Midnight in Paris

I grew up with stupid comedies.  I love early Steve Martin and Mel Brooks, I can't help enjoying the nonstop barrage of movies like Airplane! or Top Secret!, and I have an unwavering love for the first Ace Ventura, despite the butt-talking.  I blame my dad for exposing my young mind to such perfectly crafted stupidity, but let's be honest --- I probably would have found my way to these movies without his help.  Not surprisingly, I grew up enjoying early Woody Allen films like Sleeper and Bananas, as well.  And, after those...well, there's pretty large gap.  I've never been able to endure the earnest awkwardness of Annie Hall (I think I've started it about six times and never made it more than thirty minutes in).  Someone told me that The Purple Rose of Cairo was amazing --- and it is clever, I'll agree --- but I certainly wasn't prepared for a Woody Allen movie that wasn't peppered with jokes.  Every time Allen releases a film (approximately every 4-8 months, from what I can tell), I always hear comments from Woody's apologists, saying "It's his best movie since ____," but I typically have never felt like watching the referenced movie, much less something with Jason Biggs in it.  Nevertheless, I did break from tradition and see Midnight in Paris.  And, to all the haters of the Woody Allen subgenre out there: the Allen apologists are right on this one.

Gil (Owen Wilson) is on a vacation in Paris with his fiancee, Inez (Rachel McAdams), and it's pretty obvious that they're not a great couple.  On paper, they should work; Gil is a successful Hollywood screenwriter and she...well, I'm not sure if she has a profession, but she appears to be wealthy, pretty and sociable --- a solid pairing for Hollywood brown-nosing.  Gil isn't satisfied, though.  He has taken time off work to write his first novel, and it's not going as well as he would have liked.  He's hoping to be inspired by the city of Paris, where so many of his idols lived and loved in the 1920s; Inez just hopes he will snap out of it so they can move to Malibu.  But no, Gil wants to drink in the romance of the city.  As luck would have it, the pair accidentally encounter some of Inez's friends, Paul (Michael Sheen) and Carol (Nina Arianda), and Gil's romantic Paris getaway becomes a group tour, where Paul narrates the history and meaning of everything they see.  Paul's knowledge and accuracy are questionable at best, but Carol and Inez fawn over him.  Annoyed by Paul's powerfully distilled blowhard-edness, Gil decides to spend some time on his own in Paris.

"And here's to you shutting the hell up"

He finds himself alone and drunk in an alley when the clock strikes midnight.  A car pulls up to the curb and the occupants invite him inside.  Being drunk, Gil doesn't notice how odd everyone is dressed until he finds himself at a party, introduced to Zelda (Alison Pill) and Scott (Tom Hiddleston) , arguably the poster boy for romantic writers obsessed with Paris.  And they are exactly as he always imagined they would be!

Specifically, Gil imagined they would be also play  Sex Bob-omb's drummer and Loki

Following the Fitzgeralds to another party, Gil meets and befriends Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll), who agrees to take Gil's novel to Gertrude Stein for an opinion.  But when he leaves the bar, he has returned to the present day.  If you were faced with a present where you feel unaccomplished and unhappy, and a "golden age" where you can interact with your idols, which would you pick?  Understandably, Gil starts living for the time he can spend in the past.  That's not particularly healthy, though.

Worst breakup speech ever: "I'm from the future..."

First things first, I must admit that I've never been to Paris, so I don't know how accurately Woody Allen is portraying the city.  I will say that Midnight in Paris does a good job capturing the romantic and exciting allure of the city; I don't know how much of that is rooted in reality, anyway.  At this point in his career, Woody Allen has been a legitimate film legend for at least thirty years, so he can fill his cast with just about any actor he wants and use them on an unabashedly nostalgic project.  On so many levels, Midnight in Paris should not work.  Owen Wilson has to be sympathetic, yet flawed, instead of smarmy and slightly more likable than some other jerk, which is his typical range; nostalgia can make for some poignant moments, but there's a fine line between that and quaintness; the story is pining for an age that most audiences have a limited knowledge of (at best) in a city that most audiences have never been.  The fact that Midnight in Paris works --- and is good, to boot --- is nothing short of astounding.

A big reason for this film's success comes from the actors.  I have never liked Owen Wilson much; I can enjoy him in Wes Anderson films, but I find him annoying in everything else.  Here, though, you're not supposed to completely like him --- and I can do that!  This is definitely the most complicated part I have seen Wilson play, and I thought he pulled it off with charm.  The intentionally unlikable characters (Rachel McAdams and her parents, played by Mimi Kennedy and the often kooky Kurt Fuller) were exactly what they were supposed to be; you were never supposed to like them even a little bit, but they were realistic enough to remind you of someone.  I also loved how convincingly Michael Sheen played a confident know-it-all; I think Sheen is underrated in America, but he delivered a lot of good lines in a style that was perfect for a habitual bullshitter.  For me, though, this is a film made by the bit parts.  There are so many actors --- good actors, too --- who had small roles, playing historical parts, and they were all very entertaining.  I'm not an F. Scott Fitzgerald fiend, but I was instantly able to recognize Scott and Zelda in this movie and it felt right to me.  Similarly, I absolutely loved every moment that included Adrien Brody's Salvador Dali impression and Kathy Bates as Gertrude Stein.

I also loved every mention of rhinoceroses

Marion Cotillard was typically lovely, although it is probably difficult to convincingly play a muse; Cotillard's American career continues to mature, as this is yet another atypical leading lady role that she has taken on of late.  Corey Stoll's work as Hemingway was equally impressive; for an actor I had never even heard of to turn in such a bad-ass manly performance was a treat.

Whatever comes out of his mouth can double as a Dos Equis or Old Spice commercial

I also liked Léa Seydoux as the local French gal; it wasn't an especially difficult role, but she was certainly adequate.  There are a few other notable appearances --- Mrs. France, Carla Bruni, has a fairly easy part and Oliver Rabourdin gets to play Gauguin --- but nothing as scene-stealing as what I've already mentioned.

With so many good acting performances, it should not be surprising that I liked Woody Allen's direction.  When he has a good script, Allen can coax out some remarkable performances from actors that typically get out-acted by Jackie Chan.

"To be fair, that was only twice..."

The whole film was extremely clever, and Allen took full advantage by laying visual breadcrumbs for the audience to pick up (or overlook), with regards to certain subplots.  Of course, since Allen directed Midnight in Paris, that means he also wrote it, so that whole "clever" thing goes double here.  I have a passing knowledge of Paris and its expatriates in the 1920s and even some knowledge of the Moulin Rouge-era; I certainly did not catch or appreciate every reference Allen includes in his script and direction, but I knew enough to be impressed by what I understood.  Even if you are oblivious to Gil's "golden age," this is still a very entertaining film; the characters are vibrant and strange and generally enjoyable.  More important than any of that, though, is the overall message.  In a year when so many movies (Hugo, The Artist, Super 8, etc.) have bent over backwards to give the glorious past a friendly handjob, Woody Allen (who has had his share of nostalgic flicks) made a movie that acknowledges that impulse, but then turns that into a forward-facing vision.  I found that incredibly refreshing and that's part of why this film left me with a silly grin on my face.

It is easy to enter into Midnight in Paris with some misconceptions.  It has elements of a romantic comedy; it could have slapstick humor in it, given the writer/director and cast; it could be a snooty Francophilic tribute; it could be yet another underwhelming film from an aging talent.  If you like France or French things, I think you will love this movie.  If you don't give a rat's ass about France, you will probably find it amusingly clever.  If you wish they had never changed the name back from American Fries, then you probably can't read, anyway.  This is easily one of the most well-written movies of 2011 and a welcome reminder of just how good Woody Allen can be.

What's Up, Tiger Lily?

Woody Allen's directorial debut is not what you might expect from the man who has made self-deprecation an art form.  In fact, any assumptions you might have over a first-time director's work are probably going to be wrong here.  What's Up, Tiger Lily? is a unique blend of stupid slapstick and clever ideas.  And by "unique," I mean that this the first and (for the most part) only movie of its kind.

What makes this movie so special?  Allen takes two Japanese spy movies --- International Secret Police: A Barrel of Gunpowder and International Secret Police: Key of Keys --- and re-wrote and re-dubbed all the dialogue, and also radically re-edited the two films.  So, instead of being a spy story about smuggling or whatever, it turned into a film about the quest for the ultimate egg salad recipe.  This isn't the only time a movie has re-dubbed a movie, but this one features no new footage and does not insert any American actors into the story (like the awful Kung Pow: Enter the Fist).

A film that dubs in funny dialogue defeats the purpose of witty captions.

Normally, I would provide a bit of plot summary for the film, but that's completely besides the point in this movie.  The re-editing and -dubbing makes the acting equally irrelevant.  What mattes is just how funny the film is.  And it's occasionally very funny.  My favorite joke has one character unrolling blueprints and saying something along the lines of so-and-so lives here, which gets the response "He lives in that piece of paper?"  Pretty dumb, I know, but it made me laugh.  The character names are all joke names, too, with the Yaki sisters (Suki and Teri), a villain named Wing Fat and the Japanese hero named Phil Moscowitz.  Again, these are all fairly cheap jokes, but are still sometimes funny.

Surprisingly, you might recognize some contributors to the movie.  Woody Allen makes a few brief appearances as himself, where he either explains (or doesn't) the film's concept.  Allen's occasional early collaborator/future ex-wife Louise Lasser (she was in Bananas) provided one of the girl voices in the film.  The Lovin' Spoonful also appeared in a few scenes, but I'll speak to that in a little bit.  The most surprisingly thing about this cast is that one of the actors (the Asian ones) actually had a substantial role in a major British motion picture; Mie Hama was in the James Bond film You Only Live Twice.  The rest of the cast apparently was content to be Japanese B-movie actors, which isn't too surprising, after watching their acting.  Oh, and if you're curious about the striptease (unrelated to anything else in the movie) during the end credits, that is China Lee, the first Asian-American Playboy Playmate.  She was married to Allen's friend, and he promised her a part in the movie; she ended up with a striptease while Allen ate an apple behind her, which is not at all uncomfortable.

While there are several genuinely funny one-liners, What's Up, Tiger Lily? is surprisingly bland and oddly paced.  The first five-ish minutes of the movie are scenes from an un-dubbed and un-subtitled Asian movie.  This is even before the opening credits, so it is both somewhat confusing to watch and it makes for five minutes of the movie that were completely unnecessary.  Then Allen shows up on screen and explains the gist of the movie, which is helpful, if not awkward.  What surprised me when I reviewed this film for the first time since I was a kid is just how much of the movie is spent on not-jokes and silence.  It feels like Allen lost sight of the purpose of his movie idea (manufacture an excuse to tell lots of silly jokes) and actually tried to tell a not-too-interesting story.  Another odd thing to note about the movie is that, if you cut out the Lovin' Spoonful and the un-dubbed introductory scenes, this movie would clock in at just over an hour --- and it's still not jam-packed with jokes.

You might notice that the scenes with the Lovin' Spoonful were obviously not intended to appear as if they made any sense at all in the context of the film.  The band is shown in a studio with a bunch of dancing kids for two separate songs.  What's up with that?  Apparently, those scenes were included on the insistence of the movie studio, with little or no input from Allen, which is perhaps the last time the writer/director is blameless for any aspect of any of his films.

Ugh.  Just awful.  And ugly, too.

I was surprised at what I found in What's Up, Tiger Lily?  Yes, it is certainly part of Woody Allen's early collection of movies that stress the importance of the gag above all else, but it is also the least funny Allen movie I have seen from this period.  It's nice to know that he can crack jokes that aren't about his inept love life or his neuroses, but this movie was a little bland when you compare it to Sleeper, Bananas, or Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex.  Is it wacky?  Sure.  Is it silly?  Definitely.  It's just nowhere near as funny as the concept promises.

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask)

If you've never seen Everything You've Ever Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask), it was loosely based on the book of the same name.  And, by "loosely," I mean that they are both about sex.  A Woody Allen written and directed movie about sex might not sound like the greatest idea now, but this was back when the man was actually funny, and not just clever.  This isn't a traditional film, though.  Instead of having a plot, it is a series of vignettes that are unrelated, except for sharing the common theme of sex.  There are no common characters and there isn't really any through line to connect them.  In other words, a comedian had an idea for a few sketches about sex and arbitrarily decided to package them together as a movie.  I don't have a problem with that.  Do you?

SEX

There are seven mini stories in this film, but not all of them are equally entertaining.  Part 1 (Do Aphrodisiacs Work?) is set in medieval times, where a court jester (Woody Allen) uses an aphrodisiac on the Queen (Lynn Redgrave) to seduce her.  Allen uses the rapid-fire joke approach here, which means that there are some good jokes, but a lot of bad ones; if you're a fan of "comedic" Hamlet references, though, this is your Holy Grail.  Part 2 (What is Sodomy?) is the tale of a doctor (Gene Wilder) that falls in love with a sheep.  Obviously, this is an incredibly stupid sketch, and the highlight of the movie for me.  This bit is Gene Wilder in all his early-70s glory, and features the best single take (not a double take) in film history.  Part 3 (Why Do Some Women Have Trouble Reaching Orgasm?) has Allen again, but this time he discovers that the only way for his far-too-attractive-for-him wife (and actual ex-spouse) to climax is to have sex in public.  This bit is filmed entirely in Italian, which actually helps make this funnier.  Part 4 (Are Transvestites Homosexuals?) has a man getting caught dressing up in women's clothing; I'm sure this is knee-slapping fun in England, but it made me yawn.  Part 5 (What Are Sex Perverts?) is a little better, focusing on a game show where Regis Philbin (who only looks to be about 75 years old at the time) and a few other celebrities try to guess someone's perversion.  It's not a great sketch, but I laughed when I saw part of a rabbi's fantasy included his wife eating pork.  Part 6 (Are the Findings of Doctors and Clinics Who Do Sexual Research and Experiments Accurate?) has Woody starring again, this time opposite John Carradine.  The bit has Carradine as a mad scientist interested in sex that releases a gigantic killer breast on an unsuspecting public.

If that sounds stupid to you, then I think Allen achieved what he was aiming for.  Part 7 (What Happens During Ejaculation?) is the most star-studded sketch of the film, with Tony Randall, a gum-chewing Burt Reynolds, and Allen again.  Randall and Reynolds work inside the brain of a man on a date, and try to control the rest of the body to make sure that this date ends in successful sex.  The sperm (including a nervous Allen) are, more or less, paratroopers waiting to invade a foreign territory and terrified at all the non-fallopian places they can end up.

So, yeah, this is a bunch of skits shoved into a movie format.  While not the first time a movie has struggled with the film format to show off some silly sketches (Casino Royale - 1967, anyone?), and it certainly wouldn't be the last time (Kentucky Fried Movie), Everything... is an interesting film in its own right.  Not all the sketches work well --- the cross-dressing sketch and the game show are notable examples --- but this movie best encapsulates Woody Allen's early phase: try to get as many laughs as possible, all the time.  However, the scenes that work best in the movie (the Italian film tribute and Gene Wilder's sheep loving) show off different aspects of Allen's talent.  The Italian sketch might maintain the three-jokes-a-minute pace of the rest of the film, but it has Allen playing against type as a cool, sexy man; it also shows his first tendency to imitate/emulate the works of great directors, like Fellini.  The sheep sketch has the slowest pace of the entire film, but the biggest laughs; it's hard to believe, but this is the most understated sketch in the whole movie, relying on timing and delivery more than dialogue or physical comedy for its laughs.  When you look at Allen's filmography, it might be initially surprising that there are only two movies separating this silliness from Annie Hall, but there are some signs of creative growth here, hidden amongst all the goofiness.

Understated.

Enough about the big picture, how does the movie stand up on its own?  Surprisingly well, actually.  I'm not going to lie and tell you that all parts of the film have aged well, or that Woody Allen is a genius that can do no wrong --- at least three of the seven sketches in this film are either unfunny or yawn-inducing.  The bits that work, though, work well.  There is plenty of slapstick physical comedy, there is some absurdist humor, and there are some moderately conceptual jokes.  In other words, there is something here for everyone, and at a pace so rapid fire that you barely have time to laugh at the jokes you like, much less groan at the ones you don't.  This certainly isn't a great film for acting or directing, but it's as silly as it intends to be, and funnier than it has any right to be.

...and that's for a movie that is 3/7 junk!  I kind of wish that Allen had just added these sketches as film shorts to show before his other movies, but whatever.  Pure dumb fun, and worth the price of admission just to see Gene Wilder and Woody Allen work together in their prime.

Casino Royale (1967)

Sometimes, when I watch movies, there will be a sequence that makes me stop the picture, rewind and play it again.  This is done out disbelief, which can be either good or bad.  A sweet line of dialogue or an absolutely ridiculous stunt gets good disbelief.  Absolutely random or stupid things get the bad disbelief.  The entire running time for Casino Royale gets the bad kind.

While Casino Royale is based on Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel of the same name, don't confuse it with the 2006 version.  This is not an official Bond movie, but a British spoof of Bond and a bunch of other spy movies.  The film has five (!) directors, with each making their own vignette that is tied together at the very end.  John Huston, Val Guest, Ken Hughes, Joseph McGrath, and Robert Parrish all acted as director.  Each vignette has its own style and feel, and spoofs different things.  Likewise, the story is very segmented and disjointed.  It should be no surprise that the story is not the main focus for the film.  Instead, the emphasis seems to be on several small moments that, when they work, are extremely funny.

The story begins with an attempt to coax Sir James Bond (David Niven) out of retirement by his old boss, M (John Huston), a CIA guy (William Holden), someone from the KGB, and a French guy.  Predicting Bond's refusal, M arranged for the British government to bomb Bond's home and have it blamed on the evil international organization SMERSH.  The house crumbles,convincing Bond to come out of retirement, but sadly, M dies in the bombing.  Way to plan ahead, genius.  Bond's first act is to return M's body to his family in Scotland.  Sir James is a very prim and proper man who despises the seductive film versions that have had success in recent years; SMERSH seeks to discredit him by ruining his chaste image.  To do so, they replaced all of M's family with sexy SMERSH female agents, all intent on seducing Sir James.  Despite their best efforts, he resists their charms and wins over the operations leader (Deborah Kerr).  From there, Bond returns to England as the head of MI6.  He has his secretary, Miss Moneypenny (Barbara Bouchet) assign the code name "James Bond 007" to all remaining secret agents, in an attempt to confuse both SMERSH and the audience. 

I could go on in detail, but that's as clear as the plot ever gets, so it's probably not worth it.  There are only two other important story lines, in my opinion.  The first involves the recruitment of Evelyn Tremble (Peter Sellers) into a "James Bond 007" identity by fellow "James Bond," Vesper Lynd (Ursula Andress).  Tremble-Bond's mission, like in the 2006 version, is to defeat the villainous Le Chiffe (Orson Welles) at cards.  The other story line involves Sir James Bond facing off against the head of SMERSH, who also happens to be his clumsy nephew, Jimmy Bond (Woody Allen).  Jimmy is very intimidated by his uncle, so he has trouble speaking in his presence, but if his evil plan succeeds, he won't have to.  All men over 4'6" will die, leaving Jimmy as the big man in the world for all women to adore.  The rest of the film has a smorgasbord of movie stars in bit parts and plot sequences that make little to no sense, leading up to a finale that involves cowboys, Indians, and Woody Allen hiccuping illustrated clouds of smoke and eventually exploding.

The supporting cast is very good, even if they only are given a few lines.  Aside from those already mentioned (who give the best performances), George Raft, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Jacqueline Bisset, Anna Quale, Tracy Reed, Peter O'Toole, and Jack Gwillim all have bit parts.  The main acting, though, is not as good.  I realize that David Niven is as British as they come, so his humor is probably going to be very British (read: dry and peculiar, with a weakness for men wearing dresses).  This movie has a ton of slapstick in it, though, which doesn't match his style at all.  He seems uncomfortable throughout.  Peter Sellers is better, but at least half of his screen time is painfully awkward; the other half is pretty funny, though, which makes up for quite a bit.  It's Woody Allen that gets the most laughs with a great show of physical comedy near the end of the film.

The frustrating thing about this movie is that it should be far better than it is.  Seriously, who would have thought that a Peter Sellers/Woody Allen movie wouldn't be very funny?  The problems are myriad, but they boil down to a lack of vision.  Just because the movie is split into several sub-stories doesn't mean that the film as a whole has to suffer; Creepshow, Twilight Zone: The Movie, Grindhouse, and Kentucky Fried Movie are all choppy and mashed together, but their segments share a similar tone.  Casino Royale can't decide what type of comedy it is.  There's an entire sequence that appears to be a satire of contemporary German films, but then finishes with a Benny Hill-type ending.  Huh?  That's okay, Mr. Random Ending, Peter Sellers outdoes you by being physically missing from the final third of his scenes (he either quit or was fired, depending on who you ask).  David Niven's scenes work better as a whole, but they feel like they came out of a British sitcom.  They're cheap, cheeky, and pretty lame.  Basically, there are too many styles at work, and none compliment each other.  I will give director Val Guest credit for trying to tie these disparate strands of story together, but he never truly succeeds; he apparently realized this and turned down a "Supervising Director" credit after he saw the final cut of the film.  Disappointing movies don't come easily or quickly, it seems, and this mess takes over two hours to wind down.

Despite all the bad (two hours!), this movie is not without its charms.  As a James Bond aficionado, it's fun to see the series lampooned.  Personally, I thought David Niven's turn as a celibate Bond was clever, even if it wasn't very funny.  As I mentioned before, Peter Sellers and Woody Allen are entertaining, although Allen was criminally underused.  Many of the other scenes would have worked better if they were shorter, or if the vignettes were edited together as a united film.  But, for what it is, Casino Royale isn't terrible.  It's a product of its time, filled with clean-cut men, sexy women, surreal randomness, and painfully British humor.