namashi_1
'Café Society' is a yet another winner from The Legendary Woody Allen. And the predominant reason, being, his PASSION for telling Stories to this date. Allen delivers a charming, heartfelt Romantic-Comedy-Drama, that celebrates life & love.'Café Society' Synopsis: In the 1930s, a Bronx native moves to Hollywood and falls in love with a young woman who is seeing a married man.Woody Allen is a Master at his craft & 'Café Society' proves that fact right yet again. Allen's Writing delves into the lives of flawed human beings & how emotions can overcome us at all times. Its engrossing to see its underdog leading-man falter in life & love, only to realize that experiences define us, for better or worse. Allen's Screenplay is consistently engaging & offers humor in the most unexpected places. Typical Allen.Allen's Direction is excellent, as always. Even his Voice-Over work here almost throughout the film, is delightful. Vittorio Storaro's Cinematography is superb. Alisa Lepselter's Editing is crisp. The Art & Costume Design take us back in time & offer authenticity. Performance-Wise: Jeannie Berlin, Steve Carell, Jesse Eisenberg, Blake Lively, Parker Posey, Kristen Stewart, Corey Stoll and Ken Stott, all are up for vie top honors. Eisenberg channels vintage Woody with fascinating results, while Stewart oozes naturalness. Carell is effortless, as ever. Parker Posey stands out. Her body-language speaks in volumes.On the whole, 'Café Society' is a must see.
ElMaruecan82
Watching "Café Society" was such a depressing and frustrating experience I couldn't believe I "owed" it to Woody Allen. But on second thoughts, it makes sense because only a director of his caliber, one who accustomed us to thought-provoking and/or heart-warming gems of originality, could heighten our expectations so high they would literally smash into deception, breaking in thousand pieces of disbelief. That's how I felt when the film ended, it wasn't even bad, it was just a lame and lackluster attempt to explore all the usual shticks for a plot so vacuous it wasn't even "interestingly" bad.The story? In a nutshell (and I mean a very small one), a young New Yorker named Bobby (Jesse Eisenberg) wants to work in Hollywood for his uncle, a rich and famous producer (that's for the pleonasm) named Phil Stern (Steve Carell). Phil has a mistress, his secretary Vonnie (Kristen Stewart), naturally, Bobby falls in love with her, the resulting triangle cannibalizes the first act until Vonnie picks Phil and we can't even tell if she chose him like she meant it. Never mind, a defeated Bobby goes back to his Big Apple of a hometown, and with the help of his gangster brother, he opens a restaurant, meets a young woman (Blake Lively), they marry and have a kid. Bobby meets Vonnie again, she's married, they share a romantic night in Central Park. Then they get back to their lives and the film ends with the two of them feeling alone.I could mention that there's a criminal subplot supposed to spice the film a little, but you might as well throw a pinch of salt and pepper on Lake Ontario. One could say that it's not "what" happens but the way it happens. Sorry, but even the treatment couldn't have been worse if it was someone trying to imitate Allen. Each element of the story is a poor man's version of what he did before, and better. The real love letters to Hollywood and show business were "Broadway Danny Rose", "The Purple Rose to Cairo" and "Bullets Over Broadway". The bittersweet romance is an Allen staple ever since "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan", the Jewish family element has never been as endearing as in "Radio Days". There's not a single element that doesn't feel like we've seen it before.But even then, it would have been acceptable if it these ersatz were half as good as their originals. Woody Allen has lost his touch on this one, so bad it hurts. Eisenberg tries desperately to make an impression of Allen in his early scenes, falling in a similar trap than Kenneth Branagh in "Celebrity"... why all the actors feel the need to impersonate Alvy Singer when they're in a Woody Allen film? Now, Kristen Stewart isn't bad but the role is rather unflattering, she just plays a secretary who goes from being an unpretentious free-spirited girl above the 'starlet' mentality, to a sophisticated socialite. In between, she's torn between the two men and you can tell she tries to get rid of that awkward 'puzzled' expression inherited from the 'Twilight' series. You can tell that for youngsters Eisenberg and Stewart, working with Allen was a wet dream, but I wonder if they were really pleased to play such bland and dull roles. Even Steve Carell isn't given many scenes to shine, everything is handled in a casual, peaceful and matter-of-factly way. And if the romance is toned down and subdued, Allen insists on the ethnic element more than needed. Allen has always been a window to New York Jewish culture, but talk about overplaying it. If another director made the same film, let alone a Gentile, this would have been raised a big polemic and even accusations of stereotypical portrayals.I always laugh at Allen's references to a nagging Jewish mother figure or his interaction with his rabbi, this is one of the defining elements of Allen's humor, just like self-derision is prevalent in Jewish humor, but in "Café Society", it is overused to the point of… pointlessness. So, the producer is Jewish, the nephew works for his father, a Jeweler, named Marty, his mother is a version of Julie Kavner after she went in a dryer, overcooking food because of germ-phobia and uttering Yiddish expressions just in case we forgot. Even the prostitute in Hollywood, happens to be Jewish. I swear there are more ethnic references in "Café Society" than all of Woody Allen's movies combined. That critics would point it this characteristic in an Allen film can give you an idea of how serious it is.We would have guessed Bobby's background without it be thrown to our faces every forty-seven seconds. If it was a religious film à la "A Serious Man" (the underrated masterpiece from the Coen Brothers) it would have made sense, but here, it was uncalled for. This insistence from Allen on elements of the background while the plot was devoid from the usual excitement and creativity left me puzzled. I didn't know if I had to be angry or sad, but I guess I'm worried. I felt like Allen lost his touch and could only rely his story on (another) nostalgic letter to Hollywood, New York and his Jewish roots. In fact, there's a well-meaning intent behind "Café Society", but I felt like an over-nostalgic, maybe melancholic (or mildly senile) Allen made it.2016 wasn't the best year for homage to old Hollywood anyway, both "Café Society" and the Coens's "Hail Caesar" were forgettable movies but they say a lot about the evolution of filmmaking, forcing directors to be reminiscent of good old days, "La La Land" did better without turning it into a period movie. I hope that excess of nostalgia doesn't mean Woody Allen lost his touch with the present. I hope this is just a misstep and that he has one or two masterpieces under his sleeve.
