A Rainy Day in New York (2020)

Film: A Rainy Day in New York (2020)

Stars: Timothee Chalamet, Elle Fanning, Selena Gomez, Jude Law, Diego Luna, Liev Schreiber

Director: Woody Allen

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

A Rainy Day in New York is one of those films that cannot possibly live up to the scuttlebutt around it.  For those who were living under a rock at the time (or just don't regularly read Variety), this was the film that Amazon refused to release after critics of Woody Allen started to publicly deride the company & the film's stars for working with the director due to the allegations levied at him by his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow.  Stars of the film like Timothee Chalamet & Selena Gomez publicly donated their salaries to the Time's Up movement, while the film's other stars Jude Law & Cherry Jones stated that they were not comfortable with the public criticisms of Allen & Amazon's willingness to pull the film due to public opinion surrounding the director.  At the time it wasn't clear if anyone would ever see the movie in America, even as it was released in Europe (Allen even sued Amazon for breach-of-contract, which was settled out-of-court).

Two years later, however, it seems that Amazon is willing to take some risks with the film, and thus a two-year-old movies becomes one of our last minute run of 2020 films as I catch up on movies heading into my Top 10 lists (which I'll release around the 23rd).  Allen has since made another movie (Rifkin's Festival), which has not received an American release date yet, and Amazon, despite basically giving up the film, now has the movie available for rental on its Prime platform.  I'm not going to get into the morality of watching a Woody Allen film; we've talked about that many times on this blog before, and so if you look back you can find my thoughts on it, but this stars a number of people I enjoy (and I do, despite having reservations about Allen as a moral figure, love his movies), so I decided to catch it last weekend & intentionally watched it on Prime for the sheer "eye roll" of it suddenly deciding it was okay to air the film.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie focuses on a New York City weekend getaway to New York between Gatsby Welles (Chalamet), the son of Upper East side money, and his girlfriend Ashleigh (Fanning), who is the daughter of a wealthy banking family from Arizona.  Gatsby is young & pretentious, while Ashleigh is a bit air-headed but beautiful (and wants to be a journalist).  She is brought to NYC to interview a director Roland Pollard (Schreiber), who takes a fancy to her, and eventually she's being courted around by Pollard's screenwriter Ted (Law) and his leading man Francisco Vega (Luna), with the latter also pursuing her romantically; they nearly sleep together before they're interrupted by his girlfriend.  While this is all happening, Gatsby meets up with the younger sister of an old girlfriend named Chan (Gomez), with whom his anxious intellectual is better suited.  The film finishes with them together, the rare Woody Allen movie that has a full, pretty uncomplicated romantic ending.

Like I said, I generally love Woody Allen's movies-they're always so cinematic, and seem to weave together into a similar, consistent tapestry.  But I'm also not oblivious to him making bad movies (some of his later work has a stench about it even if I can appreciate elements), and initially I thought Chalamet was a terrible choice for the "Woody surrogate."  He is far too young, cool, and well, sexy, to ever draw an obvious comparison to Allen, but Chalamet eventually grows into the role.  He's made to spout dialogue that any normal 22-year-old would know, but Chalamet isn't a normal 22-year-old, and it works as the movie goes.  He has an oddly jarring chemistry with Gomez (again, another actor that feels a bit too hip to be in a Woody Allen movie but who yet finds her groove) which feels off-kilter but eventually comes together.  A Rainy Day in New York eventually becomes a good, if not great, entry in Woody's filmography.

The biggest flaw in the film is Fanning.  To be fair, this part is impossible to play well.  The filmmakers never let on just how smart (or dumb, if you're a pessimist) Ashleigh is intended to be-you get the sense at moments that she understands that she can make grown men lose their cool on-purpose just because she's so pretty...but she doesn't land a critical role & if you didn't like the movie, I'm guessing it's because of this part.  I remember reading at the time that Allen was intentionally angering his critics by having a young woman (Fanning would've been twenty or so when this was initially supposed to come out), flirting with a much older director, but Schreiber's role is pretty small, and he's nothing like Allen so I think this was more a coincidence (or something you'd see a lot of in Allen's filmography-beautiful women frequently fall in love with older, insecure guys).

I'd be remiss if I didn't quickly mention the movie's best element-Vittorio Storaro's cinematography.  In a year gasping for first-rate camerawork, this movie has it.  He washes the stars & sets in a golden light, playing with shadows & candles in a way that almost feels like certain scenes are painted.  In a different era, Storaro would've been nominated for an Oscar for both this and his even better work in Wonder Wheel, but there's no way the Academy is touching a Woody Allen movie with a ten-foot pole in the modern era.  But it had to be said-this is one of the most luminous films you'll see in terms of sheer cinematography prowess this year.

Ranting On...Ronan Farrow

Ronan Farrow

Ronan Farrow's recent interview in The Guardian is one of the more interesting things I've been able to read in recent weeks, and honestly it took me a bit after reading it to understand why.  Farrow is having a moment right now, coming off of a Pulitzer Prize win for his work in The New Yorker looking into the allegations of Harvey Weinstein, and more recently for his piece on former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.  Exceedingly polished in interviews, poised and almost constantly unflappable and witty, Farrow has become a poster boy for progressive millennials.  With the face of a movie star (though exactly which movie stars, it's still a question mark), and an impossibly pedigreed Ivy League education, Farrow is smart, capable, and consistently comes across as a crusader for those exploited by men in positions of power.  But the Guardian piece points to a problem in Farrow's journalism, one that no one seems to want to talk about because of the good that it's doing, but is there just the same.

Farrow's fame, while obviously blossoming from his journalism and career at MSNBC, admittedly still resides from who his parents are: film legends Woody Allen and Mia Farrow.  The only biological child from the couple's long romantic relationship, Farrow's celebrity was likely cemented the second the couple split up in one of Hollywood's biggest scandals from the past thirty years.  Allen had been involved with Farrow's daughter Soon-Yi Previn, and while Allen & Farrow were not married at the time (and Previn/Allen were not biologically or legally related), pretty much everyone involved (including yours truly), thinks it was a disgusting move.  The facts of this have never been denied-Allen & Previn clearly had a romantic relationship that eventually turned into a marriage in 1997.  This is not, for the most part, the scandal that the #MeToo movement focuses on when it comes to discussing Woody Allen, though.  That is the allegations made by Mia's daughter Dylan, that Allen molested her when she was 7-years-old.

I'm not a judge, jury, or legal expert here, and I'm also smart enough not to re-litigate this case, mostly because it's near impossible to do so on the internet anymore without it erupting in a screaming match.  I attempted to find genuine facts on the case by only sticking to news sources that I trust, and in perhaps the first time this has happened to me in researching an article, I ran into a "fake news" situation.  Literally conflicting, recent reports from Vox and Vanity Fair (both news sources I trust) make it difficult to point out the facts in this case.  Based on the evidence, one of the few things that can be confirmed from the case is that Allen lost custody of his children as a result of the allegations, and that no criminal charges were ultimately filed against Allen.  However, it's worth noting this is one of the few cases where the courts actually saw the situation in real-time.  Most of the allegations against other people (such as Bill Cosby), the statute of limitations had expired at the time of the case so the court of public opinion was the only option available to consumers of his work.

As I said, I don't want to necessarily discuss opinions on Woody Allen or Mia Farrow here.  Honestly, the evidence and messages surrounding the case are horrifying.  Either Dylan Farrow's stories are true, in which case Woody Allen should have gone to jail, or they weren't, and Mia Farrow coached her daughter to destroy her ex-lover's reputation.  Either way, Dylan Farrow is a victim in this situation and deserves our sympathy.  But what is true is that Ronan Farrow cannot be considered an objective reporter in this case.  Covering a father he clearly despises (with admittedly good reason), it frequently feels like he's trying to vindicate his mother through his reporting, oftentimes lumping Allen with Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby.  This isn't entirely accurate, though.  Allen's sole allegation of abuse actually saw the light-of-day in court, and charges were never filed despite there being ample opportunity to do so.  In many ways, it's difficult to imagine Farrow including Allen in his typical name check of sexual abusers in Hollywood without him, in fact, being his father.  As a result, it does create a bit of a gap in his credibility which is unfortunate, because he's doing such important work here.

It also makes me raise an eyebrow when a journalist actually calls him out on this, because in many ways Farrow's been having his cake and eating it too when it comes to including his father in the #MeToo movement.  He says that he hasn't called for a boycott of his father's films, which may be the case, but he has publicly criticized people celebrating his father's work, and members of his family have called for a public boycott of Allen's work, something he doesn't repudiate.  It feels to me that a journalist of his integrity should probably say that he can't be objective in this case considering his relationships with all of the figures involved, but Farrow doesn't feel capable of doing so.  In not acknowledging his clear bias, Farrow risks the larger merits of his work being sullied.  Woody Allen's day in the court of public opinion may well be deserved (and in many ways, has already been dealt), but Ronan Farrow is an inappropriate choice for its byline.

Wonder Wheel (2017)

Film: Wonder Wheel (2017)
Stars: Kate Winslet, Justin Timberlake, Juno Temple, Jim Belushi
Director: Woody Allen
Oscar History: 2017 is the wrong year to try and get nominated for a Woody Allen movie.
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Every time one of Woody Allen's movies comes out, I struggle more-and-more with whether to see it, but I end up going anyway.  The reality is, that while Woody Allen offscreen is a louse and a jackass, his movies still number amongst my favorite pictures.  No director makes movies quite so cinematic, so attuned to the romantic ideas of a filmmaker creating a body of work in the vein of Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, and Stanley Kubrick.  And so, like clockwork, I hit every Woody Allen movie in theaters without fail, come rain or shine, good reviews or the paltry, the latter being where Wonder Wheel has largely fallen if you go by Rotten Tomatoes metric.

(Spoilers Ahead) This is typical Woody Allen, returning from any sort of European excursions he may have been on before and now settled squarely in Brooklyn, specifically the gaudy sounds of Coney Island.  The movie is about Ginny (Winslet), a waitress in a disappointing marriage to Humpty (Belushi), a carnival barker who is more interested in doting on his long-lost daughter Carolina (Temple) than in realizing that his wife is spiraling.  All of their lives are thrown asunder when Mickey (Timberlake), a lifeguard initially charms Ginny but then falls for Carolina, who is a marked woman after leaving her mobster boyfriend.  The film unfolds with Ginny trying in vain to sabotage Carolina's budding romance, all-the-while watching her real life fall apart in the same fashion as her fantasy one.

Like all of Woody's films, the movie doesn't so much have a start and finish as it does a beginning and a completion.  Allen's movies never have happy or sad endings, but just finales, and this is the case for Wonder Wheel.  The actual plot feels a bit weighed down and heavy (you see where most of the movie is coming a mile away), and the actual film itself is stifled by its leading man.  Timberlake serves as our Woody proxy (there's always a Woody proxy), which is absurd as the former pop star who has become identified with a sort of compensating masculinity in his public persona (compensating in the sense that he never feels at-home with his boy band roots and former teen idol status) couldn't be more opposite of Allen if he tried.

Timberlake's acting career has been a source of consternation for me as a filmgoer, as I'm actually fine with his music (though I think it seems pretty repetitive at this point), but I don't know that he's been worse in a major movie than he is here.  Timberlake has no understanding of Mickey.  He reads lines as if it's a success he memorized them, not getting into the persona of a lifeguard that dreams of becoming Eugene O'Neill.  One gets the sense that Timberlake has no idea that his character is a joke, someone who claims that he's smart because he knows the names of smart people, and you also get the sense that he's never actually read The Iceman Cometh or Hamlet even as he celebrates them within the confines of the movie.  It's a performance that feels like it's being performed by an aging Abercrombie cutout, and you also get the sense that perhaps Timberlake (only six years younger than Winslet in real life, whereas he's eight years senior to Temple) was far too old for this part, and looks kind of ridiculous espousing on women like a man of 20 when he's almost 40.

The movie, though, is nearly saved from its hackneyed plot and failed leading man by Kate Winslet and cinematographer Vittorio Storaro.  Winslet gets an underwritten part, but just nails it as a woman who cannot understand how her life got to where it is, and is clearly in the midst of an emotional breakdown of some sorts.  This isn't really in Winslet's obvious wheelhouse (there's no earth mother routine happening here, and she's hardly a manic-pixie-dream-girl), but it also shows what an immense talent she is that she finds the diamond in the rough of this character.  Ginny is unglued, but clearly the savviest figure in the film, and the emotional final ten minutes of Wonder Wheel nearly confuse you into thinking this was a good picture, as Winslet's character has a breakdown that recalls Vivien Leigh's in A Streetcar Named Desire.  Combined with Vittorio Storaro's sun-dappled mood lighting (has Coney Island ever looked more beautiful onscreen, and when was the last time you saw natural light so fabulously frame the face of an actress like Winslet?), the movie is impossible to dismiss as a trifle, even though Allen has made much better, and somehow Timberlake has never done worse.

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask) (1972)

Film: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask) (1972)
Stars: Woody Allen, John Carradine, Lynn Redgrave, Burt Reynolds, Tony Randell, Gene Wilder, Louise Lasser, Lou Jacobi
Director: Woody Allen
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

There is something completely cinematic about the work of Woody Allen.  I realized this as I watched the bunny-laden opening credits of one of his more abstract and out-there movies, Everything You Always... the other day when I was trying to make it through my FilmStruck queue.  Perhaps it's because I've grown up with his movies, or that Woody's films are an annual sojourn (he's one of the only filmmakers I will go to the cinema no matter what the reviews, plot, or actors are-I always catch his movies in theaters), but the way he structures them, never letting sequels or mandatory happy endings get in the way of his pictures.  Woody's movies, quite frankly, never really end-they just seem to start a new chapter as the closing credits start.  So it was bizarrely appropriate to see one of the great writers of the movies tackle what is essentially a series of short stories (about sex, naturally), in something I wouldn't have expected from Allen, but of course is a picture only he could have created.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie unfolds in seven unconnected chapters, all with questions about sex that "you were too afraid to ask."  As a result of this and its relatively brisk running time (88 minutes), the movie never stays with a particular sketch for very long, and it moves along rather quickly even in the vignettes that aren't quite as funny.

Like most such movies, there is a pacing and structural problem in that some of these stories are better than others, and as sexual mores have dramatically shifted since the 1970's, there are scenes that are a bit cringeworthy, or it's hard to tell whether say, the laissez faire attitude about a sexual act is actual ambiguity due to the time period or whether Allen is trying to strike a nerve with the audience.  The best example of this is a What's My Line-inspired panel where television personalities like Regis Philbin and Pamela Mason casually guess a man's sexual perversions, casually throwing out terms like "rapist" as if they're guessing he's a librarian.  I suspect that even in the 1970's this was meant to imply shock value, but it's a bit dated in hindsight, and was probably a lot edgier and more significant at the time that I'm able to give it credit for being.

Still, though, the movie's best vignettes are able to move passed this dated nature and are just flat-out hilarious.  Allen's fame for getting the perfect cast balance is on full-display in the final two sketches, by-far my favorites of the bunch.  The penultimate sequence is a Frankenstein-meets-The Blob parody, but instead of a traditional monster, we get a gigantic breast terrorizing the city.  Allen casts John Carradine as a mad scientist, glibly playing with Carradine's famed on-screen persona by having his character perform insane (and truly unnecessary) experiments on sexuality, then allowing the giant breast he creates roam the countryside.  It sounds weird, and it is, but it works marvelously.  The final sequence achieves a similar sort of perfect absurdity, with Burt Reynolds and Tony Randall playing mission control directors in a man's penis, trying to guide a guy to ejaculation while on a date; Woody Allen plays an apprehensive sperm in this scene, frequently wondering if it's worth sacrificing himself in hopes of fertilizing an egg.  It's classic Allen-style comedy, and a riot.

All-in-all, the movie worked for me.  There are sequences that aren't quite as good as others, and as you might suspect some of the feminist angles of a 40-year-old movie about sex aren't always as sharp as they should be, but part of me wishes that Allen had taken this sort of approach more often to his pictures, telling quick tales with an overriding theme.  If you've seen the picture (or read the book), please weigh in with your thoughts or what your favorite scenes are below!

Café Society (2016)

Film: Cafe Society (2016)
Stars: Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart, Steve Carell, Blake Lively, Jeannie Berlin, Parker Posey, Corey Stoll
Director: Woody Allen
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Years ago, I decided there were ten directors that I was going to see every film they ever made as a bit of a directors project.  Admittedly, I'm still working on all ten (does anyone else have a problem where they sign up for more projects than one human being can actually accomplish?), but one of them was Woody Allen, one of only four directors on the list who actually is still living and therefore continually adding to the list, so seeing Cafe Society was kind of a given for me.  I honestly don't even watch the trailers to Woody's films any more (which is strange because Allen is one of the only film directors around who still finds a way to be mysterious and not give away his secrets in the trailers) since I know I'm buying a ticket, and since I start cold, let's start cold for you too without any spoilers.

(Spoilers Ahead) Like most of Allen's pictures (perhaps all of them-I can't think of one that doesn't), we get our resident Woody Allen character, though in this case it's a proxy in the form of Jesse Eisenberg as Bobby Dorfman, a young Jewish man who is trying to find his way to fame and fortune in Hollywood, and has an in with his uncle Phil (Carell), a high-powered talent agent in the 1930's (yes, we're time-traveling, keep up).  While working there, he falls madly in love with Vonnie (Stewart), a beautiful secretary who once had dreams of becoming a starlet but now has settled for the quieter life, finding more solace in a quiet Mexican restaurant than the glamorous homes in Beverly Hills where Bobby has hopes of taking her.  The film progresses as we find out Vonnie has been having a love affair with Phil, and is also smitten with Bobby, and is forced to choose between the two.  Because this is an Allen picture, she ends up with Phil (Woody loves the bitter with the sweet), and both she and Bobby transform as a result.  Bobby ends up married to a glamorous model (Lively) and becomes a high-powered club owner in New York, while Vonnie gives in to the vapidness of California culture and becomes part of the moneyed class she once disparaged.

While the film ends with the two of them apart, both with partners who adore them but longing for perhaps something more, the movie itself is content to just end and not really commentate too harshly on the choices we make and how you either need to accept your decisions or spend life with a mountain of "what ifs."  The film itself has a strange and plodding subplot with Bobby's family involving the mob, and not even Corey Stoll (arguably the best part of the picture, but he's the best part of every picture) can make you care about it in comparison to the love story, and the subplot gets unnecessarily dark with Corey's character getting the electric chair off-screen for killing his sister's annoying neighbor.

Overall, the film is okay.  The love triangle somewhat works, and Stewart is now confident enough as an actress (she actually had to audition for the film, purportedly her first audition since Twilight) that she sells the glamour and sex appeal of her character without a lot of stoicism.  Her Oscar-nominated costars aren't nearly as good, however.  I honestly felt like Eisenberg vastly overplayed his character's obtuse intellectualism, drawing too much on a parody of Woody than on something organic for the screen.  Carell, who was so marvelous in The Office and Little Miss Sunshine but largely hasn't impressed me in recent work, fails to deliver.  His dialogue is fun (I loved the constant name-dropping, particularly since it's 1930's Hollywood so it's more Gloria Swanson and Joel McCrea and less Marilyn and John Wayne, so it isn't as done), but his character is obnoxious and it's never clear other than power what Vonnie sees in him, and he doesn't give us that.  Is she so lost that she just projects onto everyone, or does Carell undersell his character's appeal even when she's onscreen?  I tend to think the latter, and so I would say he's the biggest weak link in the picture.

Those are my thoughts on this short, but overall less-than-impressive entry in Woody's canon.  No one will confuse this with Annie Hall, or even Match Point or Blue Jasmine, but if you have seen it please let me know some opinions-what are your thoughts about the latest entry?  Who was your best-in-show (I'm torn between Stewart, Stoll, and the great one-liners of Jeannie Berlin)?  And do you think that Woody should have put up with the ego of Bruce Willis and kept him in the picture (I tend to vote yes-this feels like the sort of part that Willis, an underrated actor, could have brought something special toward)?  Share in the comments!

Irrational Man (2015)

Film: Irrational Man (2015)
Stars: Joaquin Phoenix, Emma Stone, Parker Posey, Jamie Blackley
Director: Woody Allen
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

There are very few people I see literally every film that they make.  For actors, basically if your name isn't Brad Pitt or Meryl Streep, I am not giving you a blank check.  Directors, however, I'm more likely to see all of their work, and this is particularly true of Woody Allen.  Based both on a tradition of seeing all of his films every year with a friend from college and having so many good memories of his films through my cinematic life, I trudge to Woody Allen movies without any regard for the reviews, who is starring, and really what the plot of the film is.  Like many Woody Allen fans, I cannot quit him and even when I dislike a movie, I'm thankful that at 79 he's still prolific enough to come out with a film each year.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film follows Abe Lucas (Phoenix), a washed-up philosophy professor who has something of a following within the academic community even though he is a drunk and a massive blowhard.  He descends on one of those small college towns where everything seems to revolve around the university and everything looks quaint but in a polished, Woody Allen-style way (everyone has books littered along their shelves and lives as if they're in Manhattan even though they're in the Midwest-there's no McDonald's drive-through here).  The film follows him as he befriends and later seduces a young Philosophy major Jill (Stone) while also romancing a bored housewife teacher Rita (Posey).  Like every Allen film, about halfway through the film we learn that there will be a twist, and here it's a doozy of one: Abe decides to kill a random stranger he is convinced is a bad judge.  Once he kills him, though, his attitude toward life changes (he is no longer depressed) and also cannot help but being loose-lipped about his actions.

The film is at its best when it's trying to comment on its characters, particularly Jill and Abe.  The film is interesting in that, for those familiar with Allen, it's hard to tell where the pretension ends and Woody is just mocking his characters rather than joining in with them.  Phoenix, gruff and sexy in a primal way, is not your typical Woody proxy, but does master Allen's script in terms of condescension.  There's so many scenes where he's playing oral masterbation with those around him, citing Simone de Beauvoir and Nietzsche, and name-checking basically every well-known 20th Century philosopher, if only to try and impress those around him who dare not question his ascertions for fear of being found a fool.  Stone is also strongest when she's clearly infatuated with him, constantly talking about Abe or finding ways to work him into conversations without ever actually engaging with him on an intellectual level.  She's a fourth-year student who is likely headed to Oxford the following year, and yet she soaks up all of his speeches and intellectual hypotheses without so much as a second thought.  If it weren't Allen who was writing this (who has a long history of writing strong parts for women), I'd be a little nervous about the sexist overtones, but I think he's just making a commentary on a certain type of student (regardless of gender) who forms an attachment on a professor that they cannot rationalize.

These little moments, though, don't add enough to make up for the film's serious flaws.  I understand now why Emma Stone was of so much interest to Woody Allen, particularly considering that she seems to be a hybrid of his two greatest muses (Diane Keaton and Mia Farrow), but either he has just been landing her in the wrong scripts or she doesn't fit with his directorial style, as this ends up being one of her worst onscreen outings.  While I will admit I ran counter to most when I said that she found a groove in Magic in the Moonlight (even though the age difference and chemistry between she and Firth was questionable), here I'm with the consensus-Stone is just plain boring and repetitive as Jill.  We have absolutely no sense of what she thinks, and for the end of the film to work, we need that.  Phoenix is better, but his character changes are too severe, and too manic-we have to rely on the silliness of the plot (that he actually thought he should randomly murder a man for the first time at 40, seemingly out-of-the-blue) rather than getting aided from the screenplay.  The story is easy to see through, as well, as we all know Woody well enough now that there's no Match Point-style twists here to really shock us.  All-in-all, it's something that you will smile through if you're a Woody aficionado, knowing the nods to longtime fans and to his collective filmography, but knowing that next year will hopefully be better.  For those that are apathetic or allergic to Allen, this is not going to help with the convincing.

Oscar Trivia: Can Angelina Jolie Make History?

It doesn't take a genius to realize that Angelina Jolie is a pioneer.  A movie star par excellence, she's a figure recognized the world over for her incredible commitment to humanitarian causes, her beauty and style, and of course her many contributions to the world of cinema.  This year, that includes only her third directorial achievement, following the documentary A Place in Time and her Golden Globe-nominated In the Land of Blood and Honey.  With this movie (Unbroken, for those of you who don't live night and day for the Oscars), she is positioning herself to potentially win the Best Director prize at the Oscars, becoming the first woman to be nominated for both acting and directing, and the second woman potentially to win an Oscar for Best Director after Kathryn Bigelow a few years back.

Note above that I said first woman nominated for acting and directing, because Jolie, ever the trendsetter, were she to win the Best Director prize, would become the first person to ever win Oscars for both directing and acting (she won in 1999 for Best Supporting Actress in Girl, Interrupted).  While there are actors who have won for producing and acting (Michael Douglas comes to mind) and writing and acting (Emma Thompson comes to mind), no person has ever won both an acting Oscar and a directing Oscar.  This could change this year, and in honor of Ms. Jolie and her potential achievement, I thought it would be worth going through the thirteen men who have tried before her and failed.  Below I'll list the thirteen multi-hyphenate entertainers who have enjoyed nominations for both acting and directing (in chronological order of hitting this distinction).

Honorable Mentions: Before we begin, it's worth noting that there are a number of famous actors who have been nominated for Oscars for performances that also direct, amongst them (and this is completely off the top of my head) Barbra Streisand, Jodie Foster, Charlie Chaplin, Charles Laughton, and Dennis Hopper.  On the flip side are a number of actors that have been nominated for directing but never for acting, including Sydney Pollack, Mel Gibson, Sofia Coppola, Richard Attenborough, and Ron Howard.  And then of course there's the bizarre case of Ben Affleck, who is most known as an actor-director, and yet has been nominated for neither and still won two Oscars (for producing and writing).

1. Lionel Barrymore (1878-1954)

Acting Nominations: A Free Soul (1931), for which he won.
Directing Nominations: Madame X (1929)
Other Nominations: Mr. Barrymore was only nominated for acting and directing.
A Random Bit of Trivia: Barrymore is most noted today for his work in It's a Wonderful Life as Mr. Potter, but was quite the Oscar enthusiast in other Best Picture nominees, and directed won of the most significant lost films of the 1930's, The Rogue Song.  The film features one of the only Oscar-nominated performances to be considered "lost," from famed Oscar singer Lawrence Tibbett. Barrymore's sister Ethel would go on to have a pretty robust career with AMPAS, winning an Oscar in 1944, but his brother John would have to settle for being "The Great Profile" rather than an Oscar nominee.  His grand niece Drew is still a major star and feels like she'll someday be nominated, but so far no luck.

2. Orson Welles (1915-1985)

Acting Nominations: Citizen Kane (1941)
Directing Nominations: Citizen Kane (1941)
Other Nominations: Welles received an Oscar nomination for writing Citizen Kane, lucking out and winning for this particular citation.  He also went on to win an Honorary Oscar in 1970 for career achievement.  Funny story-Welles claimed at the time that he was filming The Other Side of Wind (his still unfinished last directorial work), but in fact was in his home in Hollywood at the time.  John Huston, another actor-director, would pick up the trophy from the Academy and give it to Welles after the ceremony.
A Random Bit of Trivia: Welles spent most of his career as a director "in the wilderness," working outside of Hollywood.  He did, however manage to have a successful follow-up to Citizen Kane with The Magnificent Ambersons which won a Best Picture nomination and is heralded as one of the greatest films of all-time, though Welles was locked out of the editing room and so the public didn't get to see his intended vision of the classic Booth Tarkington novel.

3. Laurence Olivier (1907-1989)

Acting Nominations: A titan of acting, Olivier received ten nominations for acting in his career for Wuthering Heights (1939), Rebecca (1940), Henry V (1945), Hamlet (1948), Richard III (1955), The Entertainer (1960), Othello (1965), Sleuth (1972), Marathon Man (1976), and The Boys from Brazil (1978); he won for Hamlet
Directing Nominations: Olivier directed himself as the forlorn Danish prince in Hamlet and was Oscar-nominated for it.
Other Nominations: While he received no other nominations, Olivier did win two Honorary Oscars, one in 1945 specifically for writing, directing, and acting in Henry V, and then one in 1978 for his life achievement.
A Random Bit of Trivia: Despite an assumption that I had made that Olivier was in control of most of his later projects, he only directed three of his Oscar-nominated works.  In addition to Henry V and Hamlet, Olivier also directed Richard III.  Olivier would actually only direct two more films after Richard III: The Prince and the Showgirl with Marilyn Monroe (chronicled in the Oscar-nominated My Week with Marilyn) and Three Sisters (where he directed his wife, Oscar-nominee Joan Plowright).

4.  John Huston (1906-1987)

Acting Nominations: One of the rare men on this list that is more known for directing than acting, Huston nonetheless had a brief career as an actor, most notably as the evil Noah Cross in Chinatown.  He was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Otto Preminger's The Cardinal (1963).
Directing Nominations: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948), The Asphalt Jungle (1950), The African Queen (1951), Moulin Rouge (1952), and late in his career Prizzi's Honor (1985).  He won for Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
Other Nominations: Mr. Huston was nominated for producing for Moulin Rouge and for writing Treasure of the Sierra Madre (which won him his other Oscar), The Asphalt Jungle, and The African Queen, as well as Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet (1940), Sergeant York (1941), The Maltese Falcon (1941), Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957), and The Man Who Would Be King (1975).
A Random Bit of Trivia: Huston is the only person to ever direct both a parent and a child to an Oscar.  His father Walter won the Best Supporting Actor trophy for The Treasure of the Sierra Madre while his daughter Anjelica won for Best Supporting Actress in Prizzi's Honor.

5. Woody Allen (1935-Present)

Acting Nominations: Woody received his sole acting nomination for 1977's Annie Hall.
Directing Nominations: Annie Hall (1977), Interiors (1978), Broadway Danny Rose (1984), Hannah and Her Sisters (1986), Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989), Bullets Over Broadway (1994), and Midnight in Paris (2011).  Mr. Allen won for Annie Hall.
Other Nominations: Allen's biggest claim to fame with Oscar is with his writing.  He received screenplay nominations for all of the films he was nominated for for directing, as well as Manhattan (1979), The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985), Radio Days (1988), Alice (1990), Husbands and Wives (1992), Mighty Aphrodite (1995), Deconstructing Harry (1997), Match Point (2006), and Blue Jasmine (2013).  He won for Annie Hall, Hannah, and Midnight in Paris.
A Random Bit of Trivia: In addition to being the most nominated screenwriter of all time (beating one of his heroes, Billy Wilder), Allen is a good luck charm for actors when it comes to Oscar-seventeen actors have been nominated for their work in his films (though bizarrely never Mia Farrow).

6. Warren Beatty (1937-Present)

Acting Nominations: Bonnie and Clyde (1967), Heaven Can Wait (1978), Reds (1981), and Bugsy (1991), making him one of those rare actors to have been nominated in four separate decades.
Directing Nominations: Heaven Can Wait (1978) and Reds (1981).  Mr. Beatty won for Reds.
Other Nominations: In addition to the Thalberg Award he won in 1999 (the same year his wife was starring in Best Picture winner American Beauty), Beatty has been nominated for producing Bonnie and Clyde, Heaven Can Wait, Reds, and Bugsy, as well as for writing Shampoo (1975), Heaven Can Wait, Reds, and Bulworth (1998).
A Random Bit of Trivia: Beatty kind of wrote the book on multi-hyphenate trivia.  He is one of only two actors to have been nominated for acting/directing in two separate movies (the other one is Number 10 on this list), and is the only person to be nominated for writing, directing, producing, and acting all for one film, twice (for Heaven Can Wait and Reds).  Beatty also has a bit of a history of turning down Oscar-nominated roles, including Rocky Balboa, Gorden Gekko, Richard Nixon (in Oliver Stone's Nixon), and Jack Horner in Boogie Nights.

7. Robert Redford (1936-Present)

Acting Nominations: Despite being a matinee idol for decades now, Mr. Redford has only received one acting nomination so far in his career, for 1973's The Sting.
Directing Nominations: Ordinary People (1980) and Quiz Show (1994); he won for Ordinary People
Other Nominations: Redford was also nominated for producing Quiz Show, and was given an Honorary Award in 2001 for his career, particularly for his role in conjunction with the Sundance Film Festival.
A Random Bit of Trivia: Despite the Sundance Film Festival being one of the great Meccas of independent filmmakers and the event featuring a host of future writing and acting nominees with AMPAS, only a handful of movies from the festival have competed for Best Picture: Little Miss Sunshine, Winter's Bone, The Kids Are All Right, and Beasts of the Southern Wild (none of them ended up winning).  However, if you want a guide to what documentaries will be nominated for the Oscar next year, just look at the Sundance lineup, as they almost always play there.

8. Kenneth Branagh (1960-Present)

Acting Nominations: Henry V (1989) and My Week with Marilyn (2011)
Directing Nominations: Henry V (1989)
Other Nominations: Sir Kenneth (he was knighted in 2012) has a bizarre history with AMPAS, having been nominated five times in five different categories (the only person ever to do that without doubling up...so far).  In addition to the above nominations, he was also nominated for Best Live Action Short Film for Swan Song and in an odd situation (considering it was exactly the same as the Shakespearean text and hardly adapted at all) Hamlet in 1996.
A Random Bit of Trivia: Branagh is the only person on this list to never have won an Academy Award.  All of Branagh's nominations relate either directly or tangentially to Laurence Olivier: Hamlet and Henry V were both roles that Olivier played earlier in his career to Oscar-nominated success, Swan Song stars Olivier's fiercest rival on the Shakespearean stage John Gielgud, and in My Week with Marilyn Branagh actually plays Olivier.  Perhaps to keep with the symmetry of one nomination per category he should make a documentary about Olivier and see if that can finally land him a trophy.

9. Kevin Costner (1955-Present)

Acting Nominations: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Directing Nominations: Dances with Wolves (1990), for which he won.
Other Nominations: Mr. Costner was also nominated for producing Dances with Wolves, which also won him an Oscar.
A Random Bit of Trivia: Costner is one of only two men on this list to get their nominations to warrant inclusion in this list for only one film.  Costner did star in Best Picture nominees both the year before and the year after Dances with Wolves, however: 1989's Field of Dreams and 1991's JFK (it might be hard to fathom now for younger audiences who only know him from random baseball films you see on cable, but Kevin Costner was once one of the biggest movie stars on the planet).  Also, despite the general apathy with which it was received by critics and the public, Waterworld is a part of the OVP (I've never seen it-it'll be something to look forward to), getting a nod for Sound Mixing.

10. Clint Eastwood (1930-Present)

Acting Nominations: Unforgiven (1992) and Million Dollar Baby (2004)
Directing Nominations: Unforgiven, Mystic River (2003), Million Dollar Baby, and Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)-he won for Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby
Other Nominations: Clint was also nominated for producing Unforgiven, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, and Letters from Iwo Jima, winning for Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby.  He won the Thalberg Award in 1994.
A Random Bit of Trivia: Clint had to temporarily host the 44th Academy Awards when his buddy Charlton Heston was stuck in traffic.  Eastwood, not a comedian by nature, was not good at improvising and the material that was written for Heston made no sense for him.  Eastwood swore he wouldn't return to the Oscars again unless he was nominated, and he stuck to his word, not showing up again until Unforgiven.

11. Roberto Benigni (1952-Present)

Acting Nominations: Life is Beautiful (1998), for which he won
Directing Nominations: Life is Beautiful
Other Nominations: Benigni was also nominated for writing Life is Beautiful, but lost.  The film did win Best Foreign Language film, but since that honor technically goes to the country rather than the director Benigni's technical Oscar count stands at one even though you saw him win two (I have always felt this was a stupid rule, and think all directors of Foreign Language film nominees and winners should get to use their Oscar-nominated and Oscar-winning titles).
A Random Bit of Trivia: Both he and Kevin Costner are the only men on this list to get all of their Oscar nominations out of one film.  Coincidentally, they share a far more dubious honor: they're the only two men to have directed themselves to Oscar nominations AND Razzie Awards (Costner for The Postman and Benigni for Pinocchio).

12. Tim Robbins (1958-Present)

Acting Nominations: Mystic River (2003), for which he won Best Supporting Actor
Directing Nominations: Dead Man Walking (1995), one of those extremely rare films that gets nominated for both lead performances, directing, and writing and doesn't get a Best Picture nomination.  Oddly enough, Leaving Las Vegas in the same year managed to do the same thing.  Also, Robbins ended up losing to a fellow actor in Mel Gibson, one of the very rare times where two actor/directors competed against each other at the Oscars.
Other Nominations: Robbins has had a long career with Oscar-nominated films, but those are his only two nominations to date.
A Random Bit of Trivia: Despite the men on this list being married to the likes of Vivien Leigh, Annette Bening, and Emma Thompson, Robbins is one of only two to have their longtime romantic partners win an Oscar for a role they directed, with Susan Sarandon in Dead Man Walking (the other was Woody with Diane Keaton in Annie Hall).  Clearly Brad Pitt should have waited until he had his trophy before he and Angelina got hitched.

13. George Clooney (1961-Present)

Acting Nominations: Syriana (2005), Michael Clayton (2007), Up in the Air (2009), and The Descendants (2011), with Clooney winning for Syriana
Directing Nominations: Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)
Other Nominations: Clooney was also nominated for writing Good Night, and Good Luck as well as The Ides of March (2011), and was nominated for producing Argo (2012), which won him his second Oscar.
A Random Bit of Trivia: I'll go with two for the quintessential movie star of our era.  First, he isn't the only Oscar winner in the family: his uncle was Jose Ferrer, Best Actor of 1950 for Cyrano de Bergerac.  Secondly, Clooney is the only person in Oscar history (to date) that has been nominated in six different categories: Best Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, and Adapted Screenplay.  $20 says he tries to get into one of the shorts categories before the decade is over.

And those are the thirteen gentlemen that Angelina Jolie could well be in the company of by January.  Do you think she'll do it?  Can she be the first to actually win the big prize?  And which of these men got the closest/should have sealed the deal?  Share in the comments!

OVP: Original Screenplay (2013)

OVP: Best Original Screenplay (2013)

The Nominees Were...

Eric Warren Singer and David O. Russell, American Hustle

Woody Allen, Blue Jasmine

Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack, Dallas Buyers Club

Spike Jonze, Her

Bob Nelson, Nebraska

My Thoughts: We move right on into the original screenplays, which like the adapted race was pretty darn Best Picture happy: four nominees, and one film that, with two acting nods and a citation here, surely was darn close to making the cut.

We're going to start with the film I was absolutely confident would actually win the trophy on Oscar night, American Hustle, mainly because it's that rare film that received double-digit nominations without actually taking the trophy.  American Hustle's ten nominations made it a frontrunner for Best Picture, but I'm still a bit flummoxed by where all of the love was for the film, particularly with the script.  The movie has its moments (principally anytime that Cooper or Lawrence are onscreen), but the script is a jumbled mess.  The film has severe tonal issues with its lead characters (if they're conning the audience, which I suspect they are trying to go for, they need to make it a teensy bit more blatant as the "constantly acting" reveal isn't compelling enough).  There's also too many problems with the different switches and cutaways, and the motives of the characters (it's hard to fathom that Bradley Cooper's character could be so stupid and yet occasionally so maniacally brilliant, for one thing).  Overall, I think this was mixed at best, and certainly not worthy of this category.

I would say the same thing about Dallas Buyers Club, a film that at least knows its goals (more than can be said for American Hustle), but the motives of this movie still frustrate the hell out of me.  For starters, I'm still perplexed that Woodruff is supposed to draw sympathy to certain aspects of his character.  I genuinely feel bad that, regardless of his deep personality flaws, he had to suffer and die from such a horrible disease as AIDS (no one deserves that), but I don't like the idea that the writers of this film hint at, which is that he deserved our praise for becoming a tolerant human being toward the end of this picture.  The movie equates Woodruff's death and coming-of-age as a strong thing, and it is, but I have such trouble feeling for a man who would never have joined the AIDS-rights movement were he not a victim of the disease.  Combine the perplexing sympathies the writers give to Woodruff with the horribly underwritten characters played by Jared Leto and Jennifer Garner, and you have one of my least favorite Best Picture nominees in a long time.

Since we're running through the scripts I didn't like, we might as well finish the trifecta and hit Nebraska.  I'd say part of this was not having Alexander Payne behind the keyboard, but let's be honest here: the films of Alexander Payne have been a "diminishing returns" situation for a decade now.  The script here occasionally has something interesting to say-when it's at its best, it's dissecting the minutia of everyday life, and the way that in life we have so few significant, true moments with other people that aren't in our immediate family that we let resentment and grudges build, bowling over when the going gets rough.  I also loved some of the moments where it was clear that Woody and Kate's relationship had clearly been a bust, but these two stuck it out because that was what you were supposed to do, and you don't get to rerun the past (territory that perhaps the next Jesse-and-Celine film will start to uncover?).

That being said, the entire plot is predicated on the townspeople believing Woody over his rational son David, and that's not believable.  Everyone can see that Woody is starting to go mentally, and the idea that anyone wouldn't believe his son is ridiculous, and quite frankly insulting to the Midwesterners that Nelson is examining (no one is that obtuse).  I also loathed the ending of the film, with Woody strutting through town, teaching everyone a lesson (we all saw that coming), or in particular the kiss from Kate to Woody, considering that we have just watched an entire film of these people not only disliking each other, but showing that they hated each other for years.  This wasn't a marriage where they fought-but-loved-each-other, or where a widow suddenly makes her marriage into a perfect fantasy and her husband into a saint (Woody's not dead yet, and Kate's certainly not there), but just a schmaltzy "feel-good" moment that felt completely out-of-place and pointless.

So let's now get to better movies, like Her.  Here is a movie that is not only ripe with strong dialogue and conversation, but also fulfills the promise of its ideas.  The other three films occasionally pose interesting questions, but they aren't intent on answering them in a fulfilling way.  Her, on the other hand, frequently puts thoughts and ideas into the audience and at least aids the discussion.  I am still madly in love with what may be the best scene in the movie, the date between Joaquin Phoenix's Theodore and Olivia Wilde's Amelia.  Most other writers would have given us some sort of damning reason for Theodore to dump her before the end of the date, making it all the more reasonable that he continues to pursue the perfect and unattainable Samantha.  And yet Jonze realizes that there's a fault in Theodore-he does, in fact, want what he can't have and wants a perfect relationship, so he lets Amelia, a woman he could genuinely have a real-life future with, go in favor of a dream relationship with a computer.

These are the sorts of questions he asks in this film-not just what happens when love isn't what society wants from us, but also are we to blame when our relationships don't go the way they should?  Those perfect drops of reality in the midst of a storybook relationship are really wonderful touches by Jonze (I also liked the way that Rooney Mara's ex-wife sort of proves her point late in the film by showing that it was Theodore's fault that they got divorced, not hers, despite her being bitter about it), and I loved the ambiguity of the ending.  This is a screenplay worthy of its nomination.

Compared with most of these nominations, Blue Jasmine feels totally warranted in its inclusion.  It's certainly better than the first three pictures that I profiled, but even Blue Jasmine has some problems that I wouldn't say are typical of a (celebrated) Woody Allen picture.  For starters, it's not remotely believable that these two women were raised by the same parents, or in the same house, regardless of them both being adopted.  I loved everything about Blanchett's Jasmine-she's such a larger-than-life character that still manages to be totally believable (you know there are women just like her up and down Park Avenue), and that ending is a frightening gut punch that ranks right up there with a horror movie (except it's twice as realistic and therefore far more terrifying), but the plot is too inconsistent to truly be celebrated, and as a result, this film looks better by mildly succeeding while the other films failed.

Other Precursor Contenders: As I mentioned before, the Globes don't break out their screenplays between adapted and original, and so we are left with nominations for Her (the eventual victor), American Hustle, and Nebraska but no other wins.  The BAFTA Awards went with a pretty Oscar-centric lineup, just cutting Her oddly enough in favor of Inside Llewyn Davis (American Hustle ended up winning).  And, in a rare twist for them, the WGA Awards went with a carbon copy of the Oscars (usually someone is declared ineligible, causing a problem), with Her also winning there.

Films I Would Have Nominated: Let's throw out all but Her, because you know that's what I want to do, and start from scratch.  To be perfectly honest, I don't really believe that Before Midnight is adapted, and would probably have given it a spot here instead.  I would definitely have included the Coen Brothers wonderfully somber Inside Llewyn Davis (I'm stunned that they didn't get nominated, and so saddened after what eventually happened with this category).  Closing out the category would be two films that had a lot of interesting things to say even if they weren't perfect pictures: Enough Said and Frances Ha, both wonderfully complicated scripts and pictures, and ones that deserved more attention from Oscar.

Oscar’s Choice: Oscar surprisingly skipped American Hustle and Nebraska to make the correct choice with the dreamy Her.

My Choice: I'm obviously going to match with Oscar here (it's rare I get this incensed over so many undeserved nominations-hopefully I'm a bit kinder when we explore Supporting Actor next), with Blue Jasmine, American Hustle, Nebraska, and Dallas Buyers Club pretty far behind.

Those are my thoughts-what about you?  Are you with both the Academy and myself that Her was definitely at the top of the heap?  Or do you think that one of the other nominees like American Hustle or Nebraska should have been crowned?  Why were the Coen Brothers shunned in a category they have dominated for years?  And which film had the best original screenplay of 2013?  Share in the comments!

Also in 2013: Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score,  Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2013

Past Best Original Screenplay Contests: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

Magic in the Moonlight (2014)

Film: Magic in the Moonlight (2014)

Stars: Emma Stone, Colin Firth, Hamish Linklater, Marcia Gay Harden, Jacki Weaver, Eileen Atkins, Simon McBurney

Director: Woody Allen

Oscar History: No Nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Like taxes and Christmas, a new Woody Allen movie comes out once a year, and much like those two things, I indulge every year regardless of my level of excitement.  This year, I will admit, I wasn’t quite feeling it.  Quite frankly, the public would be forgiven for being a little Woody fatigued from the many (MANY) stories earlier this year between Allen and Mia Farrow.  That being said, I'm a devoted fan of his films at least through good times and bad, and even with a sense of malaise in the reviews to this film, I decided to head out to the movie.

(Spoilers Ahead) I will admit, though, that I was pleasantly surprised by the eventual outcome.  The film, while never as classically constructed as Annie Hall or as biting in its social and character commentary as Blue Jasmine, is certainly charming and occasionally quite funny.  Set in the late 1920's, the film is about an egotistical illusionist named Stanley (Firth) who is widely celebrated on the stage and an absolute boor in real life.  His skills at unmasking psychic frauds is put to the test when he stays at a country estate of a wealthy family, and is stumped as to how their mystic Sophie (Stone) is seemingly able to know everything about Stanley, somehow defying all logic or sense by perhaps being a true clairvoyant.

The film continues from there as Stanley falls in love with Sophie, though his close-mindedness doesn't really allow for such a revelation until late in the film, even if the audience and even Sophie are aware of what is happening.  Because this is an Allen picture, there isn't a particularly large amount of time spent on the actual "I love you's" (he knows you get the idea), but instead about the pitfalls that happen when you try to meld two opposites.  Stanley abandons his self-assuredness ever briefly but never his severe lack of hubris (he remains, rigidly and completely the same person he was at the beginning of the film, if perhaps a little more open to the ideas of love).  Sophie, on the other hand, changes completely throughout the film, opening up a new world and realizing what her completely arbitrary approach to life is bringing her.

This comes across as a bit sexist, and I wouldn't recommend the film in this regard, but the performances by the two leads, Stone in particular, are quite excellent.  You wouldn't think that the handsome and affable Firth would make a good proxy for the Woody protagonist, but Firth (who has been on such a role as of late) is a wonderful fill-in and while never quite the neurotic that Woody is, clearly is illustrating his substitute part with homage to the director.  Stone is excellent-it's as if she was plucked out of the Thirties and is playing the film like she's a young Irene Dunne.  I love the way she switches from the "performer" to the real character and back again-it's proof that she's being wasted wholly in those Spider-Man movies, and is genuinely an actor who could add something to classic screwball and "talking" comedies.  Sadly, Woody's the only director who makes these styles of pictures anymore, but he at least had the good sense to cast her in his next movie as well.

The finale is a bit of a yawn, I must admit.  After an entire film where Stanley has stayed so rigid and Sophie has literally had to come to him, Woody gives us one of his rare happy endings, with Sophie choosing Stanley despite the handsome young Brice (Linklater) being the smarter on-paper choice (and possibly the smarter choice period).  I think this film would have benefited greatly from a little more discretion from Woody (having her sail off and Stanley left to wonder, much like Jasmine in his last picture, whether or not his decision to be right was worth the decision to be happy).  Either way, though, this is still a solid movie and worth your time, even if it might get a bit shuffled in Woody's overall filmography.

What were your thoughts on Magic in the Moonlight?  Where does it rank amongst Woody's films?  And what do you think of Emma Stone as his latest muse?  Share in the comments!