User Score
7.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 483 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 25 out of 483
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jun 8, 2011
    10
    Mr. Allen has rediscovered himself in the form of Owen Wilson and filled him with the verbal wit the younger Woody use to speak. I sat in a full theater two times and joined the others in a practice called "laughing out loud" through the entire film. The characters and cinematic rhythm moved with the beauty of classic Woody films such as "Manhattan". The second viewing filled me with moreMr. Allen has rediscovered himself in the form of Owen Wilson and filled him with the verbal wit the younger Woody use to speak. I sat in a full theater two times and joined the others in a practice called "laughing out loud" through the entire film. The characters and cinematic rhythm moved with the beauty of classic Woody films such as "Manhattan". The second viewing filled me with more laughter. Expand
  2. Jan 31, 2012
    9
    I reserve "10" for best of all time or by my ratings an A+. Mr. Allen has created an A, excellent, exquisite film. Beside the "meaning" or intention, the upside and downside of living in nostalgia, I was taken away by this film. Mr Wilson perfectly channels Mr Allen; dialogue, mannerisms, and all. It made me drift a bit into the period, the people, the wonder, the times. I have never beenI reserve "10" for best of all time or by my ratings an A+. Mr. Allen has created an A, excellent, exquisite film. Beside the "meaning" or intention, the upside and downside of living in nostalgia, I was taken away by this film. Mr Wilson perfectly channels Mr Allen; dialogue, mannerisms, and all. It made me drift a bit into the period, the people, the wonder, the times. I have never been to Paris but I wanted to move to that period. The music, the cinematography, the rain. But alas, that's knowing what I know now and of course that is the false hope of nostalgia. A wonderful film. Expand
  3. Mar 26, 2012
    4
    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.
  4. Aug 10, 2012
    9
    The return of Woody Allen is in full swing ushered in by (of all people!) Owen Wilson. The film takes a lighthearted jaunt through history and while the tale is familiar, the humor and splendid visuals help this film rise above most.
  5. Jan 16, 2013
    10
    I had no clue, this movie would be so good.I actually never heard of it, before I watched it. It turned out to be an instant Classic! I loved the idea of walking around in different times. This movie inspired me big time!
  6. Jun 10, 2011
    10
    It may not boast the depth of his classic films, but the sweetly sentimental Midnight in Paris is funny and charming enough to satisfy this Woody Allen fan.
  7. Feb 13, 2012
    8
    I'm ashamed of myself that I never watched a single Woody Allen movie until now. "Midnight in Paris" is just simply dazzling. The script is smart and provokes intriguing ideas, Owen Wilson is a crappy actor, but not in this movie; Woody Allen pulls out his usefulness and makes him act in his superior form. This is a film any moviegoer or book lover can enjoy altogether.
  8. Feb 13, 2012
    8
    Midnight in Paris was a total surprise. This film not only is a journey through artistic figures but also a ride across Woody Allenâ
  9. May 29, 2011
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A generally enjoyable, clever movie with an interesting premise, Certainly the best Woody Allen movie in at least 15 years (which isn't saying much). At the same time, you get the feeling that either Woody is in over his head, or that he really is the kind of humanities major, overly awed hack writer that he he portrays in the main character Gil. (Of course, Woody anticipates this kind of criticism in the character of the pseudo-intellectual Paul, which is itself a kind of set-up.) I would have preferred less (albeit amusing) name-dropping and greater development of the personas of the artists he so admires. My biggest criticism is that Woody seems to feel the need to spell out his point (i.e., about the problems in over-idealizing the past) for the audience, which suggest that most viewers aren't capable of figuring the point out for themselves (which may be true). P.S. Marion Cotillard is luminous, both in her acting and in appearance. Expand
  10. Dec 11, 2011
    5
    Although I WANTED to like this, and I agree with others that the long list of expatriate artists that are "visited" were intriguing, the script just felt so forced and high-fallootin' in an effort to be "intellectual" that I never fell for the spell Allen wanted me to go under. Allen also uses Olsen Wilson as his surrogate "puppet", seemingly forcing him to use Allen's own rhythms,Although I WANTED to like this, and I agree with others that the long list of expatriate artists that are "visited" were intriguing, the script just felt so forced and high-fallootin' in an effort to be "intellectual" that I never fell for the spell Allen wanted me to go under. Allen also uses Olsen Wilson as his surrogate "puppet", seemingly forcing him to use Allen's own rhythms, phrasings, and speech patterns throughout his entire performance. Although I enjoyed the nicely detailed art direction and Marion Cotillard is always interesting, overall, the film is flat, redundant, and surprisingly, only sporadically "funny". Not worthy of the early Oscar buzz that it was once receiving which has now (rightfully) waned. Expand
  11. Dec 27, 2011
    1
    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 ofAll 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
  12. Jan 28, 2012
    1
    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.
  13. CMC
    Jul 3, 2011
    4
    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 TexasIf 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. Expand
  14. Jul 8, 2011
    4
    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.
  15. Apr 1, 2012
    8
    It is refreshing to be able to watch something that feels fresh, a story that has not been told before. Midnight in Paris is based on great script and is brilliantly edited and directed. If the casting was different this could have been a masterpiece.
  16. May 22, 2011
    10
    This is Woody Allen's best movie in years. Not only a favorite of the critics, but a movie the public will love, too. Owen Wilson is perfect for the role and the supporting cast is terrific. A fun (and funny) fantasy that is definitely worth seeing.
  17. Jun 5, 2011
    10
    A perfect movie - smart, funny, beautifully shot and written. Woody Allen on top of his game combing aspects of the old - Annie Hall, Manhattan; the middle years Purple Rose of Cairo; and the rich luster of recent films Match Point, Vicky Cristina Barcelona with a new spin. Owen Wilson is perfect as "Woody".
  18. Oct 12, 2011
    4
    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 justMidnight 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
  19. Jul 6, 2011
    2
    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,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
  20. Dec 17, 2011
    9
    Original beyond belief featuring strong performances and charm and laughs and just an amazing story. Woody Allen directs an amazing movie. With a bit of low budget charm. I give this 94% of a good movie.
  21. Aug 23, 2011
    3
    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.
  22. Jun 9, 2011
    10
    I loved this movie! Owen Wilson was great in his role, the script was crisp and witty, you really relate to the characters. Very funny and creative, the best Woody Allen movie in years..please go see it!
  23. Oct 24, 2011
    8
    It is a very engaging, highly beautiful film. Just as Gil (Wilson) is mesmerised with the beauty of Paris, so is Allen in his portrayal of the French capital. With beautiful shots of Paris, with some great cinematography, Allen manages to illustrate why Gil loves Paris so much. Asides that, technically, the film is rather well done, with some great production design. The acting is alsoIt is a very engaging, highly beautiful film. Just as Gil (Wilson) is mesmerised with the beauty of Paris, so is Allen in his portrayal of the French capital. With beautiful shots of Paris, with some great cinematography, Allen manages to illustrate why Gil loves Paris so much. Asides that, technically, the film is rather well done, with some great production design. The acting is also very good, with a surprisingly precise Owen Wilson, usually engaging Cotillard, and surprisingly entertaining Kathy Bates. The film, in many ways, is a critique of nostalgia and the power it has over people. Allen makes that rather clear, and it is always entertaining to see how this film has been looked at (and criticised) by both critics and fans as "not quite as good" as Woody's films at his peak... Could have been an intentional commentary of the director - or maybe I'm reading too much into it. Nonetheless, highly entertaining and charming film, definitely worth seeing! Expand
  24. Nov 20, 2011
    0
    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.
  25. May 31, 2011
    8
    Being a huge Woody Allen fan I had to go see this movie even though, as I write this, it is in limited release. That means driving about 30 miles for me. Was it worth it? Yes. Woody has made many successful "fantasy" films in the past (A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy, Zelig, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Alice to name a few) and I love all of them. I haven't been a big Owen Wilson fan inBeing a huge Woody Allen fan I had to go see this movie even though, as I write this, it is in limited release. That means driving about 30 miles for me. Was it worth it? Yes. Woody has made many successful "fantasy" films in the past (A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy, Zelig, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Alice to name a few) and I love all of them. I haven't been a big Owen Wilson fan in the past, but he does a great job in the Woody role for this film. You can't help but think of Woody when hearing this dialogue, however, because it is so similar to other Woody films. I'm not going to give away any of the plot except to say that something magical happens at Midnight, and Gil (the Owen Wilson Character) learns about his current life from the experiences. Everyone in the movie is wonderful. Woody is one of those directors that is capable of getting the absolute best out of actors. Woody is on a role lately with Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Match Point and Whatever Works being excellent films. Expand
  26. Jun 24, 2011
    7
    This movie is Woody Allen's love affair with Paris. It is warm and tender. The cinematography is outstanding. Still, I would not call it Allen's best. Some parts of the movie are quite cheesy. Hearing Owen Wilson speak is as if listening to Woody. I found it somewhat annoying. As if Wilson is playing Woody himself. But overall, quite a good piece of entertainment.
  27. Feb 24, 2012
    2
    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 heA 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
  28. May 28, 2011
    7
    At first I had a little problem listening to Owen Wilson playing Woody Allen; however, once the story progressed to the "midnight" part, I was intrigued and had a lot of fun. Some of the characters begin to go a little stock towards the end, but all-in-all a nice picture.
  29. Jun 20, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Entertaining, nicely written story that is unfortunately miscast with Owen Wilson. He continues to play the nitwit and gets handsomely rewarded for it. Go figure. We gave it a C+ but it would have gotten a much higher grade with the proper lead. The female lead was so-so as well but the ensemble cast was excellent. Expand
  30. Jun 20, 2011
    4
    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+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
Metascore
81

Universal acclaim - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 40 out of 40
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 40
  3. Negative: 0 out of 40
  1. Reviewed by: Lawrence Toppman
    Jun 11, 2011
    63
    A hymn to that beautiful city, is among his least consequential efforts. It's attractive and easy to slip into, but he didn't put enough thought into the design, and it soon falls apart.
  2. Reviewed by: Joe Williams
    Jun 10, 2011
    75
    A fanciful French cousin to Allen's "Zelig" and "The Purple Rose of Cairo," yet the fulfilled wish for a better life is high-concept absurdity without high-anxiety guffaws.
  3. Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Jun 10, 2011
    88
    A lovely jaunt that ends up becoming one of Allen's most enjoyable films, start-to-finish, in years.