Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

benm-41751 Radio Days is an unrelenting ode to radio in the 1940's, to all the memories that so many millions of Americans surely have connected to songs and shows on the radio and memories of the radio itself. To sing this ode, the movie presents a number of wild and strange stories all somehow accompanied by what was playing on the airwaves. And while the movie pays tribute to a unique warmth, grit, and glamor of that particular decade coupled with the last golden days of radio, I think that it can speak to how anyone growing up in the past century has connected moments in our lives to radio, music, shows, movies, art, and even video games in ways that make no sense at all yet make perfect sense to us.So the movie very much accomplishes its goal, however the method is very heavy-handed. The first half of the movie is not a lot more than a series of caricatures playing out very contrived situations. Some of them would be comedy genius if they were really allowed to play out, but the movie moves so fast through them that it's hard to get attached. The characters during this time feel like there is little more beyond the surface, unfortunately a bit like community theater. Not to mention that the film relies on a narrator to make anything hold together, and even he can't deliver convincing transitions from one scene to another.The second half of the movie slows down, and suddenly the characters become real people, and the wild situations sink in and become funny. In the end it's an entertaining and endearing movie, but I personally thought it was almost overshadowed by the director's very clear motives. If the people and the memories of the era are so worthy of an ode, he should have let it all speak for itself!

daoldiges I've seen this movie a couple of times now and it fits me better with each viewing. The wonderful score, cinematography, really wonderful performances and so much nostalgia for a bygone era that may or may not have been, it's just an easy delight. This film isn't at all reflective of my boyhood growing up, and yet I feel so connected to it and the messages and feelings Woods is trying to convey. Diane Wiest in particular creates a truly endearing character. I suspect that I will give this film another look before too long, and if you haven't already seen it I suggest you do so.

leonblackwood Review: This movie was, surprisingly, quite entertaining! It's narrated by Woody Allen, whose telling his story about growing up in a packed house in New York in the days of no TV and just a radio and it also follows the rise of Mia Farrow's character who starts out as a waitress and ends up a star. Some of the family scenes are funny and interesting, but I didn't see the whole point of Mia Farrow's character. Her storyline seemed a bit disconnected to the rest of the film. Anyway, the family stays in touch with the world through the radio and they enjoy music, quizzes, drama and the news by tuning in during most of the day. Its amazing to see what people used to go through to broadcast there shows. How times have changed! Basically, it's a sweet film which gives an insight about how it was for Jewish families in New York during the 1930s. Watchable!Round-Up: If your familiar with Seth Green, then you will be surprised to see how young he looks in this movie. He's the guy who plays Dr. Evils son in the Austin Powers franchise and he also supplies his voice for the Family Guy. There are some other familiar stars in the movie, like a young Dianne Keaton and Jeff Daniels, but if you blink, you will miss them. Anyway, on the whole, it's actually not a bad film from Woody Allen. Its well written and all of the characters had depth and they all took part in keeping the family together. They all put in good performances, which made the movie seem realistic and interesting.Budget: $16million Worldwide Gross: $15millionI recommend this movie to people who are into there Woody Allen movies which follows Allen as a 10 year old kid, growing up during the 1930s and being entertained by the radio. 5/10

gsygsy Hugely entertaining movie, soaked in unique kind of vinegary nostalgia: Allen never permits anything syrupy to overwhelm the script.It's a pity his relationship with Mia Farrow ended so sourly. He gives her such a terrific opportunity in RADIO DAYS, which she seizes and runs with. It may well be her best movie performance, because it's so unexpected: surely no one anticipated her coming up with anything so funny.In addition to Ms Farrow, the film is populated by a crowd of phenomenally good character actors, who can set you hooting with laughter with how they turn a one-liner or the way they react to someone else's. There's also a rich vein of poignancy, mostly mined by the ever-wonderful Dianne Wiest. For admirers of Mr Allen at his most dazzling, there's nothing better than the girl-talk scene between Ms Wiest and Julie Kavner. It's perfect.Woody Allen is, by any standard, a film-making phenomenon. One picture (sometimes two) a year since ANNIE HALL in 1977 is quite an output. I think you'd have to be a die-hard fan to deny that the quality of his work has declined, in spite of charmers like MIDNIGHT IN Paris (2011). For me, his last masterwork was BULLETS OVER Broadway (1994), but how many writer-directors make one such, let alone several? As far as I'm concerned he can put in that category MANHATTAN (1979), STARDUST MEMORIES (1980), ZELIG (1983), Broadway DANNY ROSE (1984), HANNAH AND HER SISTERS (1986), CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS (1989) and, towards the end of that highly fertile period, RADIO DAYS (1987).