Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Kirpianuscus maybe, not the best. but nice. and good opportunity to meet a soft Allen, using a spring mixture of flavors and cinnamon and honey. great cat. and a story like a large puzzle. more important than compare it with the other pieces from the filmography it is to enjoy it. only enjoy. because, without be great, it is a honest film. and this is not a small virtue. it represents the occasion to see great actors making a fine job. and, not the last, an ironic view about the contemporary sins is always an useful choice. so, a Woody Allen. special. refreshing. and seductive but not using the classic recipes.

moonspinner55 Various romances working their way through the proverbial peaks and valleys of love because, as narrator Zak Orth so pithily points out for us, "sometimes the illusions work better than the medicine." Woody Allen drama-lite shot in and around London concerns a young married couple (Josh Brolin and Naomi Watts) finding their bickering-from-room-to-room union on the brink of collapse after her parents announce their split; Brolin, a struggling writer, becomes smitten with the attractive woman in the apartment across the way, while gallery worker Watts flirts with her boss. Watts' father (Anthony Hopkins) takes up with a much younger woman (a former prostitute who may not have changed her ways) while her mother (Gemma Jones) becomes attracted to a book-seller still in love with his deceased wife. This is one of Allen's least-compelling group of characters. It isn't enough that Hopkins is humiliated by having to gulp Viagra and shell out all his money to keep his prostie-wife happy, he's further humiliated by the prospect of raising a child that isn't his (the pair are also misfits in each other's lifestyle, which is straight out of the older man/younger woman manual). Meanwhile, Brolin (looking like Kris Kristofferson in his youth) lurches through his scenes without expression, and seems incapable of reading a book much less writing one. It's a curiously indifferent enterprise, as if Allen's heart wasn't in it and his unamused cast just wanted to get through it. *1/2 from ****

grantss One of Woody Allen's worst movies. Not THE worst, that honour goes to To Rome With Love, but this comes close. At least the stories are coherent, but they're not at all good. There is hardly a likable character in the entire movie. Everyone, in their own way, is plain loathsome. Infidelity (especially), deceit, naivety and insanity abound. Naomi Watts' character might be the only character worth supporting, and even she's not perfect.Many of the relationships don't even make sense, they're just there for relationship sake, or infidelity sake.About the only great moment was Josh Brolin's character's comeuppance. Performances are fine, it is the characters that are irritating, and very much so.

secondtake You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger (2010)Simply put, not Woody Allen's best. But it has lots of the trademarks of Allen's films, especially from this late period, and sometimes this one seems about to shine, either in humor or in pathos.It's not quite a roaring comedy, nor a farce, nor a true straight drama. A number of major characters are in relationships that are falling apart or beginning again, often (of course) with infidelity. So Anthony Hopkins plays a wealthy old man who refuses to be old, so he begins working out, popping performance pills, and sleeping with a prostitute (though he apparently thinks she's just a nice actress). And so he leaves his wife. Then there's his wife and her need to start over. There's the prostitute who naturally isn't satisfied with sex with an elderly chap (everything is very British--it's set in London).And that's just one group. An important second group of characters include a couple of writers (their manuscripts become an important small subplot) and their loves. Including the scintillating young woman across the courtyard who practices cello in her window. You might think this is a parody of a dream (I laughed out loud when it first happened because I was sure he was making a joke), but it's taken seriously. In fact, the guy watching her (one of the writers) is a true jerk, and seems to succeed as a jerk. No joke there, either.Etc. It could easily have been a delicious interplay of contemporary characters facing romantic crossed-wires. But the timing is a hair off, the dialog sometimes obvious or sometimes too familiar (like we've seen it before not just in life, but in a Woody Allen movie). There are some touching scenes, and the best parts of the movie are probably the serious ones, but you can't extract those beautiful five minute segments from the more contrived and strained whole.A final clue to Allen's intentions comes from the bland (downright boring) voice-over at the start and end. It means to suggest a lighthearted look at these people (caught in the sound and the fury). And the music in the background shifts the mood in almost silly ways, announcing that the movie is almost an oversized trifle. Or truffle.Too bad. Allen is his brilliant best when he mixes up humor and tragedy, and he's great at both. I'm glad he tried. If you love Allen, you should see this and give it a chance. If you don't know his movies or know you don't like them, give some of the great ones another chance. The list is long.