***Talky romcom with Woody Allen and Diane Keaton is consistently amusing***
A twice-divorced neurotic stand-up comedian in New York City (Woody Allen) details his perspective on life and his relationship with the scatterbrained Annie Hall (Diane Keaton).
The best movie I’ve seen by Woody Allen is the excellent “Match Point” (2005), but that was a crime drama/romance/thriller whereas a lot of his films are talky romantic dramedies, which is the case with “Annie Hall” (1977), winner of Best Picture and other awards at the AA. Was it worthy of all the accolades and does it hold up? Well, I laughed consistently if that tells you anything.
The movie uses techniques that were probably innovative when it was released in 1977, like Annie’s immaterial essence doing something else why her body’s in bed with Alvy (Allen). The dialogue-driven approach is refreshing (today, that is) and the way Alvy sometimes breaks the fourth wall is amusing. I also enjoyed seeing the mid-70s period in the background, like “Messiah of Evil” (1973) on the marquee and a billboard featuring DESTROYER-era KISS.
The film runs 1 hour, 33 minutes and was shot in New York City & Long Island and the Los Angeles area.
GRADE: B
Stand-up comic "Alvy" (Woody Allen) has a lively history with the women in his life. His marriages - of which there have been two - have all ended rather suddenly, as has his latest dalliance with the eponymous singer (Diane Keaton) who won't have sex with him unless she gets high first! Now this latest failure perplexes him. He thinks that over the years he would have managed to iron out the frailties in his character and so, by now, be able to retain the affections of a woman. What keeps going wrong? Woody Allen did pretty much everything on this production so is able to well focus the self-deprecating Jewish humour that threads through the feature as well as using the retrospective nature of the story telling to quite amusingly but also entirely plausibly assess not just "Alvy" but what scenarios from his life, loves, upbringing and choices helped mould the man into that rather flawed creature we now see before us. At times it is a little wordy, and he does recourse to in-jokes once or twice too many, but for the most part this is a confidently pitched double-hander with two actors who have an unique sort of on/off on-screen chemistry that makes this an engaging and enjoyable ninety minutes that might well ring true in many a bedroom.
**A good romantic comedy, with flaws and virtues, that didn't deserve four Oscars. Despite that, it deserves the appreciation of fans of this movie genre.**
Woody Allen is one of those directors that many people love, many people can't stand, and many people find just stupid. I've seen some of his films that I liked, and I've seen others that I hated, and I can understand why he is one of those who have never been able to assert himself and have a consensual recognition.
The film is a romantic comedy based on the relationship of a couple played by Woody Allen and Diane Keaton. They like each other, but they can't make the relationship work harmoniously. Of course, this leads to funny and embarrassing situations. Released in the aftermath of the “sexual revolution”, the film tackles the topic of sexuality bluntly and they openly discuss it. I don't know if it's necessary to say, but the dialogues are an important feature of the film, and the two characters are talking almost all the time.
One of the strengths of the film is its apparent simplicity and elegance: it is a simple film, so simple and apparently cheap that it smells of indie. There are no complicated visual effects, the cinematography is functional and has good lighting, the sets are very realistic, simple and pragmatic, everyone seems to be wearing their own clothes... And in the center of the spotlight is the acting couple in a magnificent work. They don't even look like they're there playing characters, they just look like themselves!
However, it is far from being a problem-free film. Sex is a topic approached in a sincere way, but it dominates their discussions, it is so omnipresent that it ends up being tiring, like those people who are always talking about the same thing and do not shut up or change the subject. Allen's style of humor is also far from leading to consensus: some like it, say it is informal, brilliant in its simplicity, and others already consider it simply stupid, tasteless and, at times, offensive.
The film was one of the great winners of the 1977 Oscars, and that for many people is something. In my opinion, I think Diane Keaton deserved the Oscar for Best Actress, she does a remarkable job. Likewise, I think the film deserved the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, the film's story and dialogues justifies it well, but Allen did not deserve the Oscar for Best Director, which would have been more justly given to George Lucas, also nominated for the first film of the “Star Wars” saga. And since these two films competed for the Oscar for Best Picture, it's really hard to understand how this film won the award. I think that even Allen fans accept that “Star Wars” deserved the statuette and that the academy just didn't want to do it because it was a sci-fi movie. Now, let's get to the point: is the movie good, is it really worth it? Of course, it's a subjective answer, depending on what you like. People who like romantic comedies with a lot of dialogue will enjoy it, but others can skip it without feeling like they've really lost anything by doing it.
