moonspinner55 Three man-woman couples vacation for the weekend at a summer house in upstate New York in the early years of the 20th century. Writer-director-star Woody Allen doesn't merely tread his own familiar territory, he treads other filmmakers' as well. Aligning himself with the masters (Shakespeare, Bergman and Renoir), Allen confuses the austere and cerebral with farce. While even recycled Allen witticisms (and characters!) still manage to be funny most of the time, his themes here--choices and regret, love and sex and the afterlife--prove to be a heavy load for a summer fling in the country to carry. Only when Woody falls back on his very modern talk (predictably a barrage of sexual frustrations) does he hit his stride as a writer, and yet the ensemble cast here doesn't quite click. Cinematographer Gordon Willis lights the outdoor scenes with a magical glow, but none of these lustful but doubtful neurotics are very appealing. ** from ****

antonyhearmon I thought this was really quite good. Had not seen before as is never really mentioned or advertised. Particularly enjoyed Julie Hagerty's performance. I don't know why she has not been a bigger star and more used in films. Her timing and line delivery is very funny. Jose Ferrer also excellent at his pompous best. Mia farrow and Mary Steenbergen both look lovely in the summer drenched locations, that look like one of Englands Southern Shire Counties! Perhaps not Woody Allens best, but as he apparently 'hates' the country side, some gorgeous scenes filmed by Gordon Willis. I have given this a '7'rating, and would certainly recommend to all.

secondtake A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (1982)As long as you don't mind making light of deception, adultery, and plain old cheating on your wife and lover, this is a really well constructed, fast, brilliantly written film.Woody Allen, by nature, has some combination of striving for depths and avoiding them by silliness that is beguiling. It's really fun to see one of his "entertainments" like this (as opposed to his all out comedies or his more serious films) because it carves out an ingenious, lovable world where you don't have to worry about a thing for an hour and a half. There is surprising humor (of course), sight gags and turns of phrase, and the absurdity of situation. But there is also a layer of despair at the universe, too, which is like pepper in the sugar.Now Allen is a director as much as a writer (both, never forget) and he makes movies fluid, visually tight, and fresh in spirit. And he does this in part because he gets great actors and he gets them to perform at their best. That's part of what a great director does, inspiring and making the most of everyone. Here we have Mia Farrow, who is her usual meek intelligent self, and a counterpart, an echo really, played to perfect pitch by Mary Steenburgen. But even more astonishing really is the arrogant, prolix professor played by Jose Ferrar, who never cracks from his erudite Victorianism. And there is Allen himself, playing the same kind of neurotic, feeling, questioning man he is so good at.So there is nothing her not to like. Toss in the parallels to Shakespeare, an homage to Bergman, and the use of Mendelssohn for music (a switch for Allen), and you have a movie that would stand up to studying. Not that it needs study. It's too slight and frivolous to worry much about, and it gets downright ridiculous (or puerile) at times, so don't worry beyond having fun. For some, it might be too affected, and it might have too many lines that seem obvious, or are played with a kind of falseness when genuine intensity might be welcome. But not really. It's a set piece, a play held flat by celluloid, an overly controlled contrivance, a highly successful resolution of intention. When it's done, you won't be changed, you won't cry, but you'll feel good, and will have a good laugh or two to remember.Years later:I have to admit this movie just clicks with me, and every time I watch it I'm aware it's a completely frivolous, minor effort. But I really like it anyway, and I think it has some sparkling lines, really funny comic comeback and expressions. The movie is also one of the famous set of nearly flawless films shot for Allen by the great cinematographer Gordon Willis.The premise here is simple—three mismatched couples get together for a weekend in the country. (Note here—Allen famously hates the country, and this feels like upstate New York in spirit.) We not only see the quirks in the relationships that exist, we see the attempts at new matches in a kind of grab bag of infidelity. That part of the movie is silly and fun.The other theme here is sort of serious, though in comic clothes. And that's whether there is life after death, or a world of spirits in any way. The answer is Allen's wishful one: yes. But he can only approach it in this kind of fantasy, because in the real world he believes otherwise (from what I read). So this is just a postscript after yet another fun viewing. Short and funny.

Gavin567 This movie features shallow characters, mildly amusing shtick, and early 1980s New York acting school pseudo-intellectuals placed back in 1900 for a weak parody of Bergman's "Smiles of Summer Night. " The title, score, and some silly supernatural effects suggest fairies or spirits to add a nod to Shakespeare, but the themes that both Shakespeare and Bergman delineate in their wonderful works are not even remotely touched on by Allen, who turns the magic of sex and love and its attendant pain into...shtick. Allen once admitted that in his lifetime he would never make a film as good as any film Bergman made; at least he knew his limitations. Allen was a comedian working in a post sexual revolution era where sex had to be covered up by jokes and special effects, the way it's been for any mainstream American movie of the past 35 years. This parody of Bergman thinly disguises a love of Bergman, and only serves to highlight the glaring differences in scope between Bergman's film and Allen's film. It follows in a Hollywood and vaudeville comic tradition of mocking the highbrow for the benefit of middlebrow tastes, but is not irreverent or incisive enough to produce real laughs. This may be partly because it's so one-sided, with all of the fantasies and neuroses coming from a male consciousness, whereas Bergman and Shakespeare (not to mention the great farce writers, such as Feydeau), always gave men and women equal representation.