|By date||Most helpful reviews||By my score||By metascore||By user score|
Average User Score: 8.0Jun 4, 2011Woody Allen's best work is clearly behind him as he turns out one disappointment after another. It is Owen Wilson's portrayal of Gil, moreWoody Allen's best work is clearly behind him as he turns out one disappointment after another. It is Owen Wilson's portrayal of Gil, more than Allen's writing or directing, that is what shines in this film. Marion Cotillard and Kathy Bates also deliver stellar performances. Allen reverts to cheap political stereotypes to define Rachel McAdams and her family and relies on the stereotyping rather than writing to define and give dimension to these characters. McAdams character is pointless and while she seems to be doing all she can with the character, there's just not much to work with. Michael Sheen, like Owen Wilson, delivers a fine performance. He's amusing and irritating at the same time. Rather than defining him by throwing a stereotype on him, his character's behavior is what defines him, as it should.
As another said, Allen treats the audience like idiots. Where he once made points using a scalpel, he now uses an axe. The point of our glorifying the past is obvious, but Allen no longer seems able to master his once masterful use of subtlety. Where Allen still shines is in his ability to capture the beauty of the city. The shots of Paris were lovely and make you truly understand why Wilson's character so loves the city. It's hard not to love it when it is portrayed so beautifully.… Expand