Reviews

"Alice" contains a marvelous performance by Mia Farrow in the title role. Unfortunately, it can't save the movie, which suffers from some fatal mistakes in the writing and casting that ultimately cripples the entire experience. The first part starts out well enough, as Farrow plays a rich bored housewife who goes to a sort of witch doctor to heal her. She falls for an artist and the movie is basically about her self-discovery of how she strayed from the hopes of her youth.

A little into it, there are some scenes of Alec Baldwin and Farrow, he a former flame she loved and is now a ghost. The stars have no chemistry whatsoever and I don't think I ever went from interest to absolute boredom in so little time. The scenes are very bad- luckily when he leaves, the film picks up again but stumbles right along to the end.

Woody incorporates catholic angst in the movie and into Alice, but the scenes are incredibly false. In the worst mistake of the movie, Farrow is talking about her memories of being a catholic and comments on how although she is no longer as religious as she was, she fondly recalls the "music and rituals." RITUALS? What an incredibly shallow, detached word from someone who was so deeply into her faith.

The music, too, is full of bad choices that detract from the film. Believe it or not, the background score sounds remarkably like the music from "A Charlie Brown Christmas." It is SO out of place. Woody was also very untrue to the characters he created- substituting a cheap joke or plot device instead of pursuing any depth that might out of the character. When Mia and her new lover become invisible, they take a cab and as they depart make the comment- "Nothing fazes New York cab drivers." In a matter of seconds, he cheapens the experience of the movie to grab a "Bananas" like laugh- he would do this later also in "Everyone Says I Love You." If Woody himself doesn't feel enough involvement in the characters he created to keep out jokes that have no bearing to the story as it is presented, then why should I sit through it at all? I'm willing to rent and sit through the movie, don't insult me by thinking you can throw whatever you want in there without my involvement in the characters being impaired.

The Joe Mantegna character is another poorly written choice. Under the influence of Dr. Wang's herbs, Farrow comes on to him when it begins like she's Gypsy Rose Lee. In subsequent meetings, she is the real timid Alice again. Anyone else would have nothing to do with the schizo, but Woody doesn't care enough about any of the characters to draw them from any true responses. Well, it's magical, it's fantasy, that's the point- well, that's bullcrap. That's not magical, that's just bad writing. The magic should be around the characters, not within the confines of the conversations!

I feel sorry for Farrow- she gave it a good try and some of the best scenes are the result of her comic ability- there are laughs that Farrow herself gives the movie, like her smoking the pipe. For her to even agree to do the role is something to give her credit for. I mean, how many allusions to her mother being an ex-minor movie star lush can one person take? I mean, c'mon! She should have said, "Look, we did the drunk movie star mother bit in Hannah-I can't believe you can't think of something else- especially considering it's a very minor character trait- Maybe if she had, it would have been a better movie.

This is awful.. I couldn't finish it. Falk is so annoying- he ruins any fun you might have convinced yourself you had- he reads his lines like a pitbull with a kid in it's mouth- and it's about as funny. Allen comes off better but is lit from behind like a traveling mummy exhibit. Michael Jackson has less chalk on his face than Allen. What would possess Woody to do reworked Neil Simon material? SKIP IT!

The first time I saw this, I was a little disappointed in it. I saw it again last night and enjoyed it tremendously with only a few reservations. The trick is not to approach this movie as a comedy- it's not, though it has many funny moments. My fault, which was all my own the first time, is that I expected more laughs- sit back and enjoy it as a thought-provoking and freely structured mood piece- when the humor does come, and it will in several places, welcome it but don't blame Woody that there's not another joke two seconds later.

It helps to be familiar with Kafka and early German cinema, it will increase your enjoyment. My only criticism is in the scene where John Cusack offers Mia Farrow $700 for a trick- I think Woody the director could have staged the moments of Cusack first seeing Farrow and desiring her in a way it could have been more believable. It rang false and Mia has the charm and beauty to make me believe it- but it was rushed and forced- every other scene in the movie is wonderful, though- the ending has a magical feel to it and the cast is great- and that includes the ones you don't instantly recognize- yes, there's more to the cast than the celebrities. The movie is a treat- very literary- it has my all-time favorite Woody line- it refers to "dancing it"-I'll say no more.

NOW FOR MY BIGGEST GRIPE WHICH IS PERSONAL-Lily Tomlin is wasted in the movie- she does a good job but is a minor character. Hello, Woody? Lily Tomlin is a comic genius- she is absolutely astonishing- there's no one like her- and to see your chance to share screen time with her and use her like she is just an actress saddens me-Tomlin is not just an actress- she is a force of nature- every bit and every inch, she is your equal- I'd rather not see her than see the missed opportunity between two greats. That said, the movie is solid and entertaining, don't dismiss it.

NOW

This film is PURE GENIUS. It is a comedic intellectual orgasm. Do I really need to say more? No, but I will, this is a film of a one-woman show by Tomlin- In a strict film standard, it is easy to find flaws because it's a play and not a film- but I refuse to narrow it to such a confined attitude. This is not about rules of film, rules of reviewing filmed plays, this is about an experience, and as experiences go, it will bring you to heights unknown- you don't see this as much as it sees "you."

Tomlin makes you think, she makes you laugh, and she makes you human. I've never been exposed to anything quite like it.

The only real weakness I see is in structure- there is a long section dealing with feminism that appears out of place, but it is only out of place because all the other pieces are short and your mind is accustomed to the pace of the performances proceeding it- when a section comes out of nowhere being extended, your mind interferes with an awareness that this is being carried out longer than all the others and you wonder why- so your own thoughts intrude upon it- interrupting your enjoyment. It's not that the "feminist" part is any less brilliant- but it makes you separate it from the rest- which, in my view, is a misstep and a disservice to the entirety of the performance.

But that's a small mumble compared to what you get out of it. These words-this performance is what the word "art" was first imagined to mean. It's a masterpiece- one of the great works of art in the last thirty years- this will only build in reputation- it's a thinker's paradise- a cathedral of thought and perception- as clever as Voltaire and as meaningful as Rousseau. Your search has ended.

This movie is funny as hell, it's 1999 and I don't think it's dated at all. This movie is not so uneven, either, as you might have heard. It's only uneven if you're not a particularly well-rounded individual- don't blame Woody Allen if he expects more from you than you are willing to give- I laughed like a lunatic- it's one of those you really "laugh" at, they are called bellylaughs- a rare form of laughter heard frequently in the 70's but petering out in the early 80's with so-called comedy films such as "Beverly Hills Cop."

Many critics make a point of telling you this film can be rather baudy. It's amazing anyone can be surprised at this with the word "sex" and "afraid" in the title. But don't be afraid- this one's a winner.

This is a "fun" movie, surprising and funny but much more for adults than children- it's too scary and graphic for little ones. Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman give star-powered performances- both deliver the goods here and you'll enjoy it whether you're fans of them or if you're not. They're simply charming and as much as people may want to dislike Kidman for being Ms. Cruise, she again proves she's a star in her own right.

Forget the critics and the Be-faithful-to-the-book drones, this is a good movie- hip, edgy and sometimes spooky. If this was a movie made by two unknown actresses, it would be a "gem" critics would recommend to audiences, but for some reason with Bullock and Kidman, it gets reviewed on a different scale and ends up short for people. Forget all that- it's great entertainment with yes, two pretty big stars- but they can't help that so get over it and enjoy the movie for what it is- a real "gem."

I'm afraid most critics praised this film for what they wanted it to be, instead of what it actually is, a very illogical mess of a movie. Don't believe the by-lines, you will NOT be tricked, you will never be surprised at anything if you have half a brain. I figured out the entire movie by the first ten minutes and so will you. You see these plot "twists" coming a mile away, you're only surprised that they actually dared use them! I guess if you view the film as one man's kafkaesque journey through corporate america, it might stand up, but if you want a mystery or brain-teaser, forget it, and that's how I came to it, because that's how it's marketed. The entire movie is so frustrating, people react in ways they would NEVER do in real life, including co-workers, the police, and even con artists, for that matter. It's very well directed, the acting is great, but the plot is a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME. It's ridiculous, completely improbable, and insults intelligent people everywhere. What planet are these people on, it's certainly not Earth. Don't bother.