criterionforum.org

Since this completed shooting last summer and has finished editing, I thought it best to start a thread for it.

It was picked up by Sony Pictures Classics today:

Variety wrote:'Midnight' chimes for Sony Pictures Classics
SPC scores North American rights to Allen film
By Gordon Cox

Sony Pictures Classics has picked up North American rights to "Midnight in Paris," the latest from Woody Allen.

Shot in the French capital, "Midnight" stars Kathy Bates, Adrian Brody, Carla Bruni, Marion Cotillard, Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen and Owen Wilson. Story centers on a family traveling to Paris for business.

Pic is the fourth Allen film to be released by Sony Pictures Classics after "You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger," "Whatever Works" and "Sweet and Lowdown."

Letty Aronson, Steve Tenenbaum and Jaume Roures produce "Midnight," which is funded by Mediapro, the Spanish company that also financed "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" and "Tall Dark Stranger."

No release date for "Midnight" has yet been set.

IndieWire wrote: “I had a particularly enjoyable experience shooting in Paris,” stated Allen. “It’s something that I hope I get a chance to do again. I always look forward to having my films distributed by Sony Classics because they have great sensitivity toward my work and I appreciate it.” Said SPC’s Michael Barker and Tom Bernard: Midnight in Paris is Allen “at his most magical.” (emphasis my own)

SPC has not had the greatest track record handling Woody films in North America. The last two, You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger and Whatever Works, received poor promotion and did little box office business here (although they both have done well in Europe, as usual).

Looks to be Woody's most ambitious project in years, featuring some of the old Woody conceptual magic, apparently this time involving time travel to the 1920's (and possibly even further back to the 19th Century). It is also his first project to be a period piece (at least in part) since 2001's The Curse Of The Jade Scorpion - 10 years, easily the longest drought post Love & Death for something Woody was highly regarded at doing. Still 13 years and counting now for another Black & White film though.

Darius Khondji is back behind the camera for Woody, their second collaboration since Anything Else in 2003.

Some assumptions out there that this is the Paris project that was previously aborted in 2006 which had cast David Krumholtz and Michelle Williams. Woody himself has denied that this is the same project, but until more in depth interviews are given we'll never know for certain.

This is also probably a make or break project for Woody with the increased MediaPro budgets - this is his second film in a contract of three for them. They bailed him out of what might've been the end of his film financing after Vicky Cristina Barcelona did exceptional box office business and rewarded him with the biggest budget security he's quite possibly ever had. Woody noted in the recent update to the Eric Lax "Conversations with..." book that Whatever Works was set to become a theatre stage production when financing to make a film was secured (after VCB fortunately scored a Match Point sized hit after two clunkers in 2006's Scoop and 2007's Cassandra's Dream, that latter of which being the first Woody film to not even crack $1million State side).

Plenty of gossip (mostly all of it grossly exaggerated and inaccurate) regarding Carla Bruni's brief cameo appearance has kept this in the news.

I'm very curious to see the French and overall European reception to this. If Laura Bush had a cameo in Tree of Life, I would never even bother watching it.

As amusing as that comparison is, I don't know if you're being completely honest with yourself.

This will be the opening film at Cannes while simultaneously playing at 400 theatres in France for an opening day.

I assume this will get to North America a few weeks after some buzz is built up around it in France (good or bad, hopefully good).

Sounds very promising. Although last time a Woody film opened Cannes it was Hollywood Ending and, well, you know how that story goes.

Hollywood Ending at least had one of the greatest comedic lines in Allen's career. You can't say the same of Anything Else for example.

AWA wrote:Although last time a Woody film opened Cannes it was Hollywood Ending and, well, you know how that story goes.

I don't.....link or summary?

Kind of strange how Woody has been churning them out in this European phase over the last decade or so. It's too bad they all range from terrible to mediocre at best. VCB was ridiculously over-rated, and the rest of his recent output has just not been good. Hopefully this breaks the trend and turns out well, but I can't say i'm confident.

I'll admit he's been very hit-and-miss since the beginning of the 90s, but I really liked "Husbands and Wives," "Bullets Over Broadway," "Deconstructing Harry," "Match Point," and "Vicky Cristina Barcelona."

HistoryProf wrote:

AWA wrote:Although last time a Woody film opened Cannes it was Hollywood Ending and, well, you know how that story goes.

I don't.....link or summary?

Kind of strange how Woody has been churning them out in this European phase over the last decade or so. It's too bad they all range from terrible to mediocre at best. VCB was ridiculously over-rated, and the rest of his recent output has just not been good. Hopefully this breaks the trend and turns out well, but I can't say i'm confident.

Basically Hollywood Ending was a bomb and generated what were easily the worst reviews Woody had ever had for any film he had made up until that point. My point being, being the opening film at Cannes is a nice honor, but by no means should it be considered a sure fire indication of the film being a hit or very good.

However, I would like to add that Hollywood Ending is not as bad as it was made out to be, it is better in retrospect about Woody making a joke out of his own career and what he knew was happening (state of the American film industry and studio financing) and going to happen (European financing, having to film abroad) and jokes based on what he had gone through recently (the blind director joke is a riff off working with Sven Nykvist as a DoP on Celebrity, who was legally blind but would direct the shots based on descriptions of the scenes described to him, working with Zhao Fei as a DoP for a few films after that despite the talented cinematographer not being able to speak english, etc). Most critics also completely missed the joke Woody was making about having himself play characters with much younger women. In retrospect, the film is very funny and a clever dig both himself and his critics (although some claim the director character is more of a dig at Peter Bogdonavich, but like the Philip Roth parody in Deconstructing Harry, most people see more autobiographical bits than in his films than they do the intended targets). That sad, the cinematography in the film is some of the worst in Woody's career thanks to having to switch DoPs halfway through... the hyper yellow over saturation for one throughout the film is just horrendous... a case of life imitating the art of the life imitated, I suppose.

I can't agree that VCB was terribly overrated, although some here certainly do. Aside from Rebecca Hall's sometimes annoying Woody impression, the film is a very solid take on Jules et Jim and has points that are as strong as anything Woody has done in recent years, especially Bardem and Cruz's very real chemistry and performances. The stedicam work was not bad (although they should've fired their focus puller who royally effed up 2 of the shots).

MoonlitKnight wrote:I'll admit he's been very hit-and-miss since the beginning of the 90s, but I really liked "Husbands and Wives," "Bullets Over Broadway," "Deconstructing Harry," "Match Point," and "Vicky Cristina Barcelona."

Add Sweet & Lowdown to that list and I'll agree that those are the 6 films he's made in the last 19 years that stand among the best he's ever done.

Considering this film should be the most ambitious undertaking Woody has had in at least 10 years, if not more, and that he's approaching something conceptual / poetic again, there is reason for optimism. I also hope that cinematographer Darius Khondji will be more comfortable working with him, especially working on home turf. Plus, if this is or is a major reworking of the script he attempted and planned to shoot in Paris in '06 (which he denied once, but we'll see when more extensive interviews come out this spring for advanced publicity), this could be the most focused and edited script he's done in some time as well, having had years to mull over the idea, characters, etc. Then again, this might be, as he suggested, a completely different idea that he dashed off to do for this project only, so who knows.

Call me crazy, but I revisit Hollywood Ending far more often than his other Dreamworks fare. It can be glossy and fluffy and broad, but I think that's precisely why I find the film comforting. I think it's well-cast and well-performed for what it is, as well. Whereas Jade Scorpion, despite its lovely period detail, unwisely used Helen Hunt who, in a cringe-inducingly unfunny, strident, and far too contemporary way, gives what is for my money the worst lead performance in a Woody Allen film, ever. And more, Woody, too, seems to be phoning it in. I think the script is fine, but the two lead performances killed it. Incidentally, that these two consecutive films use actresses from Saved by the Bell is a bizarre, not-unpleasant surprise to this 80's kid.

What's the story about replacing the cameraman in HE? Am I wrong in remembering that it was supposed to be Di Palma but his failing health caused him to step aside?

AWA wrote: Add Sweet & Lowdown to that list and I'll agree that those are the 6 films he's made in the last 19 years that stand among the best he's ever done.

Just to be clear, when I said "recent" - I was thinking Melinda & Melinda forward....the last 6 or 7 films. None of which, for me, have worked, though I didn't see Cassandra's Dream.

And I think Scarlet Johansson is a gift sent straight from heaven, but both Scoop and Match Point were just, well, strange. They, like the rest of his recent work, just all has felt half-hearted to me....they aren't awful - just miss the target - whatever that may be. His greatest sin seems to be miscasting people. Jason Biggs and Cristina Ricci? Helen Hunt mentioned above is the best example...but it seems every film has a big "huh?" in the cast.

none of which, for me, have worked, though I didn't see Cassandra's Dream.

Cassandra's Dream for me is both his worst film, and the most boring film he has made to date. The actors looked embarrassed to be delivering the lines, and I recall accents being unintentionally funny.

Deconstructing Harry was his last great film, and that is quite some years back.

tajmahal wrote:

none of which, for me, have worked, though I didn't see Cassandra's Dream.

Cassandra's Dream for me is both his worst film, and the most boring film he has made to date. The actors looked embarrassed to be delivering the lines, and I recall accents being unintentionally funny.

By my money it's actually the best of his films from the last ten years. It's a basic morality tale, but it's very odd in a good way to see that done to more modern tunes. Anyways it's the film that started Farrell's career resurrection.

knives wrote:By my money it's actually the best of his films from the last ten years. It's a basic morality tale, but it's very odd in a good way to see that done to more modern tunes. Anyways it's the film that started Farrell's career resurrection.

I can't agree with this for two reasons. For one thing I actively disliked Cassandra's Dream as it felt tone deaf and unremarkable for the most part. Farrell and Wilkinson are strong but seem to be acting in a vacuum. And secondly, I'm convinced, as a Farrell fan, that his best work remains the triptych of Alexander, Miami Vice and The New World, both for his performances and the overall ambition and accomplishment of the pictures themselves, regardless of where their respective reputations may reside at the moment. So, obviously, no career resurrection needed.

Markson wrote:Call me crazy, but I revisit Hollywood Ending far more often than his other Dreamworks fare. It can be glossy and fluffy and broad, but I think that's precisely why I find the film comforting. I think it's well-cast and well-performed for what it is, as well.

You're not crazy - for that and reasons I mentioned, it has aged better. Critics often, especially post 92, fail to swing at Woody's strikes he pitches - Deconstructing Harry being one of his absolute best films he's ever made IMO and the critics hated it - but poll Woody fans now and that film is going to rank Top 10 high on any list, which, considering Woody's achivements, other solid film and standing as an American filmmaker, is indeed very high praise. Hollywood Ending is definitely not that calibre but it is a lot better than it has been given credit for.

Markson wrote:Whereas Jade Scorpion, despite its lovely period detail, unwisely used Helen Hunt who, in a cringe-inducingly unfunny, strident, and far too contemporary way, gives what is for my money the worst lead performance in a Woody Allen film, ever. And more, Woody, too, seems to be phoning it in. I think the script is fine, but the two lead performances killed it. Incidentally, that these two consecutive films use actresses from Saved by the Bell is a bizarre, not-unpleasant surprise to this 80's kid.

Jade Scorpion featured (and suffered from) a TV star cast. Dan Ackroyd was no better than Hunt in it. The film also should've been in B&W, alo IMO but it would've helped the film and the comedy in a way that it did with Broadway Danny Rose. Dreamworks contract though stipulated colour only. And I agree completely about Hunt - as big a Woody fan as she was / is, she was the absolute worst choice for that role and it makes you wonder why cast her and kept her. Michael Keaton was fired part way through filming Purple Rose of Cairo for similar reasons - he just seemed to contemporary of a man.

And in defence of Woody's role in the film, you can clearly tell he made the film while fighting one helluva cold. You can see it on his face in some scenes and, if you listen to the tone of his voice, clearly hear it. It is evident enough in his voice that you could re-edit the film to see what order the film was shot in by how Woody's cold develops.
He also wanted Tom Hanks to play that role, but Tom had a prior commitment. Tom might've helped the film a bit in some respects but some of those Bob Hope-ish one liners could only be delivered that effectively by Woody. I have a soft spot of the film, flaws and all.

Markson wrote:What's the story about replacing the cameraman in HE? Am I wrong in remembering that it was supposed to be Di Palma but his failing health caused him to step aside?

Woody replaced Haskell Wexler with the incredibly named Wedigo von Schultzendorff.

DiPalma's ill health story is for the next film, Anything Else. After Jean Doumanian and her sharp axe and heavy purse left town in a legal hurry, DiPalma felt maybe he could now return to the action with Woody - everything was set to go, he even did location scouting for the film but his health started getting bad and the insurance company had him take a medical exam, which he failed. He went back to Italy and died before the film hit theatres. He might've really been able to help that film out to be better than it was - Darius was completely thrown in the deep end with under 2 weeks to prepare. He did ok, but clearly he is guessing and imitating "Woody Allen films" half the time without understanding why he's shooting a certain scene a certain way. I like his work so, as I said before, I maintain some hope he'll come around a bit better with this new film.

While I don't want to get completely off track, another reason the DreamWorks films are sketchy could be that Susan Morse was out of the editing chair (another, more bitter, Doumanian chopping legacy) and and Alisa Lepselter, her assistant, was in. Lepselter doesn't have the edge to her work that Morse did, and the DreamWorks pictures are a bit chubby for Woody films. A better editor might've been able to get things in tighter shape - Woody's films don't play well if they run longer, part of what makes his best films his best films is how snappy they are - taught, well crafted films that use every second afforded to them. Woody usually gets the credit for that as a writer, but considering how many of his films have taken on completely new shapes in the editing room, that is an equal credit to Morse (and Woody, who works with her side by side obviously). Lepselter's first run, Sweet & Lowdown, pretty much followed the script (outside of cutting one scene - the bear attack) but her lack of viciousness in the editing room shows up in a big way in Small Time Crooks, which could've used some sharper editing. She has gotten better but her editing, especially compared to Morse's, is pretty pedestrian and very safe.

tajmahal wrote:Cassandra's Dream for me is both his worst film, and the most boring film he has made to date. The actors looked embarrassed to be delivering the lines, and I recall accents being unintentionally funny.

Deconstructing Harry was his last great film, and that is quite some years back.

Cassandra's Dream has it's moments but the english setting was a truly bad idea. Had it been American, things might've been a lot better - but Woody clearly doesn't understand english working class and you can clearly tell the film was written for Americans. The murder scene was really good though. Not really sure why he bothered to film that after Match Point had hit all those notes and did it far better.

I would also agree that Deconstructing Harry was the last film he's made that can stand with the absolute best of his output. Oddly enough, it is also the second to last time he really has anything to say about the characters / age group / Upper East Side world since - he has only recently began to flirt with the idea of dealing with characters his age again (Whatever Works, Tall Dark Stranger) but hasn't really stretched the characters out very much. Larry David's Boris ranting some medicore Woody writing (how many times does he say "inchworm" in that film anyways? Rhetorical question - too many) that was better more for the spirit of Woody trying to say something finally than writing some cardboard cutouts of young people.

And as for the Farrell discussion - I think he's referring to Farrell making a comeback after some of the bad press about his lifestyle staled his career a bit there, but Cassandra's Dream certainly wasn't the film that did it - In Bruges was, which was, IMO, an excellent film.

HistoryProf wrote:Just to be clear, when I said "recent" - I was thinking Melinda & Melinda forward....the last 6 or 7 films. None of which, for me, have worked, though I didn't see Cassandra's Dream.

And I think Scarlet Johansson is a gift sent straight from heaven, but both Scoop and Match Point were just, well, strange. They, like the rest of his recent work, just all has felt half-hearted to me....they aren't awful - just miss the target - whatever that may be. His greatest sin seems to be miscasting people. Jason Biggs and Cristina Ricci? Helen Hunt mentioned above is the best example...but it seems every film has a big "huh?" in the cast.

I enjoyed Match Point as a strong bit of filmmaking, as stiff as it might be sometimes. Woody thinks it is possibly his best film, but C&M, the obvious comparison, is much better in that it has more dynamic tension to make the film work - Match Point is an exercise in technique, a technically sound film. It's successful IMO but limited. Scoop is just a mess of a film, memorable only for being what may be Woody's last ever acting role in his own films and for getting one last look at some of his one liners as delivered by the man himself in that Danny Rose revival style. The script is poor (Woody himself refers to it as a kleenex) and reeks of 1st draft. The ending itself is moronic.

Biggs and Ricci were miscast, especially Ricci, who looked like she had never held a cigarette a day in her life previously and completely misread the character's lines to give her absolutely zero charm or allure that Woody's complicated women characters have that keep men coming back for more punishment. She just read the lines as annoying as she possibly could, over emphasizing one aspect of her character and drowning all other potential. Both characters should've been 10-15 years older, that would've helped immensely as well.

And to end this posting back on topic, hopefully the "huh?" casting in this new film is not the lead itself, Owen Wilson, which many are fretting could be the case. Another one of Woody's biggest problems of late is not working with the same cast (aside from three films with Scarlett and two with Brolin) - he's getting fresh faces every time, which means everyone is learning on the job every single film. Plus, as mentioned previously, some of the casting seems more about box office assurances than it does artistic reasons. The last time Woody cut someone out of a film entirely was, I believe, Glenn Close in Anything Else (her character must've had something to do with the apparent time travel aspect that was cut from the film I assume... or she was replaced by Stockard Channing, I can't remember). It would be hard to see him doing that these days. And of course, there is the old talk that Freida Pinto got $3m for Stranger, which would mean the rest of the cast also got paid significantly more than scale as per the norm for Woody films... what a mistake that was. Slumdog Whatnow?

last time Woody cut someone out of a film entirely was, I believe, Glenn Close in Anything Else

I had no idea Glenn Close was cut from Anything Else, but sure enough, after looking this up on Google a bunch of entries on the film from sites like Fandango show up that list her among the cast (I assume the cast list on those entries derives from a pre-release assembly made or sent out before she was cut, and they never went back to edit). Is her role discussed in the Woody Allen "Conversations" book? I don't have a copy on hand but I can't recall reading about her in there.

her character I assume must've had something to do with the apparent time travel aspect that was cut from the film I assume... or she was replaced by Stockard Channing, I can't remember

Stockard Channing is also listed among the cast on the aforementioned sites, so I have to assume Glenn Close played another character. Meanwhile, I thought the time travel aspect was just speculation? Has it been confirmed that this was indeed an element of the film at one point? There's an IMDB thread where somebody writes a very convincing interpretation of the film as a sort of "time travel" story.

"Anything Else" basically seemed like an attempt to bring his golden era "Annie Hall" shtick into a Gen-X context... something Noah Baumbach did much more successfully with his film "Mr. Jealousy," IMO.

Dylan wrote:

last time Woody cut someone out of a film entirely was, I believe, Glenn Close in Anything Else

I had no idea Glenn Close was cut from Anything Else, but sure enough, after looking this up on Google a bunch of entries on the film from sites like Fandango show up that list her among the cast (I assume the cast list on those entries derives from a pre-release assembly made or sent out before she was cut, and they never went back to edit). Is her role discussed in the Woody Allen "Conversations" book? I don't have a copy on hand but I can't recall reading about her in there.

There is no mention of it in the "Conversations" book as I recall it not being a very happy situation. I remember reading how Glenn Close was stating in the press that she was "going to the premiere to see if I made the final cut or not"... which she obviously did not. I didn't think at the time to save the articles about Close's involvement in the film, and now the Net is flooded with the original cast listing (which is regenerated to infinity thanks to websites having software to copy exact movie detail information from site to site to site) which has buried any actual news stories about it from the time period. Perhaps someone with more Net research skills than myself can dig that one up.

Dylan wrote:

her character I assume must've had something to do with the apparent time travel aspect that was cut from the film I assume... or she was replaced by Stockard Channing, I can't remember

Stockard Channing is also listed among the cast on the aforementioned sites, so I have to assume Glenn Close played another character. Meanwhile, I thought the time travel aspect was just speculation? Has it been confirmed that this was indeed an element of the film at one point? There's an IMDB thread where somebody writes a very convincing interpretation of the film as a sort of "time travel" story.

Darius Khondji alluded to the magical element to Dobel's character that was completely cut out of the finished film in the book "New Cinematographers" in the two page spread about shooting the film. Dobel was to appear out of nowhere magically in Central Park and give advice to Biggs' character based on his own history which was exactly the same as Biggs' character to avoid becoming what Dobel became. When Biggs actually goes through with it, Dobel disappears... while it is no confirmation, it is pretty easy to guess how that worked. It would help explain so much of the rest of the film, how and why it was shot the way it was, etc. We'll never know for certain as there isn't a journalist on earth who does enough research on Woody to bother to ask him such questions and, for whatever reason, Eric Lax hasn't bothered to question Woody about the development of that specific film in either edition of "Conversations", despite it being one of the more complicated films that Woody has radically altered in the editing room (Scoop too apparently had 30+ more minutes of Scarlett and her friend's social life and other relationships in it, but that was cut too). Of course, Anything Else being the film that it is, not too many people are that interested to find out it seems either - it would be more interesting if all of the complicated hoops Woody went through to make the film ended up with him completing a great film, or at the very least, making something quite good.

Sony Pictures Classics is now saying there is a May 20th US release date on the official website.

Hard to read this one, as it is either some kind of very early plan for an Oscar push coming off the Cannes premiere or it is SPC dumping this film in the spring and hoping it can float on it's own in the summer against the usual blockbuster fare. Considering their history with Woody films, it is hard to be optimistic about this decision. 3 months to a release date with no trailer, no poster, no advanced press, etc. We'll see.

US poster:

Midnight in Arles?

Will Scorsese make another cameo as Van Gogh?

American trailer now up at Yahoo Movies

Mistery's resolved. Bruni is the Rodin director ! A stunning museum (and gardens) that Americans seems to love, Robert Altman shot there Prêt-à-porter.

I miss NY in his cinema. All this posh expat or tourist in Europe bores me

I posted this elsewhere, but for what it's worth - here is my long, drawn out pompous rambling on 2 minutes worth of clips from Woody's new film.

This is the first time in the past 10 or 11 years that a trailer for a new Woody Allen film has actually genuinely exceeded my own expectations and hopes for the new Woody film.

As a trailer alone, it's a good one - mysterious, compelling, beautiful and intriguing. Add to that that this is the (normally slovenly) trailer for the ***US***... and that alone makes this more impressive. If that's the lowest common denominator, as US trailers often and usually are these days, this can only get better.

One of the most striking parts of this peek is the cinematography, which already looks to be be the most natural compliment to Woody's own style since the days of Zhao Fei's deft DiPalma / Nykvist / Willis imitations. The extra time Khondji didn't have on "Anything Else" but has had here (plus on home turf) looks to have paid off in spades. The shots look fantastic, but 2 things really stand out for me: the composition (wide! very wide at times! controlled and reasoned movement! hurray, someone gets it!) and the colour, which is very rich and warm without being over the top. Woody always asks every DP to shoot for warm tones, but often times in the past 11 years, most cinematographers completely misunderstand what he's asking and either over-saturate everything to the point of near garishness (Hollywood Ending) or seem to have no idea why they've been asked to do it and how it should be done properly (Cassandra's Dream, Tall Dark Stranger). Everything looks *naturally* warm here, a familiar tone and look that was prevalent over Woody's best work. Digital Intermediate's influence? Perhaps, but I'm going to give Khondji credit for this. Great, great work and shows signs of being the best shot Woody film in a decade or more.

Most of the dialogue sounds great already and it's nice to see Woody seemingly returning to poking some fun at the intelligentsia again as there are hints of here. Hopefully there is more of that.

The only part that my personal jury is out on still is Owen Wilson. Seems capable, but a couple instances there seem to be bordering into Branagh bad imitation Woody territory. But that might be the editing of the trailer too, so we'll see.

Something else to point out - Woody has finally returned to shooting at night. There has been woefully too little of that in the past 10 years... I know he's an old man and is probably snoozing by 9 or 10, but nighttime is a vital element in Woody's career... may sound far fetched, but watch Woody's films and watch how characters act and what they say in the daytime vs what happens at night. Much like rain is a major sign of a tumultuous romance or event brewing, night is also something of a truth serum in Woody's films, where the characters say what they really think and do what they really feel. Which, of course, helps the film out and helps add considerable depth to his characters (another point of praise that has been Woody's bread and butter for so long). Unfortunately, night time scenes, much less scenes dependent on the night, have been in smaller doses in the past 10 years... here comes a film that not only relies on that dichotomy but also finally returns to some of the poetic conceptual twists that framed many of Woody's best film and writing work. There was bits of that in Whatever Works (Larry breaking the 4th wall and talking to the camera at certain points of the film) but he never really used that to full effect in that film, only as an expository device. Looks like he has something far more substantial and interesting here.

I have high hopes for this. Tall Dark Stranger was good, Whatever Works was good, VCB was great, in my opinion (I think his best since Harry or even Crimes and Misdemeanors).

I think it has the potential to be as beautiful as VCB. Although, I'm not sure anything can top the lap dissolves with Hall and Bardem in VCB (one of my favorite scenes in any of his 40+ films). Nevertheless, it's a new Woody Allen film and I'll be taking a vacation day from work to see it the day it's released.