Rome, in this film, is lovely, beautiful and golden. Having spent many, many days in Rome, I loved how the city looked in this film. But that's about it. I did not love the movie. However, even a crappy Woody Allen film set in a foreign city has something going for it. Hmm.... well, not much, but a couple of things.
The character that Alex Baldwin plays is silly, superficial and perhaps exists in another time continuum in the movie, but I still liked him. I loved Penelope Cruz as a blatant hooker with a good sense of reality and, come on, what a gorgeous body! Everyone else was insipid or stupid or foolish. (Hey, it's my review.) The stories didn't mesh, nor were they supposed to, but it made for a disjointed, jumpy movie. Woody Allen plays himself, more or less, which isn't a bad thing here, but doesn't add much to the movie. There were characters that drove me to distraction, like the normal guy who suddenly becomes famous, for no reason. What's that about? And who cares? Woody Allen obviously had some hidden meaning there but I didn't get it.
Bottom line, as much as I walked into the theater wanting to love this movie, I didn't. But I didn't hate it, either. Mulling it over for the past 24 hours it has grown on me a tiny bit. It's pleasant, the city of Rome could not look better and a couple of the characters are fun to watch.
While I sincerely loved "Midnight in Paris" I almost liked this movie. Save it for a rental. However, if you love Rome as much as I do, it's almost worth it to see this movie on the big screen just to see the city bathed in sunlight and beauty. Thankfully, Allen doesn't show us a travelogue of Rome, no shots of St. Peter's Square, but there are enough familiar landscapes to make any tourist (or traveler) happy for a few moments.
,
No comments:
Post a Comment