Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
forgot to say, last night rewatched MANHATTAN, which i had not seen in ages.
first i thought it was older than annie hall, but no--it came right after. it's just that it's shot in black and white that makes it look older.
and it's a pretty great movie! BUT-- this time i could not get over the creepy aspect of a 42 year old dating a high school kid. i kept detaching from the story repeatedly because of it, and thinking "this is so fucking wrong."
so yes like ebert says it's not a love story, it's a story of loss and dysfunctional relationships, sure, and it's great black and white cinematography and those scenes with gershwin were fantastc, and little mariel heming way was great in it, but seeing how she was actually 18 at the time and woody allen slobbering over her in a horse carriage it was a bit gag-worthy.
i wanted to like it more but it was like a harsh staticky noise or worse, like a needle skipping on a scratched vinyl record and you're like "this is a great tune!" and then "akkkkhhhhhhh, my ears!"
ewwww! creeptastic!
but otherwise a really good movie about neurotic intellectuals/pseudointellectuals in new york at its cultural peak |
All true, all true.
Still, “Manhattan” is a great film. It really is. It’s defintiely super fucked up, and nobody should EVER act like it’s not. Woody is fucked up. But it’s a great movie from several different angles. Acting, cinematography, screenwriting, MUSIC OH MY GOD!! It’s just one of those movies.
It’s not even his best. “Annie Hall” is his best, in my dumb opinion, but I dig “Manhattan” big time. Used to have a huge framed poster from the movie in my first apartment.