srdjan_veljkovic
While still being a Woody Allen movie/comedy, this is not as wacky as it usually is. So, more people can enjoy it. And there's a lot to enjoy, including some very well planned and executed jokes, some of which are physical, but not based on someone stumbling around.The only downside to this is that it has less of a philosophical stream in it. OTOH, there are a lot of Woody Allen movies with much more of that, if that's your thing. Don't get me wrong, there are some smart and interesting themes and ideas in there, but, the accent is on the comedy.I'm guessing that casting Julia Roberts, in her prime, in this was exactly to highlight that this is more of a "straight" movie. In that light it's also interesting that her role in the movie is probably the wackiest one. There are a lot of little gems like this in the movie, so it is rewarding to watch more than once.
ElMaruecan82
"Love is a Many-Splendored Thing" says the song. Well in Woody Allen's case, love can be described as many-handled theme.Indeed, whether portrayed as an inexhaustible source of intellectual torments, an unreachable holy grail or an emotional dead-end, love has always been in the core of Woody Allen's oeuvre. Even in his zaniest days, Allen featured romantic walks in a bucolic site or deep interactions in a well-chosen spot of New York or any place of the world. The seminal "Take the Money and Run", had a very touching romantic subplot leading to much more magnitude in "Manhattan" and "Hannah of Her Sisters" before being treated in a skeptical and disillusioned way in "Husbands and Wives" from the light of Allen's separation with Mia Farrow.This brief preamble is to show that almost every facet of love has been depicted by Woody Allen. So, with such a title as "Everyone Says I Love You", his twenty-something film, I didn't know how high to put my expectations. I guess Roger Ebert's enthusiastic endorsement made me expect fireworks of emotions, something on the same arousing level as "Manhattan"'s opening sequence …. But what I got was a firecracker. The film is cute, charming, with sweet interactions between enamored characters, but nothing affected me like all the films I mentioned. Even the parts set in Venice and Paris, instead of enhancing the romance, irritated me with their superficial postcard quality.I understand that superficiality was intended to embody the lightheartedness and spontaneity of these characters struck by Cupid's arrow. I understand Allen didn't plan to preach or speak philosophical statements about love, but just let the hearts express through spontaneous outbursts of singing and dancing. But this is where we come to the main flaw, which alas is the reason-to-be of the film: the music. I enjoyed the hospital sequence, the part where a bunch of ghosts from beyond the grave give the living some precious advice, and the surrealistic climax in Paris where Goldie Hawn, in a superbly executed sequence started floating in the air. But the rest of the music didn't touch me, and my heart is not made of stone.I've got to hand it though to Woody for the risk he took by letting the actors perform with their own voice, it startles in the beginning but we quickly get used to it. When the film opened with young Holden (Edward Norton) sining his love to Skylar, an upper-class girl of Manhattan (Drew Barrymore), I respected Allen's audacity for materializing this idea that we all sing when we're happy and how we sing hardly matters. But how greater would the surprise have been if the songs were really catchy and didn't seem randomly perturb the narrative structure. Maybe there weren't many musicals at that time so the film had a fresh quality but the soundtrack was not the highlight, which is saying a lot for a musical.A good point was the titular "Everyone", which relied on a great ensemble. There is Goldie Hawn as Steffi, the guilty-ridden rich mother and Alan Alda as Bob, her husband, both the best friends of the neurotic Joe, Steffi-ex-husband, contemplating suicide after many failed romances and played by you-know-who. There is also a scene-stealing performance from Natasha Lyonne, as Steffi and Joe's daughter DJ, trying to get her father in touch with Von, Julia Roberts, a therapist whom she happens to know all her secrets and fantasies. There were also fine performances from Lukas Haas as the Republican son (the reasons of his political orientation was the kind of comedy gold the film needed in more quantity) and last, but not least, Tim Roth made a believable released prison mate falling in love with Skylar and causing her to breakup.The film had the same potential than "Hannah and Her Sisters", but I was disappointed by the easy ways Allen chose to close his characters' arcs. The kind of emotionality provided by Dianne Weist' last line from "Hannah" was totally missing, which can be forgivable since it's a comedy, but the wit was frustratingly inexistent and only confined to some predictable gags such as a wedding ring, hidden in a cake and getting swallowed by the future bride. This also would have been forgettable if it wasn't for the central romance between Woody Allen and Julia Roberts. We know it's doomed from the beginning, because of the whole plotting, they had to break up so Joe would finally realize he's still in love with Steffi and can enjoy such good moments like a Groucho Marx party in Paris, one of these things that makes life worth living. But his separation was nowhere close to the level of poignancy or comedy reached by "Manhattan".Just like Skylar who breaks up with Holden to eventually reconcile, Joe cheats with Von, she goes with him, until realizing that having fulfilled her fantasy of living with the perfect man, she's got nothing much to fantasize about, it was cynically anticlimactic, and convincing, but for a film that pretends to be a comedy, I expected more, at least, enough to give Julia Roberts a shining moment and not reduce her to the beautiful actress who stars in a Woody Allen film. That also was announcing another Allenian trend when he became Europe's darling, each film raising the big question about his casting. Allen has always been one of my favorite directors, but when he became a 'hip' phenomenon, something of his touch was kind of lost.Now, after watching his interview he gave to a French magazine in the DVD features, I started to look at his film with more indulgence, respecting his desire to make a personal tribute to old-fashioned musicals. But as much as I wanted to love "Everyone Says I Love You", it was nowhere close to Allen's top 10 best films, not even to his next film, "Deconstructing Harry", which I thought was perfect.
rob0352002
Ed Norton, Barrymore, Roberts, Hawn, Alda, Portman... what's not to love? Well the boring, plodding, banal and mind numbingly worked story line that is as intricate as a cereal box. How can anyone like this? Did they get awards because of the cast? This proves to me that pretentious nits make a good market for an inane movie a college student could have composed. It reminds me of those self-indulgent "I am melancholy pay attention to my deep thoughts" of the 70s genre, which is how old you have to be to find this mildly entertaining. Woody Allen should just give it up. Then again, people will pretend he has talent because they are suppose to. Kind of like people paid a zillion dollars a ticket to see washed up Streisand in concert.
runamokprods
A cute, inventive film with a couple of great musical numbers, and some fun characters (Tim Roth in particular is terrific), but lacking any sense of depth. For me, this doesn't hold up on repeated viewings nearly as well as most Allen films. It feels more one joke on returning to it. Almost every Allen film I've seen has only grown on me with time, with additional layers and themes becoming evident. This was a rare exception.Still Allen's overall playful use of musical techniques makes this worth at least one viewing. I'd still rather see a flawed work by a master, than most of what's available.
