeing… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

MushuJanineJul 9, 2014

I could see where Woody wanted to go with this movie and he had good intentions. Unfortunately a plot that had potential fell apart due to poor casting, uninspired performances and at time extremely insulting portrayals of famous artists ofI could see where Woody wanted to go with this movie and he had good intentions. Unfortunately a plot that had potential fell apart due to poor casting, uninspired performances and at time extremely insulting portrayals of famous artists of the past. Owen Wilson - who plays Gil- a successful but unsatisfied screenwriter is terrible in this role. It felt like he was being forced into this mold of Woody Allen that he couldn't convincingly emulate. This "Zoolander" and "Wedding Crashers" star does not make a believable nerdy, awkward writer with a shuffling gait! He doesn't have the range of facial expression necessary to draw us in to believing his character's wonderment and excitement upon meeting some historical greats. Rachael McAdams seems to be channeling a slightly less **** "Mean Girls" persona but I swear at times it sounded like I was listening to her doing a reading for the role. Towards the end when her and Owen have a confrontation it all seems contrived and unconvincing. The portrayals of famous artists were extremely one dimensional- I was especially insulted by the way Salvador Dali was portrayed. Either Woody should have gone more over the top which these caricatures in a Mel Brooks sort of way or he should have idealized them in the way Owen's character would have seen them. Marion Cottiard who gave an excellent performance in La Vie en Rose is pretty but ineffectual. Her character's emotional range is minimal and the chemistry b/t her and Owen is nonexistent. That being said - I love the idea of the movie- nostalgia for a bygone era is more exciting in one's mind than for the people who lived through it. It was such a disappointment that the acting and at times the writing couldn't live up to the story's potential.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

ALAMLEDPJan 21, 2023

Woody Allen's 'Midnight in Paris' is a unique blend of mismatched lead actors, a bewildering plot, and a stunning Parisian backdrop. Despite its odd combination of elements, the film manages to be endearing in its own way. Owen WilsonWoody Allen's 'Midnight in Paris' is a unique blend of mismatched lead actors, a bewildering plot, and a stunning Parisian backdrop. Despite its odd combination of elements, the film manages to be endearing in its own way. Owen Wilson delivers a relaxed performance, while Rachel McAdams struggles to connect with him as the spoiled fiancee. However, the real star of the film is the city of Paris, which is captured in all its glory throughout the film. The supporting cast, including Carla Bruni and Adrien Brody, add depth to the film, but ultimately it is the artful storytelling that makes 'Midnight in Paris' a work of art in its own offbeat and clumsy way.
__________________________
'Midnight in Paris' de Woody Allen es una combinación única de actores principales que no coinciden, una trama desconcertante y un impresionante telón de fondo parisino. A pesar de su extraña combinación de elementos, la película logra ser entrañable a su manera. Owen Wilson ofrece una actuación relajada, mientras que Rachel McAdams lucha por conectarse con él como la prometida mimada. Sin embargo, la verdadera estrella de la película es la ciudad de París, que se captura en todo su esplendor a lo largo de la película. El elenco de apoyo, que incluye a Carla Bruni y Adrien Brody, agregan profundidad a la película, pero en última instancia, es la ingeniosa narración lo que hace de 'Midnight in Paris' una obra de arte a su manera poco convencional y torpe.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

BhawkDec 11, 2011

Although I WANTED to like this, and I agree with others that the long list of expatriate artists that are "visited" were intriguing, the script just felt so forced and high-fallootin' in an effort to be "intellectual" that I never fell forAlthough I WANTED to like this, and I agree with others that the long list of expatriate artists that are "visited" were intriguing, the script just felt so forced and high-fallootin' in an effort to be "intellectual" that I never fell for the spell Allen wanted me to go under. Allen also uses Olsen Wilson as his surrogate "puppet", seemingly forcing him to use Allen's own rhythms, phrasings, and speech patterns throughout his entire performance. Although I enjoyed the nicely detailed art direction and Marion Cotillard is always interesting, overall, the film is flat, redundant, and surprisingly, only sporadically "funny". Not worthy of the early Oscar buzz that it was once receiving which has now (rightfully) waned.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

5

dotetteJun 20, 2011

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Entertaining, nicely written story that is unfortunately miscast with Owen Wilson. He continues to play the nitwit and gets handsomely rewarded for it. Go figure. We gave it a C+ but it would have gotten a much higher grade with the proper lead. The female lead was so-so as well but the ensemble cast was excellent.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

OnTheCouchDec 26, 2011

If one was mixing a movie **** the recipe for this one would be one part insufferable New York liberal intellectualism, one part Woody Allen semi-autobiographical self-rationalization, and one part beautifully filmed breezy ParisianIf one was mixing a movie **** the recipe for this one would be one part insufferable New York liberal intellectualism, one part Woody Allen semi-autobiographical self-rationalization, and one part beautifully filmed breezy Parisian travelogue with a refreshing plot twist. In short, it is standard Woody Allen fare. In Midnight in Paris, we find self-doubting and discontented liberal screenwriter Gil (a pseudo Woody Allen character portrayed by Owen Wilson) wandering the streets of Paris while beset by a shrewish fiancÃ© (Rachel McAdams), her cartoonishly moronic conservative parents (Mimi Kennedy and Kurt Fuller), and the overbearing pseudo-intellectual Paul (Michael Sheen). If it all sounds familiar â… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

csw12Mar 24, 2012

Midnight in Paris has a interesting story but as the movie goes on you begin looking at the screen and see it is still Owen Wilson who acts the same in every movie. parts are interesting and parts are not so much. you leave with a feeling ofMidnight in Paris has a interesting story but as the movie goes on you begin looking at the screen and see it is still Owen Wilson who acts the same in every movie. parts are interesting and parts are not so much. you leave with a feeling of what just happened and not quite in a good way.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

CMCJul 3, 2011

If you really like most all Woody Allen films, you will probably like this one. Considered as breezy entertainment, it is as you might expect better than most Hollywood fare, but that bar is not too high. Owen Wilson becomes boring as he isIf you really like most all Woody Allen films, you will probably like this one. Considered as breezy entertainment, it is as you might expect better than most Hollywood fare, but that bar is not too high. Owen Wilson becomes boring as he is given few good lines, portraying a perpetually confused and boring person, and the occasional Woody Allen quip seems out of character for the goy Texas boy. Adrian Brody as Dali is by far the best, and I suspect it is because he did an improv on his role and everyone liked it, while the others are too submissive to Alen's uninspired direction. Perhaps the most disappointing feature is how un-emotive Paris is; how hard is it to miss when combining Paris and nostalgia? A big problem is that even the "real" characters are such extreme caricatures, you just can get too interested. I became bored by Allen's latest sleepwalking exercise.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

4

FilmCritic101Jun 20, 2011

Not nearly as good as his last films (Vicky.., Whatever Works, Cassandra's Dream, Match Point...). I chuckled a couple times as the script contains Woody's usual intelligent humor, which keeps his fans coming back for more. However, theNot nearly as good as his last films (Vicky.., Whatever Works, Cassandra's Dream, Match Point...). I chuckled a couple times as the script contains Woody's usual intelligent humor, which keeps his fans coming back for more. However, the plot is too simple and I was glad when it was over. Oh, and Kathy Bates gave her worst performance ever -- wooden. The lead, Owen Wilson gave a B+ performance. Several curvaceous young female characters.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

JeanJul 1, 2011

I agree that the film is beautiful, but Woody Allen has not outgrown the same old tired sexual politics that are evident in his films from the 70s!! For example, the main character is encouraged to get with the enlightened French romanticI agree that the film is beautiful, but Woody Allen has not outgrown the same old tired sexual politics that are evident in his films from the 70s!! For example, the main character is encouraged to get with the enlightened French romantic ways when he is told that a man may love 2 women for their different attributes, HOWEVER, the women in the film who have more than one love interest are conveyed in a negative light (the unlikeable fiance that has an affair with the pedantic guy or the woman that has ultimately unsatisfying relationships with multiple men). Woody â… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

mgrkJul 8, 2011

I thought I was going to love this movie, but I didn't. 45 minutes into it I was looking at the clock, pretty bored & trying to remember how many minutes long it was. The acting seemed forced, predictable & dull. Although the potential forI thought I was going to love this movie, but I didn't. 45 minutes into it I was looking at the clock, pretty bored & trying to remember how many minutes long it was. The acting seemed forced, predictable & dull. Although the potential for a great movie was all right there, something big was missing & it flat lined.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

4

hoops2448Oct 12, 2011

Midnight in Paris is two films wrapped up into one and its all the worse for it. The scenes set in 1920's Paris with Owen Wilson's Gil interacting with famous writers, painters and artists such as Ernest Hemingway and Salvador Dali, areMidnight in Paris is two films wrapped up into one and its all the worse for it. The scenes set in 1920's Paris with Owen Wilson's Gil interacting with famous writers, painters and artists such as Ernest Hemingway and Salvador Dali, are incredibly electric and fun (if not funny) but its juxtaposed with a thoroughly boring modern day tale of nostalgia vs looking to the future which just lets the whole film down. Gil only seems to be having fun when in the past which is funny because the moments in the past are the only fun ones in the movie. Rachel Mcadams who is usually a treat seems to be itching for something else to do, with her not seemingly understanding her character well enough. Finally the film doesn't seem to know where its heading with it seeming to know it wants to critique something but then changing its mind on what it wants to critique. It would be a much more rounded film if the narrative wasn't split so much and if Allen knew what he wanted to say as a director or as this film seems to suggest, an artist.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

4

DiegoSanRoblesDec 15, 2011

Once in a while Woody Allen revives his impulse for lo-fi fantastical, while still satirizing the discontents of the bourgeoisie. Owen Wilson is one of the better conduits for the Allen-persona since itâ

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

Trev29Mar 26, 2012

This movie was uninteresting. Woody Allen's other works are far superior to this mindless attempt of a movie. The movie seems creative, but lacks so much. It was just plain boring. So many great actors gone to waste except for Wilson who isThis movie was uninteresting. Woody Allen's other works are far superior to this mindless attempt of a movie. The movie seems creative, but lacks so much. It was just plain boring. So many great actors gone to waste except for Wilson who is already a big pile of waste. My first impressions appeared to be correct.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

shaunmedAug 23, 2011

Should be titled "Forest Gump in Paris". Nothing more than a cliche romance occasionally highlighted by the most one dimensional and plastic portrayal of famous historical figures. Witless and corny.

6 of 19 users found this helpful613

All this user's reviews

2

Orson2Feb 24, 2012

A movable feast ends up as mere piffle! Such a first-class cast, winning conceit, and gorgeously photographed Paris. First of all, the film is too short. It needed another 20 minutes to explore the conflict it sets up. More fundamentally, theA movable feast ends up as mere piffle! Such a first-class cast, winning conceit, and gorgeously photographed Paris. First of all, the film is too short. It needed another 20 minutes to explore the conflict it sets up. More fundamentally, the writing is problematic because it lacks motivation: Wood Allen needed a believable foil in our hero's in-laws to be as driven and obsessed as he becomes. Clearly, Allen knows no right-wingers, so we get caricature. If he reads the New York Times and needed to know about non-leftists, all he needed to know about them could come from columnist David Brooks. Brooks observes that the further right-wing you go politically, the nicer and nicer people become. And why is that? Because in government, media, and universities - and even elite big business - these outcasts have to be all airs among the dominating and powerful left. Now, with this in mind, our hero ought to have been repelled not by petty meanness and humorlessness, but niceness gone nuts! Treacly, Minnesota nice on powdered sugar and maple syrup. On other words, coma inducing saccharin manners. Instead, Allen simply re-cycles his grasping Jewish shrews for a WASP-y Republican mother-in-law ("It's always the maid!" she cries when a peal necklace is stolen). The effect to simply too insincere - too feckless and unbelievable. Furthermore, the motivation for our protagonist to STAY in Paris of the past would have had greater complexity and acquired meaningful depth one can identify with. Instead, the result is too much like Woody moving to Hollywood - out of his element amidst all the shallow veneer. Thus, promising beginnings really disappoint in a "Midnight in Paris."… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

2

gutterhippoJul 6, 2011

CAUTION: SMUG ALERT ON HIGH! I can't think of many other films with the pretension of this one. Watching it reminded me of the story, "The Emperor's New Clothes," if you don't like it, you're stupid (or so the hoighty-toighty would have youCAUTION: SMUG ALERT ON HIGH! I can't think of many other films with the pretension of this one. Watching it reminded me of the story, "The Emperor's New Clothes," if you don't like it, you're stupid (or so the hoighty-toighty would have you believe). Stories and conflicts go unresolved as the plainly miscast Owen Wilson stumbles and bumbles through a story with an interesting premise, but with more holes than Swiss cheese. The pretentious professor offers some laughs, but is severely under-developed. The characters are painfully one-dimensional and chug along through yuk-yuk uninformed and unfunny political and history jokes that you better laugh at, lest you be exposed as a conservative and/or unintellectual. One diamond in the rough is Marion Cotillard's performance, which pulls more than its fair share in this dreadful affair.… Expand

3 of 10 users found this helpful37

All this user's reviews

2

labougieFeb 25, 2012

I'm a highly selective Allen fan (likes: Purple Rose of Cairo, Radio Days, Play It Again Sam), but I was lured to this movie by the great-sounding premise and a huge weakness for Paris. Trouble was, the movie was all premise. The historicalI'm a highly selective Allen fan (likes: Purple Rose of Cairo, Radio Days, Play It Again Sam), but I was lured to this movie by the great-sounding premise and a huge weakness for Paris. Trouble was, the movie was all premise. The historical characters were witless caricatures; it took zero imagination to write their parts. The male lead was painful to watch, but then his part was thankless. Woody aimed for magic, and I know a lot of people think he hit it, but for me it was a boring, flat, listless disappointment.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

1

sc0TTiDec 27, 2011

All my favorite critics LOVED this, yet it was one of the most boring films I've seen in years. I like old literary figures: that's not the problem. Every character, especially the historical figures, were gross caricatures. It's safe toAll my favorite critics LOVED this, yet it was one of the most boring films I've seen in years. I like old literary figures: that's not the problem. Every character, especially the historical figures, were gross caricatures. It's safe to say Woody Allen doesn't know or care much about these people, beyond their wikipedia entries. The story was dumb, and the dialogue was on the level of an original high school play.… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

1

JaeBowJan 28, 2012

I watched this movie because it was supposed to be one of the best of the year. What a disappointment. I have seen much better writing and acting in independent student productions. Other than proving that Paris is a beautiful city, II watched this movie because it was supposed to be one of the best of the year. What a disappointment. I have seen much better writing and acting in independent student productions. Other than proving that Paris is a beautiful city, I really think that this movie was rather pointless.… Expand

4 of 8 users found this helpful44

All this user's reviews

1

PhoenixBirdJun 18, 2012

A big disapppointment. Very poor acting. The film meanders without any true thought and suffers by a pointless resolution--the protagonist is trapped in his own fantasy--but so what? A bad imitation of the famous characters the film seeks toA big disapppointment. Very poor acting. The film meanders without any true thought and suffers by a pointless resolution--the protagonist is trapped in his own fantasy--but so what? A bad imitation of the famous characters the film seeks to illuminate, and a hasty Americanised view of Paris.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

Honest-reviewsJun 8, 2014

I hate to say it but this movie bored me to tears. Incredibly overrated. All I kept hearing was how well done and put together this movie is, but oh wow. It makes no sense and the scenes drag with no point to them. To be honest, I knowI hate to say it but this movie bored me to tears. Incredibly overrated. All I kept hearing was how well done and put together this movie is, but oh wow. It makes no sense and the scenes drag with no point to them. To be honest, I know several people who enjoyed this movie (how is beyond me), so it's not just media hype and you may be one of those people. But I found it amazingly boring and pointless, with no coherence. 1/10 is generous.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

0

killingspreeNov 20, 2011

This is the worst movie I've ever seen. It's another boring indie flick for hipsters about spoiled rich people who are stupid and hallucinating. The obscure references alienate normal people. Critics are truly stupid nowadays. Don't read orThis is the worst movie I've ever seen. It's another boring indie flick for hipsters about spoiled rich people who are stupid and hallucinating. The obscure references alienate normal people. Critics are truly stupid nowadays. Don't read or believe any positive reviews about this movie. They are shills.… Expand

0 of 17 users found this helpful017

All this user's reviews

0

BroyaxJan 18, 2017

Commençons par le commencement : Owen Wilson -tronche de clochard et cerveau de piaf- qui se la joue amerlocain amoureux de Paname, on y croit pas et on en veut pas. Marion Cotillard non plus, vous me direz, elle se prend toujours pour EdithCommençons par le commencement : Owen Wilson -tronche de clochard et cerveau de piaf- qui se la joue amerlocain amoureux de Paname, on y croit pas et on en veut pas. Marion Cotillard non plus, vous me direz, elle se prend toujours pour Edith Piaf et elle soûle. Mais j'anticipe, car le pire est à venir.

La blondasse (fausse bien sûr), c'est-à-dire la copine de l'ahuri, on la verrait carrément mieux dans un gang bang : la voir essayer de "jouer" est une torture et elle ne devrait pas contrarier sa nature. D'autres "stars" vont et viennent comme souvent dans les films de Woody Woodpecker le binoclard pleurnichard : Marion Cotillon (déjà mentionnée) mais aussi Carla Blingbling-Sarkozy qu'on entend déjà pas lorsqu'elle couine et encore moins lorsqu'elle "parle". Après, on va encore s'étonner que les Amerloques nous prennent pour des cons.

Comme d'habitude avec Woody, ça blablate des conneries à n'en plus finir, des trucs "on s'en fout" d'intellos bobos névrosés "rien à battre". La seule différence concerne le cadre magnifique de notre bien aimée ville-lumière qui sert de prétexte aux divagations d'une bande de cons. Notez cependant que cette vision de la Capitale demeure au ras des pâquerettes, touristique, idéalisée à outrance et niaise.

Bref, tous les clichés y passent et la liste est longue. Woody a besoin d'une sérieuse mise-à-jour : les années 20, c'est fini et Paris n'est qu'une grande ville européenne parmi tant d'autres convertie au multi-culturalisme.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

Midnight in Paris

User Reviews