Gil and Inez travel to Paris as a tag-along vacation on her parents' business trip. Gil is a successful Hollywood writer but is struggling on his first novel. He falls in love with the city and thinks he and Inez should move there after they get married, but Inez does not share his romantic notions of the city or the idea that the 1920s were the golden age. When Inez goes off dancing with her friends, Gil takes a walk at midnight and discovers what could be the ultimate source of inspiration for writing. Gil's daily walks at midnight in Paris could take him closer to the heart of the city but further from the woman he's about to marry.Written by
In a scene set in the 1920s, the small bollards lining the kerbs to prevent cars from parking with two wheels on the pavement can be seen - they were installed in the 1990s. See more »
This is unbelievable! Look at this! There's no city like this in the world. There never was.
You act like you've never been here before.
I don't get here often enough, that's the problem. Can you picture how drop dead gorgeous this city is in the rain? Imagine this town in the '20s. Paris in the '20s, in the rain. The artists and writers!
Why does every city have to be in the rain? What's wonderful about getting wet?
See more »
A film so mixed it requires a detailed review to "summarise"
Woody Allen has done an excellent job in Midnight in Paris (MIP).
There are a lot of special features about this movie. The dialogue (script), the acting, the score, the cinematography.
Midnight in Paris provides a lot entertainment without essentially "going anywhere." It isn't an extraordinary story. It doesn't provide some deep meaningful message. It's merely a bunch of interesting dialogue mixed with outstanding acting put together to provide good entertainment.
The kind of entertainment I speak of in MIP isn't the ordinary type of "entertainment." It's a rare kind of entertainment and can only be found in certain movies. Pulp Fiction is the other prime example that springs to mind. Although very different in genre and script, there was one broad striking similarity I noticed between the two movies. They both have no purpose, no story (or at least, the "story" is used as a scapegoat to present the desired script in the movie), there basically isn't any real "reason" to see the movie. It's just about nothing. But what both movies succeed to do is just make you watch the movie, immerse yourself in it, provide you with a different kind of "comedy." It isn't comedy that makes you laugh out loud (for the most part) and it isn't failed comedy. It's the kind of comedy where you simply get subtle enjoyment from, you let out an occasional smirk or smile, but the smirk isn't necessarily in relation to the a specific comment in the movie, rather it's a smirk signifying your quiet enjoyment towards the film generally. You can sit there continuously for hours and days following repeated viewings of the film and not get bored simply because its so enjoying to watch. That's the kind of entrainment MIP offers and for the very same reason, it will attract negative attention from certain viewers, but not from me.
Next, the cinematography. Oh my gosh! I could have given this movie a 10 without the rest of the movie being so good. I, having visited Paris, for unfortunately not too long a period, fell in love with the city. It is the most romantic and beautiful city I have ever seen. It really is the city of love and all expectations were not only as good, but better. I hold this thought even though some friends I know of have had, well, not as great an experience as myself.
Woody manages to capture the beautiful presence of Paris like no other director. I felt like I was back in Paris and it sometimes managed to put a chill down my spine because of the amount of beauty I was both witnessing and remembering. I really can't say anymore about the cinematography except that it is the best, it is flawless, it is exceptional and if you have ever been to Paris and loved it, you'll definitely love this movie.
Moving onto the acting, I'll settle this briefly. Although MIP has a lot of very solid small roles (Rachel McAdams was very average, but I think that's how her character was intended to be), Owen Wilson is the complete stand out. Although I can't quote statistics, I think this may be the first movie Owen Wilson has been in which has scored and 8+ on IMDb. To put this bluntly, I'm not an Owen Wilson fan. I generally don't like his comedy. But in MIP I have never met any other actor who fits the lead role so perfectly. To put it metaphorically, Owen fits into MIP like a glove. I have never seen such an flawless representation of Woody Allen himself. Owen is Woody. And therein lies the perfection of his acting. He barely needs to act, because I know all he's doing is being himself and dishing out lines given to him, but it fits so perfect with a Woody image. All in all, MIP is Woody Allen movie, with a Woody Allen touch, a Woody Allen script, a Woody Allen cinematography and a Woody Allen leading actor.
Unfortunately, I can't express a very specific audience to which I would recommend this movie to. If you have been to Paris and loved it, chances are you will love it. It captures the beauty, the fashion, the culture and personality of Paris like it really is Paris. However, like I stated before, the dialogue in this movie and the "story" and "purpose" is something which will attract mixed feelings. I, for one, absolutely loved it. All I can say is that, if you agree with my comments above or if they touch an emotional nerve, then the chances of this movie doing the same to you is very high.
It is nothing too special. It doesn't provide a great message. It doesn't have a extraordinary story. But it provides for a rare kind of entertainment, coupled with exceptional cinematography and for these reasons, I cannot give any less than a 10.
13 of 17 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this