Un día lluvioso en Nueva York

In the age of super hero films I'm glad that there is still someone who is making films with witty dialog. Woody Allen should be praised for that. But in this film neither the dialog nor the story works.

"Hannah and Her Sisters" works so well because Woody Allen understood these characters--how they talk and behave. He knew how to write for them.

That was 1986. Now it's 2019.

21-year-olds in 2019 don't say "I need a drink, a cigarette and a Berlin ballad." No matter what their background that's not how they would talk.

"A Rainy Day in New York" is filled with references that no one born in the late 1990s would have. Songs by Gershwin, Porter, Berlin. Films from the 1930s and 40s. And the name of the lead character, Gatsby Welles, is just a little too cute. All of these are Woody Allen references. The problem is trying to force these references on these characters. It doesn't work.

Maybe this film is meant to be a fantasy. It's not how 21-year-olds talk and behave in the modern world. It's how Woody Allen wishes they talked and behaved.

No one wants to see a film about people staring into their phones but the truth is that the two leading characters would have been texting each other every few minutes and wouldn't have gotten so completely separated from each other. I think it's clear that Woody Allen hates cell phones because they get in the way of his stories.

I would have suggested two important changes to the film. Have it take place 25 years earlier--1994 instead of 2019, before everyone had their own phone--and make the characters in their mid-30s instead of their early 20s. With those two changes I think this would be remembered as one of Woody Allen's better films. As it stands he's created characters he doesn't know or understand and, unfortunately, it shows.

The movie has quite a strange period feeling and maybe this artistic tool was intentional. Everybody uses smartphones already, but for conversations only. No Twitter, no other social media... Some jokes were actually a bit tasteless, very atypical for Woody Allen. A couple of chuckles throughout the movie, typical Woody Allen. Ellen Fanning had the best lines and she was the best overall. Liev Schreiber was very good also with the material he was given. Cinematography is beautiful and perfect for a rom-com - warm, bright, sparkling and full of colours. Chalamet was just wooden and dull. That was the first performance by him I've seen and I don't want to judge him too early or too harsh but he seems to be extremely overrated. Maybe the right lead for a late Woody Allen film.

In general I am a fan of Woody Allen movies. I like some better than others but always look forward to his entry for the year because I know I will be treated with something completely different.

This one is very enjoyable, to me better then most of his movies the last 10 to 15 years. The main subjects are a 20-something couple, college kids, who need to go into Manhattan for the weekend. She to interview a film director, he to help show her a good time. However nothing goes as planned and that generates the fun in the movie.

Good movie, I will watch it again. On DVD from my public library. My wife skipped, she is not fond of Woody Allen movies.

APR 2025 update: I just watched it again after 4 years and enjoyed it just as much. Streaming on Prime.

Lacks any depth, fails to be funny, the dialogues are artificial, and Elle Fanning plays unbearably irritable character. The setting is really beautiful though and Timothée Chalamet is always a pleasure to watch. Overall, not a bad experience but I was hoping for a better story.

People will tell you this isn't Woody's best film but it's still more enjoyable, intelligent and amusing than almost all films being made each year. In the same way a lesser-known Klimt painting is still a multi-million dollar masterpiece any Woody Allen film is still a class act.