All my favorite critics LOVED this, yet it was one of the most boring films I've seen in years. I like old literary figures: that's not the problem. Every character, especially the historical figures, were gross caricatures. It's safe to say Woody Allen doesn't know or care much about these people, beyond their wikipedia entries. The story was dumb, and the dialogue was on the level of an original high school play.… Expand

I watched this movie because it was supposed to be one of the best of the year. What a disappointment. I have seen much better writing and acting in independent student productions. Other than proving that Paris is a beautiful city, I really think that this movie was rather pointless.

CAUTION: SMUG ALERT ON HIGH! I can't think of many other films with the pretension of this one. Watching it reminded me of the story, "The Emperor's New Clothes," if you don't like it, you're stupid (or so the hoighty-toighty would have you believe). Stories and conflicts go unresolved as the plainly miscast Owen Wilson stumbles and bumbles through a story with an interesting premise, but with more holes than Swiss cheese. The pretentious professor offers some laughs, but is severely under-developed. The characters are painfully one-dimensional and chug along through yuk-yuk uninformed and unfunny political and history jokes that you better laugh at, lest you be exposed as a conservative and/or unintellectual. One diamond in the rough is Marion Cotillard's performance, which pulls more than its fair share in this dreadful affair.… Expand

If you really like most all Woody Allen films, you will probably like this one. Considered as breezy entertainment, it is as you might expect better than most Hollywood fare, but that bar is not too high. Owen Wilson becomes boring as he is given few good lines, portraying a perpetually confused and boring person, and the occasional Woody Allen quip seems out of character for the goy Texas boy. Adrian Brody as Dali is by far the best, and I suspect it is because he did an improv on his role and everyone liked it, while the others are too submissive to Alen's uninspired direction. Perhaps the most disappointing feature is how un-emotive Paris is; how hard is it to miss when combining Paris and nostalgia? A big problem is that even the "real" characters are such extreme caricatures, you just can get too interested. I became bored by Allen's latest sleepwalking exercise.… Collapse

I thought I was going to love this movie, but I didn't. 45 minutes into it I was looking at the clock, pretty bored & trying to remember how many minutes long it was. The acting seemed forced, predictable & dull. Although the potential for a great movie was all right there, something big was missing & it flat lined.

Midnight in Paris is two films wrapped up into one and its all the worse for it. The scenes set in 1920's Paris with Owen Wilson's Gil interacting with famous writers, painters and artists such as Ernest Hemingway and Salvador Dali, are incredibly electric and fun (if not funny) but its juxtaposed with a thoroughly boring modern day tale of nostalgia vs looking to the future which just lets the whole film down. Gil only seems to be having fun when in the past which is funny because the moments in the past are the only fun ones in the movie. Rachel Mcadams who is usually a treat seems to be itching for something else to do, with her not seemingly understanding her character well enough. Finally the film doesn't seem to know where its heading with it seeming to know it wants to critique something but then changing its mind on what it wants to critique. It would be a much more rounded film if the narrative wasn't split so much and if Allen knew what he wanted to say as a director or as this film seems to suggest, an artist.… Expand

This is the worst movie I've ever seen. It's another boring indie flick for hipsters about spoiled rich people who are stupid and hallucinating. The obscure references alienate normal people. Critics are truly stupid nowadays. Don't read or believe any positive reviews about this movie. They are shills.

A movable feast ends up as mere piffle! Such a first-class cast, winning conceit, and gorgeously photographed Paris. First of all, the film is too short. It needed another 20 minutes to explore the conflict it sets up. More fundamentally, the writing is problematic because it lacks motivation: Wood Allen needed a believable foil in our hero's in-laws to be as driven and obsessed as he becomes. Clearly, Allen knows no right-wingers, so we get caricature. If he reads the New York Times and needed to know about non-leftists, all he needed to know about them could come from columnist David Brooks. Brooks observes that the further right-wing you go politically, the nicer and nicer people become. And why is that? Because in government, media, and universities - and even elite big business - these outcasts have to be all airs among the dominating and powerful left. Now, with this in mind, our hero ought to have been repelled not by petty meanness and humorlessness, but niceness gone nuts! Treacly, Minnesota nice on powdered sugar and maple syrup. On other words, coma inducing saccharin manners. Instead, Allen simply re-cycles his grasping Jewish shrews for a WASP-y Republican mother-in-law ("It's always the maid!" she cries when a peal necklace is stolen). The effect to simply too insincere - too feckless and unbelievable. Furthermore, the motivation for our protagonist to STAY in Paris of the past would have had greater complexity and acquired meaningful depth one can identify with. Instead, the result is too much like Woody moving to Hollywood - out of his element amidst all the shallow veneer. Thus, promising beginnings really disappoint in a "Midnight in Paris."… Expand

Not nearly as good as his last films (Vicky.., Whatever Works, Cassandra's Dream, Match Point...). I chuckled a couple times as the script contains Woody's usual intelligent humor, which keeps his fans coming back for more. However, the plot is too simple and I was glad when it was over. Oh, and Kathy Bates gave her worst performance ever -- wooden. The lead, Owen Wilson gave a B+ performance. Several curvaceous young female characters.… Expand

I agree that the film is beautiful, but Woody Allen has not outgrown the same old tired sexual politics that are evident in his films from the 70s!! For example, the main character is encouraged to get with the enlightened French romantic ways when he is told that a man may love 2 women for their different attributes, HOWEVER, the women in the film who have more than one love interest are conveyed in a negative light (the unlikeable fiance that has an affair with the pedantic guy or the woman that has ultimately unsatisfying relationships with multiple men). Woody â… Expand

Once in a while Woody Allen revives his impulse for lo-fi fantastical, while still satirizing the discontents of the bourgeoisie. Owen Wilson is one of the better conduits for the Allen-persona since itâ

I'm a highly selective Allen fan (likes: Purple Rose of Cairo, Radio Days, Play It Again Sam), but I was lured to this movie by the great-sounding premise and a huge weakness for Paris. Trouble was, the movie was all premise. The historical characters were witless caricatures; it took zero imagination to write their parts. The male lead was painful to watch, but then his part was thankless. Woody aimed for magic, and I know a lot of people think he hit it, but for me it was a boring, flat, listless disappointment.… Expand

This movie was uninteresting. Woody Allen's other works are far superior to this mindless attempt of a movie. The movie seems creative, but lacks so much. It was just plain boring. So many great actors gone to waste except for Wilson who is already a big pile of waste. My first impressions appeared to be correct.