Sony Pictures Classics | Release Date: May 20, 2011
8.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 588 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
502
Mixed:
59
Negative:
27
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
1
sc0TTiDec 27, 2011
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 toAll 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
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
1
JaeBowJan 28, 2012
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, II 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. Expand
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
3
shaunmedAug 23, 2011
Should be titled "Forest Gump in Paris". Nothing more than a cliche romance occasionally highlighted by the most one dimensional and plastic portrayal of famous historical figures. Witless and corny.
6 of 19 users found this helpful613
All this user's reviews
2
gutterhippoJul 6, 2011
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 youCAUTION: 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
3 of 10 users found this helpful37
All this user's reviews
0
killingspreeNov 20, 2011
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 orThis 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. Expand
0 of 13 users found this helpful013
All this user's reviews
2
Orson2Feb 24, 2012
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, theA 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
2
labougieFeb 25, 2012
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 historicalI'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. Collapse
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
PhoenixBirdJun 18, 2012
A big disapppointment. Very poor acting. The film meanders without any true thought and suffers by a pointless resolution--the protagonist is trapped in his own fantasy--but so what? A bad imitation of the famous characters the film seeks toA big disapppointment. Very poor acting. The film meanders without any true thought and suffers by a pointless resolution--the protagonist is trapped in his own fantasy--but so what? A bad imitation of the famous characters the film seeks to illuminate, and a hasty Americanised view of Paris. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
Honest-reviewsJun 8, 2014
I hate to say it but this movie bored me to tears. Incredibly overrated. All I kept hearing was how well done and put together this movie is, but oh wow. It makes no sense and the scenes drag with no point to them. To be honest, I knowI hate to say it but this movie bored me to tears. Incredibly overrated. All I kept hearing was how well done and put together this movie is, but oh wow. It makes no sense and the scenes drag with no point to them. To be honest, I know several people who enjoyed this movie (how is beyond me), so it's not just media hype and you may be one of those people. But I found it amazingly boring and pointless, with no coherence. 1/10 is generous. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
BroyaxJan 18, 2017
Commençons par le commencement : Owen Wilson -tronche de clochard et cerveau de piaf- qui se la joue amerlocain amoureux de Paname, on y croit pas et on en veut pas. Marion Cotillard non plus, vous me direz, elle se prend toujours pour EdithCommençons par le commencement : Owen Wilson -tronche de clochard et cerveau de piaf- qui se la joue amerlocain amoureux de Paname, on y croit pas et on en veut pas. Marion Cotillard non plus, vous me direz, elle se prend toujours pour Edith Piaf et elle soûle. Mais j'anticipe, car le pire est à venir.

La blondasse (fausse bien sûr), c'est-à-dire la copine de l'ahuri, on la verrait carrément mieux dans un gang bang : la voir essayer de "jouer" est une torture et elle ne devrait pas contrarier sa nature. D'autres "stars" vont et viennent comme souvent dans les films de Woody Woodpecker le binoclard pleurnichard : Marion Cotillon (déjà mentionnée) mais aussi Carla Blingbling-Sarkozy qu'on entend déjà pas lorsqu'elle couine et encore moins lorsqu'elle "parle". Après, on va encore s'étonner que les Amerloques nous prennent pour des cons.

Comme d'habitude avec Woody, ça blablate des conneries à n'en plus finir, des trucs "on s'en fout" d'intellos bobos névrosés "rien à battre". La seule différence concerne le cadre magnifique de notre bien aimée ville-lumière qui sert de prétexte aux divagations d'une bande de cons. Notez cependant que cette vision de la Capitale demeure au ras des pâquerettes, touristique, idéalisée à outrance et niaise.

Bref, tous les clichés y passent et la liste est longue. Woody a besoin d'une sérieuse mise-à-jour : les années 20, c'est fini et Paris n'est qu'une grande ville européenne parmi tant d'autres convertie au multi-culturalisme.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews