Annie Hall is directed by Woody Allen who also stars and co-writes the screenplay with Marshall Brickman. Cast alongside Allen is Diane Keaton, Tony Roberts, Carol Kane, Paul Simon, Shelley Duvall, Christopher Walken and Colleen Dewhurst.
Alvy Singer (Allen) investigates the reasons why his relationship with Annie Hall (Keaton) failed.
It's just not for me! This film I mean. I like a lot of Woody Allen stuff, Manhattan is a big favourite, but I just can't see why Annie Hall is so revered. I recognise the major talent in Allen's armoury, his dialogue is choice and often witty, observations wry and reaction timing sometimes supreme. And I know, I do, that Annie Hall is a template of sorts that must have been seen as fresh back in 1977. But it appears to me that the film's central flaw is largely ignored on account of what has been termed as unique genius!
The relationship at the core between Annie and Alvy is just dull, hardly anything happens between them, so are we meant to care about them? Or is it just a ruse for Allen to say some jokey one-liners? Interestingly, Allen himself has stated he was far from happy with how the film turned out, even going so far as to say it's not what he envisaged, was in fact disappointed that people only focused on the Alvy and Annie relationship. This makes sense to me since that aspect of the film is only a small thread of the intended whole cranial quilt. Does that make Annie Hall a fluke? That so many people missed what Allen was aiming for? To wit! It ultimately plays out as a series of disjointed witticisms formed around Allen's neurosis. Plenty of classical moments are within, and the actors are very good in making the scenarios work, but lots of little good bits do not make a 10/10 Academy Award winning classical whole.
Yep, I'm very much in the minority, I know that, but Annie Hall's gigantic reputation bewilders me. Rest assured, though, I'm happy with that and it's unlikely I could ever sit through it again. 6/10
Alvy Singer (Allen) investigates the reasons why his relationship with Annie Hall (Keaton) failed.
It's just not for me! This film I mean. I like a lot of Woody Allen stuff, Manhattan is a big favourite, but I just can't see why Annie Hall is so revered. I recognise the major talent in Allen's armoury, his dialogue is choice and often witty, observations wry and reaction timing sometimes supreme. And I know, I do, that Annie Hall is a template of sorts that must have been seen as fresh back in 1977. But it appears to me that the film's central flaw is largely ignored on account of what has been termed as unique genius!
The relationship at the core between Annie and Alvy is just dull, hardly anything happens between them, so are we meant to care about them? Or is it just a ruse for Allen to say some jokey one-liners? Interestingly, Allen himself has stated he was far from happy with how the film turned out, even going so far as to say it's not what he envisaged, was in fact disappointed that people only focused on the Alvy and Annie relationship. This makes sense to me since that aspect of the film is only a small thread of the intended whole cranial quilt. Does that make Annie Hall a fluke? That so many people missed what Allen was aiming for? To wit! It ultimately plays out as a series of disjointed witticisms formed around Allen's neurosis. Plenty of classical moments are within, and the actors are very good in making the scenarios work, but lots of little good bits do not make a 10/10 Academy Award winning classical whole.
Yep, I'm very much in the minority, I know that, but Annie Hall's gigantic reputation bewilders me. Rest assured, though, I'm happy with that and it's unlikely I could ever sit through it again. 6/10