Midnight in Paris

[Vanilla]

Review/Discuss

[CoolioD1]

Time travel scenes = fun. Normal scenes = boring and a little repetitive. I also think there's so much more that could've been done with the time travel concept, lots of wasted potential. In fact a more interesting movie would've been one about the detective that got lost in time. Though I do like the theme of nostalgia not always being a good thing but it could've been handled better.And the cast was pretty good, no complaints there. I want to see Corey Stoll in more films after this.

Edited November 13, 2011 by CoolioD1

[Travod]

Wow, great movie. I hope it gets a screenplay nomination at least.

[IndustriousAngel]

Charming, intelligent, but also pointless. Still, recommended for Paris-lovers (like me).

[Goffe]

I don't like art movies, isn't my kind of movie, but I gave a chance for this....I only say one thing, was the first and last movie of Woody Allen that I watchatrocious movie, with a protagonist totally uncharismatic and boring (his fiancee is much more charismatic), and the parts about literature and art I was completely lost, not my kind of movie. the only good thing is the art direction wich is superb and Rachel Mcadams always brilliant.F1.5 10

Edited March 16, 2012 by Goffe

[RichWS]

I'm as big a Woody fan as you'll find, but I can't believe he won Screenplay for this.

[FTF]

I don't like art movies, isn't my kind of movie, but I gave a chance for this....I only say one thing, was the first and last movie of Woody Allen that I watchatrocious movie, with a protagonist totally uncharismatic and boring (his fiancee is much more charismatic), and the parts about literature and art I was completely lost, not my kind of movie. the only good thing is the art direction wich is superb and Rachel Mcadams always brilliant.F1.5 10

lol...our fine education system at work right here. (I'm half joking though as I'm guessing English isn't your first language) Edited March 17, 2012 by FTF

[AniNate]

"at it work"? I guess it must not be yours either

The first twenty minutes of this film are annoying, but once Gil goes back in time it really grabbed me.

B+

Edited March 17, 2012 by tribefan695

[FTF]

Haha that's too ironic (especially since I usually re-read my posts a few times before hitting the add button). But I also meant more the literature and art references flying over his head.I agree with you about it taking a little while to get going but I really loved this movie (too). It's in my top 5 of the year, but that may be more a result of 2011 being, what I consider, a down year for movies quality wise.

Edited March 17, 2012 by FTF

[A Marvel Fanboy]

b+

[acsc1312]

Liked it much more during a second viewing at home. The beginning was tedious in theaters, but was much more effective the second time. What I love about Woody's movies is that once he gets to the point, it plays out right away and doesn't drag on. His movies never seem like they are only an hour and a half (in a good way), because they aren't drawn out forever.A

[baumer]

Perhaps my favourite Allen film.9/10

[Noctis]

I thought it became pretty terrible once he went back in time and met all those writers. Nothing very compelling really happened, which made the film feel even more bloated than it was.

D

[glassfairy]

A-. I loved it but after a while Owen's voice really started to bug me and I couldn't enjoy the movie as much. And the less said about Rachel's character the better but other than that the movie was perfect imo.

[rb02]

I don't like art movies, isn't my kind of movie, but I gave a chance for this....I only say one thing, was the first and last movie of Woody Allen that I watchatrocious movie, with a protagonist totally uncharismatic and boring (his fiancee is much more charismatic), and the parts about literature and art I was completely lost, not my kind of movie. the only good thing is the art direction wich is superb and Rachel Mcadams always brilliant.F1.5 10

It wasn't an art movie. It actually had an ending; it actually made sense within its own set of parameters; and it actually entertained. Art movies rarely manage any of the preceding.As for my opinion, I watched it and immediately put about 15 Allen movies on my Netflix. It had years since I had seen any of his movies but this reminded me of why I like them so much. It certainly didn't hurt that Paris is one of my favorite places ever. I'd give it a solid A.

[Webslinger]

Light, but so infectiously entertaining. The ensemble is terrific across the board, the sea of literary references is highly amusing (I'm an English major, so it goes with the territory, I guess), and it's Woody Allen's sharpest effort as a writer and director since Match Point. A smile came across my face right after the collection of shots of Paris began (so gorgeous!) and didn't leave until the credits started 90 minutes later.

A-

And seconded on the praise for Corey Stoll. I cracked up throughout his screen time, especially considering that some students I was working with when I saw the film in July were reading Hemingway at the time, so his ideas and writing style were fresh in my mind.

[Jack Nevada]

I have seen Midnight in Paris five times, and it's just as wonderful every time.

This was my #1 film of 2011, as its entertaining, beautiful, funny, clever, well-written and it has a great atmosphere.

I cant really praise this movie enough. Its a rare film where everything, except for maybe two or three awkward lines dialogue, just works. Its a proper feel-good movie, but it never feels sugary. It also could have been really pretentious, since it has so many cultural references and cameos from figures of literature, poetry and other aspects of art. Fortunately it stays easily accessible throughout the whole thing.

Visually MiP is top notch. The costumes, set design and most of all the gorgeous cinematography make this one of the most really, really, really ridicilously good looking films I've seen.

10/10

[fishstick]

How was Hiddleston`s cameo?

[Jack Nevada]

How was Hiddleston`s cameo?

He was very charismatic

[fishstick]

:wub: :wub: