Crimes et délits

Woody Allen is not everybody's cup of tea, with me while his body of work is not always consistent(but that is true with a lot of directors) much of it is wittily written and insightful as seen with his masterpiece Annie Hall. Crimes and Misdemeanours has everything that is so good about the best of his work. With the subject matter and how the comedy and seriousness is blended Crimes and Misdemeanours is one of Allen's most ambitious, and along with the likes of Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, Husbands and Wives and Manhattan it's one of his best too. The look of the film is elegant and hauntingly dark, while the score is jazzy and seductive. The story has some key themes(good and evil and life and death as examples) that are very clearly addressed and dealt with with adroitness and truth. The concept is not an innovative one as such but it's challenging and hugely compelling. And the writing is to thank for that, the humour is wonderfully ironic and very characteristic of the distinctive wise-cracking Allen style, there are references and observations that are sharp and insightful(always one of Allen's strong points as a writer) and they is blended well with a serious tone that is dark and appropriately troubling, the shifts between comedy and drama didn't jar to me. The acting is very good, often outstanding. Woody Allen acts as well as directs and writes and there are no obvious problems with his performance(or his directing), not a likable character by all means but that was the intent. Anjelica Huston doesn't disappoint, nor does Jerry Orbach before his Law and Order days, Sam Waterson and Claire Bloom. Mia Farrow is affecting as well. But the acting honours go to Alan Alda and especially Martin Landau, Alda plays an absolute weasel to perfection while Landau gives a performance that has not only only been matched by his Bela Lugosi in Tim Burton's Ed Wood but also one of the greatest performances of any Woody Allen film. All in all, a Woody Allen classic, an example of ambitious done brilliantly. 10/10 Bethany Cox

I am beginning a review of Allen's films and decided to start with this one, as it is considered his most intelligent. Certainly, the focus of the film is at the end where the primary character proposes making this film to Woody, who has played a filmmaker. This directly self-referential device is bold, and could have been part of a fine web, as several other filmmakers have created.

But the problem is that we're given pretty thin broth up until that point. Woody tries to be as honestly raw as Chekhov and as deeply symbolic as Kafka. Instead we get a sophomoric effort.

God's eyes are mentioned a dozen times. And the protagonist is an eye doctor who is treating a rabbi who goes blind. `Get it?' Woody shouts. To set up the self-referential last scene, we are treated to Woody playing an unappreciated filmmaker making a film inspired by a Jewish philosopher who seems happy but is not. `Get it?' Woody nudge nudges. To underscore that in the theater, we are the eyes of God, Woody bluntly demonstrates by inserting his own viewing of films and philosophizing about film.

This is not intelligent filmmaking, my friends. It is the clumsiness of someone smart enough to see what art is, but not clever enough to create it. Maybe he thinks 90% of creating art is showing up.

Along the way, we get an interesting performance from Alda. But it is all too obvious that every character's dialog is Woody's and they are acting just as Woody has demonstrated to them. Check out their mannerisms. Maybe his comedies will be better. His books are excellent.

Let's begin by declaring that you do not need to be a Woody Allen fan to appreciate this film. As is often the case, Allen's schlemiel character is the least sympathetic and interesting one in the movie.

But that aside, here's a story that I found thoroughly engaging. Is there a perfect crime? Is guilt the same as remorse? How does a "good" person come to terms with his sins?

The blind Rabbi: Is God unseeing? The Holocaust survivor philosopher who challenges survival (that's all I can say without spoiling): is there any real redemption?

The movie has flaws but I give it a "10" for daring to ask serious questions. (And the visit to the old house in Brooklyn has a dynamism that all of us who remember our childhood homes will relate to.)

Not much has to be said. This is an outstanding film, possibly one of the best films I have ever seen. All performances are perfect. Half drama, half comedy, and that very well done. It has deep thoughts about quilt and mistakes, lots of truth about relationships. It has laughs and a perfect ending. Every time I watch this film I just want to sit down and write, just write something interesting to leave behind. The film is already 16 yrs old and you wont notice that at all, it's one of those films that never age. I would recommend this movie to anyone who doesn't want to spend another two hours of his life watching yet another Hollywood crap.

When I registered with the IMDb, one of the survey questions asked what my favorite film was. I listed Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors. I don't know if this is always true, but for the most part I feel fairly confident regarding my choice. Allen's story here works, like most well written literature, on many levels. It is funny (Woody's lessons), symbolic (the Rabbi going blind), ironic (the good suffer and the evil go unpunished), deep (faith and suicide), and is a film that leaves you with something to identify with and learn from. Even Hally Reed's (Mia Farrow) surprising revelation at the end of the film, which I won't reveal of course, shows us a bit about the dangers of prejudging others. Woody shows us that we shouldn't judge on the surface, but must look deeper into the individual value of people. Do we trust Hally, or do we stick to what we see as the truth about Lester (Alan Alda)? This is a lesson that Woody's character, Cliff, doesn't even fully grasp at the end of the film, but Allen gives us the insight, even though what Hally reveals about Lester goes against what we've seen of him.

Crimes and Misdemeanors is certainly not for all tastes. It's not exactly a film that people would watch for pure escapism. This is a film to be treasured, revisited and held up with some of the greatest films of all time. Not for how it looks or sounds, but for what it says. This is a film aimed at both the heart and the mind and succeeds in capturing both.