Ladybugking

I have to say, unequivocally, that this is one of Woody Allen's best movies. This is simply one of his standout efforts in his large canon of films. There are some very interesting, and deep, ideas being bandied about, but the beauty of the setting, the cinematography, the costumes and, in particular, the actors, somewhat diffuses Allen's sharp dialog and often dark take on the world, on love, even on God.

This is not a light-hearted film, though it often seems so. It is almost too visually beautiful for its own good. Distracting from the philosophy of it.

The burden of delivering Allen's sharpest dialog is given over to the capable hands of Colin Firth. He has a razor's edge to walk in this film. He must deliver some very negative, misanthropic views, all the while keeping the audience invested in his character of Stanley. Stanley is a jerk and an unreconstructed egotist who delivers acid-tipped barbs at the other characters. So, he must have charm and disarming good looks in order for the viewer to ultimately care about him. He must also show hints of vulnerability. Firth is pitch perfect throughout. (Side note: Woody Allen has said he wrote this part with Firth in mind to play Stanley, and, after some maneuvering, was able to get him for the part. Allen said he just didn't think anyone else could have done it. I completely agree.)

One complaint about this film is the age difference of the two leads, but I never had a problem with it. Emma Stone plays older. Colin Firth plays younger. They match up well.

Stone is, if not perfect for the part of Sophie, quite good. She is an actress who always delivers.

One of the outstanding, and totally winning, parts in this film is played by the inimitable Eileen Atkins. She matches Firth wit for wit and their scenes together are the best in the film, with the brilliant dialog given to them. I could watch an entire movie with just those two in it. They are that good together.

I can't end without saying, see this movie without pre-prejudice. Enjoy its beauty, but take in the written dialog. It seems many who disliked the film (looking at YOU, professional critics) missed the point. I don't understand the vitriol aimed at it, and that, sadly, influenced how it did at the box office, which was, to say the least, not great.

I am one who is ready for Magic in the Moonlight Part 2, Stanley Takes on the World. (With Aunt Vanessa along, of course!)

The question here is -- Who is Steve? It is ultimately left to the viewer to decide. Is he just a lonely, pushy, but harmless man? Is he a loner with more going on than meets the eye? Is he a symbol of the increasing isolation our plugged in culture creates? Rupert Friend has written a puzzle of a short film, and has wisely chosen probably the best actor of his (our?) generation, Colin Firth, to portray the strange man in the yellow sweater whose intrusions on the lives of the other two characters grows increasingly alarming. There are gradual revelations of character here from all three involved. All is not what it seems at the beginning. Watching the subtle changes in the appearance of Steve are part of the texture the director (Friend) has created and give some insight, possibly, to what is going on. It is worth seeking out this film, just for the riveting performance of Mr. Firth.

This is a movie that bears watching more than once. I found it interesting and absorbing, but needed a second (and probably will need a third) viewing of it to probe its depths.

Ultimately it lets the viewer interpret events and decide what is happening, has happened, or may not be happening at all.

There are clues throughout that I completely missed on first viewing. While I can appreciate what the director and writer involved were trying to convey -- a shattered mind and its perception in the person of an always excellent Colin Firth -- I can see where seeing it once and walking away confused and put off would be a common reaction.

I truly liked seeing Firth go back to his early days of challenging acting roles and getting away from the romantic leads he often plays. He is key to appreciating this movie because everything is seen through the prism of his character --including all the other people with whom he may, or may not, be sharing his world. He is in every single scene.

If the viewer is intrigued by seeing this puzzler of a film, then I recommend having a second go as much, much more is revealed, though not necessarily resolved. The solving of it is left, ultimately, to the viewer.

I liked this puzzle of film very much.