2/5 Three stars if you like Woody Allen movies or tend to romanticize NYC, otherwise, two stars compared to other films
  by the fine reverend besotted
So, Woody (here known as Isaac) was married to a younger woman, played by Meryl Streep, who decides she is a lesbian after having a son with Woody. The Streep character is writing a book about her marriage to Woody, who works as a writer on a TV comedy show. That's the backstory. Obviously, written to put the Woody character in a sympathetic light since Woody, as always, plays the loveable loser who the Universe is out to get via "death by paper cuts".

The actual story, however, is not nearly as interesting as the backstory. It revolves around Woody hanging out with his best friend and complaining about women and the fact that their romanticized view of life as young adults does not "hold water" to the reality which is life.

As an extension of this malaise, the best friend is having an affair with a woman played by Diane Keaton even though the best friend is happily married. Why he finds the Keaton character so attractive that he is willing to put his twenty year marriage at risk is impossible to fathom since she is portrayed as self-satisfied and assured to the point where she is absolutely convinced she is always right. Apparently, if you have a mature relationship, brashness is refreshing.

The Keaton character's one "endearing" affectation is that, while being a paragon of New York self-love, she continually tries to claim sensibility by declaring she is originally from Philadelphia. Apparently, Keaton's character believes that New Yorkers are given to sensationalizing themselves. The irony, of course, is that the Keaton character is a common lady, albeit bright, living a common life. Consequently, her own self-importance is not sensible but sensationalized.

Meanwhile, Woody is screwing Tracy, a seventeen year old played by Mariel Hemingway. The Tracy character is basically a two-dimensional ideal who has nothing meaningful to say within the film but "lives" to act as an apparent contrast to the "adults" played by Woody, Keaton, and the best friend. Whereas, they are "sophisticated", "jaded", and "selfish" due to the dog-eat-dog world of the big city, Tracy is "simple", "pure", and "selfless" - a ripe seventeen year old with the wisdom of a seventy year old.

And so, we enter Woody's fantasyland: a world in which adults act like self-involved teenagers and teenagers act like selfless grandparents.

When the best friend decides he should not be cheating on his wife, he suggests Woody date the Diane Keaton character. Woody, in a rare show of morality, decides a 40 year old man screwing a high school senior may be wrong. Consequently, he accepts his friend's suggestion and, after tossing Tracy aside, he and Keaton begin seeing each other.

Only to have her dump him when the best friend decides to throw his marriage away because he can't do without Diane Keaton and, as it would be, Diane Keaton's character cannot do without the friend.

So, does Woody get angry at the friend or Keaton as would any normal person? Of course not, he does his "sad sack" routine, playing up how unfair the Universe is to him. Instead of the expected anger, Woody has an "epiphany" during which he realizes he loves Tracy (Hemingway) - even though he dumped her months before. Apparently, her simple devotion and their uncomplicated carnal couplings are suddenly seen to be abiding love.

So, Woody runs over to her apartment building - apparently, running conveys he really likes her and, therefore, it must be love rather than self-pity since New Yorkers don't run, they take taxis.

Only to find she is leaving for school in London.

Never one to be anything other than selfish, Woody tries to convince Tracy that shacking up with a 40+ year old man is "way cooler" than getting a real life by going to London. In the first glimmer of sensibility in her life, Tracy sweetly but firmly tells Woody she is going.

Woody wanly smiles and the film fades out.

This bare review of the plot shows the main problem with this film. There is little to it and what there is, is tripe dressed up as more.

First, the whole backstory and most of the events during the actual story, such as Woody quitting his job and moving into a new apartment, don't serve any other purpose than to portray Woody as, you got it, a "lovable loser".

Why the Streep character becomes a lesbian or why a book about her marriage to Woody is in demand is never explained. As such, these are simple plot devices to imply Woody's character continually gets the "short straw" in life.

Second, it is de facto in Woodyland that this seventeen year old "loves" the Woody character. Why is never explained. How they got to together or what attracted each to the other is never developed. Ignoring the statutory rape issue, it remains that they don't seem to talk about anything nor to be "in love". They're two friendly people simply having sex. Yes, he's kind to her, but is that enough to support the "love" Woody expects the audience to believe by the end of the film? For that matter, why is an attractive, fairly emotionally healthy seventeen year old in a relationship with this older man?

Third, it is de facto in Woodyworld that middle age adults are indifferent to the presence of a teenager hanging out with them. Woody, Tracy, his best friend, and the best friend's wife continually have couple dates. The three adults are all in their forties. They are all "sophisticated" persons who love spewing their views and opinions. Tracy just sits there nodding her head sweetly. Despite this lack of commonality, all the adults accept Tracy as their equal, even though she basically acts as would a seventeen year old daughter amongst her father and his friends.
Similarly in Woodyworld, his friend and the friend's wife have no opinion, let alone concern that Woody is screwing a high schooler.

And it never gets better for the Tracy character. She is given no breadth or human dimension. The character simply serves in the most obvious way as a counterpoint to the adults. She is the wise, self-centered and balanced Madonna amongst the childish, me-first, self-pitying forty year olds. Yes, I realize that Allen is jewish, yet the Tracy character is based on the Virgin Mary archetype, too good and unconditionally loving to actually exist other than in myth. As stated before, in Woodyland, it's the kids who are mature and the adults who are immature.

So, the movie's entertainment value is based upon finding it humorous to see a bunch of middle aged people mess up their lives and put their own interests in front of their loved ones, a grim worldview which is "happily" saved by Woody being redeemed when he rejects the petty selfishness of the adult world and accepts as ideal the unsophisticated "love" of a seventeen year old who has no life experience to distinguish between love and infatuation.

I am not as smart as Woody Allen. Consequently, I have to believe Woody Allen knew the Tracy character and her "noble love" was not realistic and that his ending was b.s. - he just couldn't come up with a better one.

For Woody Allen fans, there is the typical Woody character, a guy who continually whines at the Universe for always making him the victim since, even though he selfishly puts his own interests first, he is a "good guy" since the other characters are also putting their own interests first and, at least, Woody feels "guilty" for continually screwing over his loved ones.

In simpler terms, Allen's "humor" is based upon the argument that one does not have to follow the Golden Rule common to all of the world's moral systems, if one is willing to "feel guilt" and, thereby, "punish" oneself for gaining from greed and selfishness.

This argument is false for me since Allen is not actual "feeling guilt", since he does not change his ways, but is using self-deprecation to gain sympathy so he can continue in his selfish ways. Allen is masterful at using "character ticks" (namely, his continual whining tone), plot devices, and backstory to portray himself as the victim of life, however, his characters usually are winners at life once you take away all this affectation. It may be a clever act, however, it is more pathetic than profound. However, to each his tastes.

For New York fans, the cinematography is beautiful. The film is in black and white, which was probably chosen to make it otherworldy and, thereby, a fantasy. People don't question fantasies and, therefore, most reviewers blithely ignore the absurdity of the Isaac/Tracy relationship. Be that as it may, the black and white filming does make Manhattan look much prettier than it does in actuality.

As to Manhattan, you either see something "special" about NYC or you see it as another city. I don't tend to romanticize places and, therefore, it's just another city to me. However, if you like pretending a bunch of buildings have personality or enjoy that self-satisfied "moxy" which the typical New Yorker continually assures you that he and his brethren share, then the movie should give you a warm feeling since it is set in NYC and claims to show just how "sophisticated" a New Yorker can be.

Of course, "sophisticated" is relative. In this movie, it means a bunch of self-assured individuals saying clever and pithy things about ... nothing.

Ah yes, but it's sophisticated nothingness!




5/5 Piano Music During DVD Menu
  by Pen Name
I have always loved this film, but this isn't really a review. I just want to know: Does anybody know who performs the jazz solo piano piece that plays during the DVD main menu? Is it Dick Hyman perhaps? And is that track available anywhere on CD or iTunes or Amazon MP3 download? It's a beautiful track, but it's not on the Manhattan soundtrack, and I WANT IT!

4/5 The Big Apple
  by David Schweizer (Kansas, USA)
This film was once described to me by a friend as the greatest film ever made. I hadn't seen it at the time but I figured something was terribly wrong with my friend. I have now seen it three or four times, last night being my most recent complete viewing. I not only don't think it is the greatest film ever made, I don't even think it even ranks as Woody's best. It is, however, a most pleasurable film. It is small, delicate, soft, and intelligent. It sports a very good performance by Woody himself, who is often uninteresting on screen. Streep is stunning, surely one of the most beautiful actresses of her day. Hemingway is unimpressive. Keaton stands out, giving a far more nuanced performance than in her more famous "Annie Hall." All in all, the acting is very good. We see here again that Woody stands out as one of the best directors of actors in the business. The film overall is not very deep; it is social comedy, well-done, in a loose-fitting script that works with the narrator, but lacks dramatic shape.Woody was just getting started here, preparing for far more interesting works such as "Crimes and Misdemeanors." It is fun to see such fine work; we are left to wonder what has happened to the American film industry.

3/5 Not the best
  by T (NC)
This was definitely not the best of Allen's movies in my opinion. As always, dialog and acting were superb. Movie was funny and witty. However I finished watching it asking myself (again - see "Vicky Christina Barselona") - so what happened, what's the point? Plus, although I really liked Tracey's character, I found the whole affair of a 42-year-old man dating and sleeping with a 17-year-old school-girl creepy and borderline repulsive.

3/5 An Early Hint?
  by Cary B. Barad (Baltimore, MD)
Quite a few belly laughs and an excellent satire of pseudo-intellectual pretentiousness. Nonetheless, it was not pleasant seeing Woody playing a 42-year old man sleeping with a 17 year old girlfriend. And no one in the film sees anything wrong with it. I guess I'm not the first to notice that this film seemed to presage many odd things in his life.