Visitors Review

anonymous (2012-05-23 08:01)

The worst Woody Allen film

Celebrity is Woody Allen's worst film ever. The script is as pathetic asKenneth Branagh's impersonation of Woody Allen's character inDeconstructingHarry. The jokes are predictable (especially the ones about blowjobs) andthe whole movie goes nowhere, without making a point. Reallyawful.

Felix W. Marshall (2012-05-22 14:15)

If you're a Woody Allen fan, you will like it. If not, well...

This is a rather typical Woody Allen film. It is overly written and has alarge cast of today's well known screen personalities with some stars. Thedialogue is the usual talkly Allenesque verbiage, for which he has becomefamous. Kenneth Branagh has the "Woody Allen role", presumably becauseWoody has become too old for it, and performs Woody's ticks and mannerismsto the point of parody. The weaknesses in the film are (1) that Branagh isable to earn the interest of such attractive women (never believable), and(2) Joe Mantegna's interest in the Judy Davis' paranoid, goofball characteris never remotely believable and is in fact never explained. What isremarkable is that Allen is able to bring out a wonderful performance byWinona Ryder, something I have never seen before from this wide eyed, cupiedoll actress. This film is probably only going to be really enjoyed bystrong Woody Allen fans and fans who like to see a lot of "movie stars"parading across the screen.

(2012-05-22 09:31)

Waiting To Laugh

An hour into "Celebrity" I realized it wasn't going to get any funnier,Kenneth Branaugh wasn't going to look any better or become interesting, andthat it had been a long time since I actually enjoyed a Woody Allen film.Anyone else tired of his wet-dream movies? I mean, there was a time when wewent to a Woody Allen movie to get away from crassness. Now, every fifteenminutes he seems compelled to provide us with another blow job reference.It's nice that he gets Melanie Griffith out of the way early on so we don'thave to keep worrying about her showing up again and scaring us with herlips, and Judy Davis gets a bigger role than she's had in awhile (who couldget tired of her?). The little girls can squeal at Leonardo DiCaprio, whostill appears pre-pubescent (it's best not to dwell on what appeals to hisfans), Winona Ryder still shows promise after 12 years on the screen, butthe movie fades after 15 minutes. I forgot I saw it.

the_mad_mckenna (2012-05-22 08:36)

Should have been called "the Hindenburg" - its a disaster.

Where do you begin with a Thanksgiving main course like this? Woody's takeon "Celebrity", which seems to be his attamept to play catch-up to "ThePlayer" is the biggest bomb since Nagasaki. Bad enough that you have Branaghtrying to PLAY Woody in the film, but none of it is convincing. Stars DO NOTjump into bed with 40-something nebbishy acting freelance (freelance!)entertainment reporters. Woody says almost nothing about celebrity hereexcept for his own ego and narcissism. Pass it by.

bear-81 (2012-05-19 15:34)

TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE!!!!!

God!!! What an awful film!!!! Sad thing about it is that I LOVE WoodyAllenmovies.......what the heck was he thinking when he made this stiff??? IdidNOT laugh, chuckle or even smile at any given point throughout this overlylong anoying piece of garbage. If there was a point to all thismess.....itlost me early on. I got soooooooo sick of seeing Kenneth Branaugh do acheap impersonation of Woody.......why......why.....WHY?!?!?Woody himself should have done his own schtick without involving someonedoing an awful job imitating himself.I have had more exhilarating root canals done in my mouth than what Iwitnessed with this flick.Please....Woody......no more of this!!!

millennia-2 (2012-05-19 00:21)

Bland and highly uninvolving

This is (and will likely remain) the only Allen movie I have seen, and itis boring and never funny for even a second. There may be a deeper meaningbeneath the visible, but I was too tired of the characters and script tocare at all about finding it. In most films black and white is used to helpcreate a mood or enhance the film in some way, but here it just gets in theway.An excellent cast (including Kenneth Branagh, Winona Ryder, and LeonardoDiCaprio) is wasted, and apparently the studio didn't care enough about itto give it much of a release. So if you are out looking for a good laugh,keep looking, as there's nothing to see here.

edwagreen (2012-05-17 15:08)

This Celebrity is Just Not that Famous to Me **

Kenneth Branagh assumed the part that a younger Woody Allen would havehad in "Celebrity."As always, this Woody Allen creation deals with relationships. Judy Davis steals this film in the role of a plain-Jane looking womanwho is divorced by Branagh, as he is looking for more fulfillment inhis life.While in an office regarding a face lift, the English teacher Judymeets up with a producer who is doing a feature on the facial doctor.Joe Montegna plays the producer and he falls for her without her doinganything to her face.Davis shows her adeptness at comedy. In fact, she is even better hereat being funny than when the role requires more serious acting.One line I regarded as utter stupidity by Allen. It is when Branaghstates that he would do something even if it meant getting terminalcancer. Besides being a horrible thought, this line was totallyinsensitive to cancer patients.Davis can't believe that she has fallen in so good. In fact, it is sheherself who almost ruins things by jilting Joe at the altar. A seersaves the day. By film's end, we see Branagh having nothing in his life other than afew trysts with others who prove themselves to be faithless anddimwitted.

Dan Grant (2012-05-17 02:50)

awful

I don't understand why everyone wants to do a Woody Allen film. He alwaysgets a plethora of name actors that wave their normal fees just to be in hisfilms. But why? What is the intrigue? Where is the greatness that youwould think his films should stun us with? I have never admired Woody Allenfilms. Never. I enjoyed Husbands and Wives and Crimes and Misdemeanors. Everything else, including the abyssmal Annie Hall, I find pretentious,silly and so incredibly boring. Deconstructing Harry was one of the worstfilms I have ever seen, and even though this film isn't as bad DH, it isstill awful. What I don't understand is why Hollywood producers continue to fund Allenfilms. Do they actually make money? Does the studio ever turn in a profitafter all is said and done? I don't see how. And at first it surprised meas to all the positive comments on here about this flick, but then Irealized that it is only hard core, die hard Allen fans that will comment onthis piece of garbage anyway. So it is only natural that most of the peoplein here are going to like Celebrity, because they already like Woody Allenas it is. I guess that would be like me seeing a Bill Paxton film, nomatter how bad it is, I will always like it ( by the way, there are no badBill Paxton films!!!). Celebrity is a film about one character going through a journey after hismarriage breaks up. And of course his marriage is in shambles because ofinfidelity. What else could it possibly be? After all, even though I couldnever believe that Allen could ever get a fraction of the women on screenthat he has, his characters are always screwing everything that moves. Atleast Brannaugh is at handsome enough that you can see how he could bed someof the women in here, but still.....Celebrity is slow, pointless and pretty much awful. When Allen has his"brilliant" final shot, it was supposed to be symbolic of the maincharacters life. To me it was symbolic of how I felt by sitting throughthis film.**** There is one final comment that I have to make. It has little to dowith the film itself except to say that it concerns Leonardo DiCaprio. Whyis it that Hollywood is claiming that he is now the hottest star in theworld? They claim it because Titanic was the biggest film ever made andteenage girls were throwing themselves at him. People say that he is goingto be the next Tom Cruise or Will Smith in terms of box office appeal. Butdo people not remember that it was the film that made Titanic as great as itwas, and as good he was in it, he was but one part of the movie. If thatwas true ( that he made the film the hit that he did ) then Celebrity wouldhave made 100 million just from his name alone. But it didn't. It didn'tbecause young women don't want to see him in this kind of role, they want tosee him in Titanic. If you remember before Titanic, he was alwaysconsidered a great actor that no one really knew about. But now he is inTitanic and " Oh my God, he is the hottest thing since Marlon Brando fromthe 50's." Tell me why no one went to see Celebrity if Leo is so hot. Why? I'll tell you why. Because Leo is not as hot as people say and think andbecause Celebrity is not a good movie. That's all I got to say aboutthat.

Polaris_DiB (2012-05-16 09:25)

Lesser known Allen aims for Fellini, hits Allen.

So, basically, this is Woody Allen remaking La Dolce Vita. The moviestarts out with Woody Allen ('scuse me, "Lee Simon", which is KennethBranaugh basically proving what I previously thought impossible -- thatsomebody who was not Woody Allen could pull off Woody Allen) at thehighest in his life, getting beautiful women, enjoying the company ofthe famous elite, getting anxious over nothing... and his wife RobinSimon (Judy Davis), who is at her lowest point, being dumped by Lee andconsidering plastic surgery. Over the course of a year, their liveswill completely reverse course, as misfortune hits Lee and fortunepicks up Robin, and in the meantime no end to silliness andcelebrity-related nonsense keep things chaotic, moving, and Allen-stylefunny.It's a pretty good movie but it's rather exhausting. At least thismovie makes Allen's womanizing seem a bit more understandable, asBranaugh is much more charismatic. One of Leonardo DiCaprio's bestroles is in here as a coked out screen star. Judy Davis does an amusingimpression of Blanche from A Streetcar Named Desire, and then laterperforms fellatio on a banana. It certainly will entertain you, ifyou're the type to handle Allen's neurotic approach to humor. I for oneam a friend.The point? Apparently, love, celebrity, all those things that peoplewant just strips down to luck. Of course, whence in it, it all becomesso solipsistic, but this comedy of errors shows that the mostsolipsistic ones are the most blind to the precariousness of theirposition.--PolarisDiB

jediknight82 (2012-05-15 23:32)

It was missing something...

When I saw the coverbox for Celebrity, I thought that this would be anexcellent movie due to the all-star ensemble cast and the fact that WoodyAllen wrote and directed it. In reality, this movie did have it's goodparts, but to be honest, I was disappointed. First, the movie was in blackand white, which has worked for other movies (Clerks for example), but itwas not right for this film. You need to see the bright lights and gaudyjewelry that is present in Hollywood today. Second, I am a fan of KennethBranagh, but his performance left something to be desired. It was thoughhewas a puppet and Allen was the ventriloquist. If you watch one of Allen'smovies that he also stars in and then watch Celebrity, you will see thatBranagh is not acting as he normally would. He was acting just like Allen,and if I wanted to see Allen, I would have picked up one of his moviesinstead.

Lee Eisenberg (2012-05-14 15:25)

at least he's making fun of rich New Yorkers

In the late '90s, we began to find Woody Allen's work stale because hewas focusing on neurotic rich New Yorkers and the various goings-on intheir lives. Personally, most people could give a rip about that stuff."Deconstructing Harry" was better since it showed these people as morevicious, and "Celebrity" goes so far as to make fun of them. KennethBranagh plays Allen-esquire magazine writer Lee Simon, who has to besurrounded by various and sundry celebrities. Leonardo DiCaprio has thebest role, basically playing a parody of himself. Probably the bestline is when they see Andre Gregory's character, and they say that he'sone of those directors who's gotten into...well, I'll let you find outfor yourself. But this one is worth seeing, unlike "Everyone Says ILove You".

Movie_Man 500 (2012-05-13 23:19)

Fellini'esque

Technically, this is one of Allen's best movies for pure fluid cameramovement. Watch how he goes thru crowd scenes here, you can't look away.However, many of the actors in this story look uncomfortable, especiallyJudy Davis, who never seems to relax in any of her scenes. It may be justher character is supposed to be played this way, but it looks like Davisherself couldn't calm down at all during filming. That aside, I love thebeginning and ending with the Help in the sky and the final sequence at thefilm premiere is haunting. Sure, this is a Fellini knockoff but who betterto imitate? On a more physical level: this has to rank at the top forCharlize Theron's sexiest time on screen. She looks almost unapproachablehere, like beyond super model status. Her moments are all too brief butmemorable and most of them hit the wow factor without any dialogue. Shecould stand in a corner and still be a knockout. And Allen really gets agreat, equally short performance from Melanie Griffith. Her and Theronshould have been the leads.

Gyran (2012-05-12 20:22)

Masterly filmmaking

Kenneth Branagh here plays the Woody Allen role and gives an uncannyimitation. At first I found this slightly irritating but I soon settled backto enjoy it. I was uncertain as to how his character was supposed toillustrate the pros and cons of being a celebrity since he is only anewspaper feature writer with very little public visibility. Consequently,it is not really clear why so many beautiful women throw themselves at him.I think this film is really a cautionary tale about the consequences ofinfidelity. Lee (Kenneth Branagh) is a serial philanderer who is alwayswilling to abandon a relationship on the promise of something that may bebetter or newer. He walks out of a 15-year marriage with Robin because hewants to play the field. He gets involved in a relationship with Bonnie thatis successful both personally and professionally but he gives it up for thepromise of something new in the shape of Nola. Counterpointing Lee's descentinto the abyss is Robin's rise from neurotic ex-wife to blissfully marriedsuccessful television personality. Judy Davis as Robin is always a joy tosee in any film, even though she does go several miles over the top in thisone. She just cannot believe how happy she has become and concludes thathappiness is just a question of luck. In this film it is just that but itdoes not make a very convincing thesis.This is masterly filmmaking by anyone's standards but because it came afterDeconstructing Harry and because it is not quite the tour de force of thatfilm, some critics have expressed disappointment. To me that reaction ischurlish. This is a fascinating, funny, thought provoking film by a masterat the height of his powers. It is understated, fast moving, subtle andliterate with a script that must be about 10 times the length of the averageHollywood production. I would particularly pick out the scene where Lee andNola eye each other across a crowded restaurant table and they know thatthey are going to start an affair. The hand-held camera circles slowlyaround the guests, everyone is talking except Lee and Nola, who just look ateach other.I also enjoyed the scene where Robin visits a hooker in order to havelessons on performing felatio. The hooker demonstrates on a banana,accidentally bites into it and ends up choking herselfThe film is nicely framed by an opening scene of a skywriter writing Help inthe New York sky as part of a film-shoot and ends with a disconsolate Lee,at the premiere of the film watching the same scene.Celebrity seems to have had a greater commercial success than DeconstructingHarry, probably because of a small role played by Leonardo da Caprio as ahellraising film star. For once the music is rather disappointing, even theBillie Holliday song is one of her less memorable numbers.

Cara-8 (2012-05-12 15:42)

A giant piece of fakery.

"Celebrity" is an amazingly fake movie. For example:1) Branagh is faking an American accent, pretending to beWoody.2) Judy Davis's character is an (apparently) fake high school Englishteacher who thinks Chaucer wrote "Beowulf."3) Davis's character is also an (apparently) fake woman who doesn't feel atwinge of regret that her lavish wedding was spoiled.4) Woody Allen is faking having any new ideas to make movies outof.Too bad...

drosse67 (2012-05-08 01:39)

So you wanna be a celebrity....

As Woody Allen is too old for the lead, Kenneth Branagh literally steps intohis shoes and does such an effective job at playing Woody that he must havewatched every Allen movie at least six times. The film is hilarious butdeep--like his best films. It explores our obsession with celebrities andthe media's obsession with them, and I wonder how much "acting" LeonardoDiCaprio did for this film. But the more I thought about it afterwards, themore I realized how sad the movie is at its core--the word "help" beingwritten in the sky may be what Allen is thinking--is this what we havebecome? So obsessed with fortune and fame that we literally prostituteourselves and become someone we aren't (i.e. Judy Davis' character)?The movie seems more timely now than in 1998. Americans seem to be moreinterested in what Paris Hilton does on TV, or what J-Lo and Affleck are upto, than what's going on in the world. "Celebrity" nails it, and likeDeconstructing Harry, does it in a rather vulgar manner. But you have towonder how much of this is based on real events (again, I cite Di Caprio). This was the second movie (after 2 Days in the Valley) that made me aware ofthe statuesque beauty of Charlize Theron. I didn't think she could actworth a hoot (that opinion recently changed), but she sure looked like arich runway model to me. This movie is one of my favorite Woody films of the '90s, and one of hismost underrated. It's also visually beautiful, in black & white thatrecalls the photography of Manhattan.

Dustin Putman (2012-05-07 18:00)

A winning and often hilarious comedy that delves into the lives of the rich, the famous and the struggling.

ahab-5 (2012-05-05 17:51)

Same formula, different protagonist

I must give Woody Allen credit for one thing: At least he seems to havestopped pretending that every gorgeous woman on earth is standing in line tothrow herself at his protagonist. But what has he done instead? He hassimply cast Kenneth Branagh in his place as a somewhat younger and morehandsome substitute, but one who is, alas, no less frumpy, neurotic,unaccomplished and ultimately dislikable as Allen´s now-stock character hasbecome in recent years. Really, watching Branagh imitate Allen to a "T" maybe an interesting idea for a skit, but after about 25 minutes it is painful,and by the end of the film it is downright embarrassing. The Allen theme of"womanizer gets his comeuppance" is by now quite predictable, and this filmdoes not deviate from it one bit. Some of the social satire is clever, asusual, but "Celebrity" ends up dying on the vine because of its wildlyimprobable insistence that nymphomaniac supermodels and barely-legalliterary beauties cannot keep their hands off of a male protagonist whoneither exhibits any sort of charisma nor has any kind of achievements tohis credit. At least in many earlier Allen movies--and despite this andother recent efforts I am still a big fan of his work as a whole--there wasa certain charm and allure to that one-note character of his. But merelyinserting Kenneth Branagh to talk and act exactly like Woody Allen wasdefinitely not the solution to the creativity problems which have plaguedhis films lately.

Spleen (2012-05-05 16:53)

Allen should have known better

A piece of advice that directors should religiously follow: DO NOT make afilm about the making of films. And another: if you must make a film aboutthe making of films, whatever you do, don't make it about Hollywood. Filmsabout Hollywood are invariably tedious. At least, they're more tedious thanthey would have been if they'd been about something else.You think there are exceptions? Look closely. I can think of two obviouslybrilliant films about Hollywood: "Singin' in the Rain", and "Barton Fink". (The former is Stanley Donen's best work, the latter is the Coen brothers'.) Both these films are set in the past - even "Singin' in the Rain" was settwenty-four years in the past - and don't purport, in any way, to be aboutthe present. You need to be able to place some distance between yourselfand your subject matter in order to photograph it properly. So it's reallyfilms about CONTEMPORARY film-making that die on their feet, and even then,it's not the subject matter per se that kills them: it's the insidiouslittle worm of self-reference.The film that comes closest to being an exception to THIS rule is "SunsetBoulevard", which works for a variety of reasons: it's less about thepresent (i.e. 1950) than it is about the past, the strongest scenes are theones which place themselves most outside any particular era, Wilder was awriter and director with enough hard-headedness to distance himself fromanything - and for all that, "Sunset Boulevard" is one of his weaker films,precisely because the worm of self-reference DOES eat away at it, at least alittle bit. In any event, "Sunset Boulevard" is the BEST that can happen. A more likely result is something like "The Player", which is ENTIRELY aboutcontemporary Hollywood, and has been so eaten away by the little worm ofself-reference that there's nothing left. It might as well be its own"making of" documentary. (Indeed, "making of" documentaries themselvesprove my point: they're only of the slightest interest when they're made byoutsiders looking in, and these days they never are.)"Celebrity" is more fortunate than "The Player", but the little worm hasleft Woody Allen with a hollower than usual script. Even "Manhattan MurderMystery" had more substance. Luckily, the central character (played byKenneth Branagh) is NOT a celebrity, and it's the clash between his workOUTSIDE Hollywood (the novel) and those sections of his private life thatare also outside Hollywood, that generate what interest there is. The imagethat sticks in my mind is the climax of this conflict, set down at the docks- I suspect you, too, will have difficulty remembering much else. Thisscene alone inclines me to think that the film is, in the end, good, but allthe same it IS Allen at his weakest.P.S.: Someone else wrote: "Why black and white? If a movie has mundanescenes like Celebrity, then why not shoot it in color?" Because if it hadbeen shot in colour, it would have been just as appropriate to ask: "Whycolour? If a movie has mundane scenes like Celebrity, then why not shoot itin black and white?" Just because colour is the industry default doesn'tmean it should be treated as such. Obviously, a work in black and whiteshould USE the medium, and "Celebrity" does fall short of "Manhattan" - butit doesn't fail to realise the potential of black and white nearly so badlyas most modern films fail to realise the potential of colour.

strutter-4 (2012-05-03 04:37)

This movie was terrible.

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It starts out slow anddoesn't appear to go very far by the end. It is sad to say, but I couldhave told you who wrote this movie without seeing the credits. Many of thetalented cast play a stereotypical Woody Allen role. At least now I knowfor sure, that Woody Allen writes the way he acts. I could not even enjoythis movie on a cultural level and feel that the movie industry has reallylet down the viewer by allowing it to be made.

Sean Gallagher (2012-05-02 13:57)

Allen once again spinning his wheels

I've been a huge Woody Allen fan since I was a kid, so it hurts me to saythis, but I think after DECONSTRUCTING HARRY and this, Allen might bespinning his wheels creatively. The former at least had the virtue of beingfunny, but while some of this is funny, it's not enough to mask a somewhatshallow and half-hearted enterprise. This also reminded me of Altman'sREADY TO WEAR; another satire that, considering who it was coming from, leftme wanting, but again, at least that one was funny.Kenneth Branagh is a great actor, but it took me awhile to warm up to hisdoing a Woody impression. Judy Davis, Joe Mantegna, and Winona Ryder arealways watchable, and they're good here. But the surprise was LeonardoDiCaprio. His sequence is the only really laugh-out-loud funny moment ofthe movie, and it's nice to see at this stage of his career that he canlaugh at himself.