Melinda e Melinda

Is Melinda and Melinda one of Woody Allen's best? To me, no it isn't. Is it one of his worst? Again, no but like a fair amount of Allen's films it seems to be quite a divisive film, and you can see why. Things considered, while not a great film and with some unevenness Melinda and Melinda is a good film but a love-it-or-hate-it one as well. As with almost all Woody Allen films, it's beautifully made- such attractive locations and the cinematography flows from one frame to the other with few problems- and Allen directs very assuredly on the most part if more in the comedy scenes than the dramatic. The music fits with the atmosphere really well and has a nostalgic and catchy quality to it too. The acting is mostly very good, Radha Mitchell shows that she is as easy in comedy as she is in drama, funny and warm-hearted in the comedy scenes and affecting in the dramatic ones. Chloe Sevigny is another one of the reasons that makes the drama more watchable than it is, she looks very natural and plays with emotion, while Amanda Peet is fine too though underused. Will Ferrell was the biggest surprise of Melinda and Melinda, his performance was by far and away one of the best performances of the younger Allen alter-ego characters. Much better than Kenneth Branagh in Celebrity and Jason Biggs in Anything Else, whereas they were pale imitations Ferrell had charm and charisma and made the role his own in a way the other two did not. Not everybody impressed though, Chiwetel Ejiofor is stiff and Johnny Lee Miller is rather one-note in a quite boorish role. I am in agreement with those too that the comedy here is better than the drama. The comedy in Melinda and Melinda was great, very witty and quotable and a lot of it did make me laugh out loud. The scenes with the comedy are bright and breezy and have a light-hearted feel that is most endearing, and the characters while somewhat typically neurotic are relatively easy to engage with and the spirited performances help. The drama is not on the same level(a surprise really because Allen has shown that he can do comedy and quite insightfully and truthfully and those qualities unfortunately didn't come through), some of the dramatic scenes do drag a lot, the dialogue does sound forced and overwrought and the characters are much less likable and interesting than in the comedy story(fairly unusual for Allen, he has been known to have compellingly real characterisation when he takes on drama like in Hannah and Her Sisters and Husbands and Wives). The concept was an ingenious one, one of Allen's cleverest concepts actually, and Allen does make a commendable effort in entwining the two stories together even if it did personally feel a little confusing sometimes and the film does feel like one with two halves. All in all, Melinda and Melinda an uneven film but it is also a good and interesting one and in terms of where it sits within Allen's filmography I'd say somewhere in the middle. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox

This film probably marks the crucial point where Woody Allen takes one step back and lets others take over the Woody persona of a typical Allen film. It's happened before, in Celebrity and Anything Else, but now the lead characters can breathe as themselves without having to essentially 'be Woody'. Sure the resemblances are still there but more in the situations than in the characters. Will Ferrell displays proper comic timing and Jonny Lee Miller tries valiantly with what he's given. The script sparkles with more one-liners than most recent efforts and an appropriate return of the 'lust for life' motif seen in earlier films such as Hannah and Her Sisters or Everyone Says I Love You. If you don't appreciate that comic situations are both sad and full of life, and that tragedy has a fair share of unexpected delights as well as heartache, than you're definitely missing the point. Woody displays both of these in equal quantity spread liberally throughout the film in all situations. And so what if the end plays more like a series of sketches than a full-on film? It's the mark of a master than can make us enjoy what we see regardless of narrative form. 8 out of 10.

I thought that this film is right out of the classic Woody Allen mode. His theme of having events determined by others -- in this case, the writers -- was reminiscent of his one-act plays, "God" and "Death," and follows the tracks of the worldview he has always explored in his films. It was very well-written and crafted, an enjoyable night at the flicks.

One thing that struck me is that the character played by Will Ferrell is exactly the part that Woody can no longer play because he's too old. It was not long into the film before I discerned that these are lines that Woody had written for himself, the character he'd always played, but a younger man was delivering them for him. And that only added to the charm of the film for me.

Have you ever had one of those days when life seemed terrible and everything in your world made you miserable?

But then have you had one such day and, in a moment - maybe after a word from a loved one or friend, or a sudden flash of inspiration, or even a physiological stimulus such as a cup of coffee - realised things weren't so miserable after all - maybe even had tears of sorrow turn to tears of laughter? And if those tears keep flowing, aren't they the same tears?

A couple of playwrights, New York intellectuals, are idly discussing the 'life is tragedy or comedy according to your perspective' theme in a Manhattan café. So starts Woody Allen story in Melinda and Melinda. Working from a basic storyline, a girl arriving unannounced at a dinner party, two alternative stories unfold, one comic and one tragic. Both overlap without being identical, in themes, the actress playing the visitor, and sometimes even dialogue.

I started off concentrating hard to make sure I didn't confuse the two interwoven tales, and also concentrating hard to see if a deep philosophical point was going to be made. After half an hour or so I stopped giving too much effort to either and just sat back and enjoyed.

As entertainment, Melinda and Melinda contains so many wonderful ingredients - wit, pathos, hilarity, great acting, suspense, moral intrigue. Visually it's also very pleasing - from the lovingly crafted and vibrant New York interiors of which Allen is so fond, to the eye candy in the form of hunks like Chiwetel Ejiofor (the captivating suitor to one of the Melindas) or the remarkable Chloë Sevigny.

Sevigny, in a supporting role, gives a beautifully nuanced performance. As an actress, she has not relied on her sylph like looks but adamantly stuck to parts in (largely) Independent films that both develop her as an actress and show her commitment and integrity in her profession.

But the main role, that of Melinda(s), is reserved for Radha Mitchell, who has to play both a seriously (and slightly scary) tragic persona, hair and worn features showing her traumatic life, and then moments later the comic Melinda whose madcap gaiety puts a sparkle into proceedings. Both roles are pushed - especially in a scene where each Melinda tries to throw herself from a window. The difference between comedy and tragedy is mostly visible in Melinda.

Woody Allen is a professional filmmaker that consistently churns out movies on a very reasonable budget, some better, some worse, but very rarely is there one that doesn't provide a passable hour and a half of entertainment for the price of admission. There are some people who mostly dislike his work, or are only won over by masterpieces such as Hannah and Her Sisters, or ones that come close, like Deconstructing Harry or Mighty Aphrodite. Melinda and Melinda is probably not in either league, but it is still a very worthwhile accomplishment. It made me laugh, it made me cry, it's a moving film in places and plays with ideas like suspension of belief. And yes, it made me think - but so much so that serious reflection got in the way of pure enjoyment.

There are plenty of flaws - the basic idea never rises above armchair philosophy, there is no great resolution to bring a sense of meaning after the film has finished. The difference between tragedy and comedy for instance, while it might be separated by a hair's breadth in the cosmic scale of things (or within writers' building blocks), is very real for people undergoing real tragedy. Laughter can be justified more easily when it lightens suffering, rather than laughing at it or ignoring it. Cinema has its limits. Interestingly, Allen's cinema has plenty of self-imposed limits that suggest it doesn't take itself too seriously - no expensive special effects, A-List stars only in moderation, no lingering close-ups for actors to practise Oscar-begging expressions; it borrows far more from European than British or American cinema. He seems to get on with the job instead of making it all-important in itself. Even his own philosophising seems not to draw direct attention in his films. "I have an extremely pessimistic outlook and so to me the glass is always empty. Not half empty, but completely empty. My feelings are summed up by the character who says, in effect, that life is basically tragic but there are little islands of comedy in it."

If you have very fixed views about Woody Allen films you will already know whether you want to go and see Melinda and Melinda. For others, you may find that the deft delivery of comedy is worth more than a cursory glance. Allen's prolific output, occasional innovation, and his apparent consistent ability to follow his own agenda rather than that of the big studios mark him as someone to watch both now and by film historians.

Ironically, for someone with such an outlook, he contributes many 'little islands of comedy' to what might be seen as a long-suffering and out of touch industry. I definitely enjoyed this bout of island hopping.

Woody Allen as a stand-up comedian saw the humor in some of life's injustices. Here he suggests infidelity is one of those injustices. At first glance, this "open" attitude seems at odds with the fact that virtually all Woody Allen films have been love stories (even Bananas!); maybe they're really falling-in-love stories. To dramatize this story, he wisely included Rhadha Mitchell, Chloe Sevigny, and Chiwetel Ejiofor, whose performances were as hypnotic as their names (the others, in lesser roles, were also good). What happens is routine; it's just a set-up to evaluate various ways of reacting to infidelity. Some of the dialog is among the best I've heard. How we react to setbacks can be an important part of our lives (not as important as showing up, of course). Woody Allen's philosophy of life isn't rocket science: when possible, have a good time. And bring a friend.