Andres-Camara I think it's boring, it has no rhythm, it's not interesting. I have seen his film many times. But suddenly it takes us on a new path that is not the case and everything to finish as always. The film is repeated and repeated, we change course, start another movie and end in cross lives.Spoiler: Personally, I do not like anything Woody Allen, sorry, I apologize to everyone in the movies and this movie is not going to be different. I've never seen anything in his movies. Well yes, it makes dialogues better than anyone. I think he was born knowing to do dialogues, but the rest, neither know how to do nor care. I already say the director of photography of the film, Sven Nykvist, in an interview, does not spend time to the camera or the photo and so it comes out. One of his favorite directors is Ingmar Bergman but at least this one if he dedicated time to these sections.At least as happens in real life, the arrogant takes the girl. It's the only thing that has seemed logical and real in the movie. Cynicism on all sides, but selling it as a logical thing.I think that if he had dedicated himself to writing and someone else would have shot the movies he would have won a lot. All you have of genius of the paper, it has of not knowing to direct.

PimpinAinttEasy Dear Woody Allen,Every scene of Crimes and Misdemeanors is made with so much love. You often surprised me during the indoor scenes when suddenly there would be some superb lighting in the background. You usually like to set scenes in beautiful American parks. This film is no different. The outdoor scenes are a pleasure to look at. The scene where Martin Landau visits his childhood home was spectacular, there were so many great bit players in that scene. And that scene is not the only one. You packed it in with this film, Woody. There are so many poignant and hilarious moments. You even invented this philosopher dude who mouths some awesome dialogs. This is probably your best film, even though I am partial to your work in the 60s and 70s.Two story lines parallel to each other(though the characters do meet at the end of the film). One about an upstanding ophthalmologist who gives the nod for his secret lover to be killed. The other one is about a naughty documentary filmmaker who refuses to sell out but is frustrated with the mediocrity around him and also sad about the fact that the woman he covets is increasingly attracted to the man he hates.It is an amazing achievement that you make the lives of these civilized and sophisticated characters so entertaining to audiences around the world. Good job.Best Regards, Pimpin.(9/10)

Red_Identity I guess having seen Match Point is bound to make anyone not be surprised by a lot of this film, but that film basically serves as the entire prequel as to the events of this film. It's well acted (although for some reason, Huston doesn't mesh nearly as well as everyone else) and it serves a good moral dilemma for some good film discussion (again, sort of tampered if you've seen Match Point). Woody Allen is serviceable, but Landau is the star here and truly brings in the meat towards this screenplay and story. Overall, I don't think this is particularly great, but it's good and has some truly great moments scattered throughout. Recommended.

tobiqq1 As a big fan of Dostojewskij I found this movie very appealing. The stories main plot has many analogical elements to the novel "Crime and Punishment". Both deal with the topic of murder and the terror it inflicts on the mind. In both cases the murderer (direct/indirect, does not really matter)believe that they own the right to get rid of their victim. In the book the murderer kills twice the second woman only because she appeared at the scene of the first crime. That probably added to the amount of terror and might give an explanation why Allen's character who only killed once and through a killer might be able to live on without any punishment. In both cases the denial of god or any moral structure leads to their action. Both are haunted by terror afterwords and it seems their minds wont be able to rest unless they turn them in or inflict any other sort of punishment on themselves. As I already mentioned in the movies case time eventually releases some of the terror and the protagonist appears to be able to live on. But the end is left open, it is not unlikely to assume that Judas terror might return. Nevertheless the ending offered by Allen to me is even more negative than what is happening in the novel. Allen suggests that people can commit that sort of crime and at some stage go back to their old lives. Judas escape into the comforts of a god or heavenly system seem a rather pathetic move to me. To me there is no way that Juda believes in god. He idealizes the idea of forgiveness and is completely oblivious to the moral duty one carries at the same time. We recognize that he feels some sort of moral responsibility but it is weak enough for him to evade it. That such thing is possible and I don't doubt that it is possible is a truly depressing thought indeed. The other plot does not offer much consolation either. The plastic character of Laster "wins" in the end by getting Halley, instead of his "opponent" Cliff. That suggests that what really matters to become happy is not seeking for any kind of truth or a better understanding of the human condition but to leave all this as it is and make the best of it. Thus money, success, huge confidence, the ability to deny, greed, beauty on the surface and hedonism wins over respect for ones neighbor, deep love, recognizing predicaments, being aware of death, melancholy and many other things. These are only categories to illustrate I know there is many other things that conflict with one another. The story is a true tragedy but it was built in wonderful manner. To me it is Allen's second best movie, after "Annie Hall" which I prefer because it offers a more optimistic idea of life and love and because Diane Keaton is in it:) The humorist elements in the film made me laugh harder than in most of his other movies because they come up in a very problematic context. They sometimes open up the possibility that we are dealing with the comedy but to me it is clearly something like a tragedy. I am still undecided about the film's ending. My first reaction was a little disappointment because it appeared to be too corny. A movie that denies morals ends with a sort of moral statement? I reflected it and it gained more favor:) The voice over is basically just telling us whats going on in the reality suggested by the movie. Even though many people live without a judge and it is basically all a big contest most people seem to enjoy life in one form or the other. People achieve/find happiness and realize that is only momentarily but seek again and deliberately accept the depressing moments happiness is followed by. I don't really see why the voice over puts faith or hope in future generations. To me it is a rather cynical statement by the director