andrewfleming-57891 This film is actually quite confusing. Its plot does not move smoothly and too much development happens offscreen. Its as if the film has tried to do too much in its relatively short runtime. There are too many characters and most of them are very forgettable. Allen and Caine are the most memorable characters. Despite being labled as a comedy Allens character arc is the only one that is actually funny. The film also chooses to jump between the characters at cawkward times and this just leaves the viewer feeling confused. Generally, very overrated. Stick to Annie Hall. 5/10

sbsieber I saw this movie when it first came out, and I thought it was just great, although I did not like Michael Cain in his role. Fast forward however many years, and I caught it on TV. Still didn't like Michael Cain in the movie - too whiny and overwrought, but so was everyone else. What a terrible movie! It has not stood the test of time. All the characters are high-strung, navel gazers who talk too much and say very little. The Allen Method of acting, which is basically improvising, looks so corny and amateurish in retrospect, and not at all realistic. Mia Farrow's voice could drive anyone insane, and her character is insipid; her sisters treat her like dirt, and her husband uses and abuses her. Just awful.

joehemmings68 The thing that stood out to me watching this film is just how good Allen is in it. Every time he's on screen, the film is far more enjoyable. He's genuinely very funny here. I personally believed that he benefits here from not being on screen throughout. I felt Michael Caine was perhaps the worst performance of everyone here, and felt his section of the film was frustrating and uninteresting throughout. I expected something clever to come out and make it all make sense, but that never happened sadly. This means the film ups and downs as it cuts between characters and stories. Inconsistent then, but worth a watch.

joshuafagan-64214 I do have this to say for all Woody Allen movies: they may not all be great, but they try to be. They have aspirations and dreams of something greater. Often, it falls short of those dreams. But it always aims high. Like him or not, old Woody (and at 79, he is quite old now) is an auteur in the purest sense of the word. He does not make movies for awards ceremonies or critics or the general audience. He makes them for himself and about what he finds most interesting, and it shows. As an artist, I have to give him credit for that. As a critic, I do have to give credit to the fact that it produces originality. And, occasionally, greatness.I have seen three great Woody Allen movies. Annie Hall, which is one of the greatest movies ever made and of which I will likely do a review sometime. Manhattan, the truest sort of love letter to NYC and probably one of the most wistful and depressing yet thought-provoking and insightful movies I've ever seen. And this, a film that, while it may not be as fresh or sharp as the other two, is still an insightful, poignant flick that is spectacularly acted and scored and is not afraid to explore every part of the emotional landscape.It's a fascinating film. Every 'mini-act' starts with white writing on black, a quote during the part. It's an interesting choice and one that I appreciate. It helps the film flow. And I do believe that Woody is at his best when he's expiericing at least a bit. That's a reason why Annie Hall is better than Manhattan. The fourth-wall breaking, the scene where they contrast what's being thought with what's being said, the whole self-aware atmosphere, and so much more... it's fantastic. And it always serves a tonal purpose.I would also argue that's it's partially necessary in Allen movies to stop them from collapsing in on their own intellectualism, but I digress. What's important is that this film has a few of these moments spattered through it, like one memorable scene that I won't spoil but where the doctor tells Woody Allen's character two different things: one in real life, one in his paranoid, neurotic dreams. Allen's character is rather humorously referred to as a hypochondriac, and the build-up pays off in this scene.Speaking of Allen's character, though, he does not show up a lot in this film. For the first ten or fifteen minutes of the film, I was not even sure if he was in the movie as an actor. There is a debate about whether or not he makes his films better or worse when he's acting. I think that it can flip both ways; when the film takes advantage of his neuroses and uses them to its advantage, piercing to the soul of reality, as happens in Annie Hall and Manhattan, it enhances the film. But in some other films, it drags them down and makes me want to kick Woody back behind the camera.And then there are films like this, where it just exists. It is not bad, and it does not drag down anything down or throw gunk in any operations. It's just kinda unnecessary. If you took Woody Allen's character out of the film, you would not feel like anything's missing. The film does gain something with it, but said gains are mostly aesthetic and stylistic and his character does intrude into the film a bit too much for my tastes. Yes, while this film does deserve five stars, it is my no means flawless. But, hey, if a little self-indulgence is the price we need to pay for one of the most emotionally-packed movies in history, so be it.The using of several story lines gives ample opportunity for exploration, and this film takes advantage. You get to see many different stages of relationships play out with many different types of people. From the perspectives of Hannah and her sisters, Lee and Holly, you get to see the repercussions of opportunities taken versus those not taken. This film has a happy ending, but it is only one part thrilling opposed to three parts contentment. And above all, it feels earned.(P.S. Michael Caine is especially terrific. He deserves that Oscar. It was shocking (for a younger viewer like me) to see him as a young(er) man and just as shocking to see him put on that kind of performance. Legends are legends for a reason.)