AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,4/10
21 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Um artista obcecado com seu assistente jovem e bonito, um menino precoce de 12 anos que vive em um hotel e um advogado neurótico com uma mãe possessiva compõem três contos de Gotham.Um artista obcecado com seu assistente jovem e bonito, um menino precoce de 12 anos que vive em um hotel e um advogado neurótico com uma mãe possessiva compõem três contos de Gotham.Um artista obcecado com seu assistente jovem e bonito, um menino precoce de 12 anos que vive em um hotel e um advogado neurótico com uma mãe possessiva compõem três contos de Gotham.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 1 vitória no total
Avaliações em destaque
Three 40 minutes short films by three of the greatest American directors; Scorsese, Coppola and Allen. I personally like Scorsese's introducing segment the most, Life Lesson. Even if I personally is not a fan of Nick Nolte, the movie has depth and it's just as good as you would expect from a director like Scorsese. Unlike many other directors, Scorsese manages to capture sexual attraction, in this case felt by the main character (Nolte). Freshly photographed and good ending that makes you recall upon your own life. Not a masterpiece but indeed great.
Coppola's segment "Zoe" is a total disaster. It is beautifully filmed, but the acting and the story is far below good. Better fit for the children's hour on TV. I don't know if the story was supposed to be ironical, a satire of spoiled extremely rich kids on Manhattan, which could be the fact since there were some scenes where the young girl interacts with a homeless man. That could have been a good theme, if it was Coppola's intention, but no matter the case - it just don't work. It is silly and it doesn't feel satirical at all. Another idea is that it was supposed to be funny, a short comedy, however, neither does it work on that layer. It somewhat makes me lose my respect for the director.
Woody Allen's part however is a pleasant refresher after Coppola's borer. Very funny, typical Allen, good acting from Allen's side and good music.
Overall rating is a mere 6, dragged down by Coppola. Without his segment I would rate this movie an 8.
Coppola's segment "Zoe" is a total disaster. It is beautifully filmed, but the acting and the story is far below good. Better fit for the children's hour on TV. I don't know if the story was supposed to be ironical, a satire of spoiled extremely rich kids on Manhattan, which could be the fact since there were some scenes where the young girl interacts with a homeless man. That could have been a good theme, if it was Coppola's intention, but no matter the case - it just don't work. It is silly and it doesn't feel satirical at all. Another idea is that it was supposed to be funny, a short comedy, however, neither does it work on that layer. It somewhat makes me lose my respect for the director.
Woody Allen's part however is a pleasant refresher after Coppola's borer. Very funny, typical Allen, good acting from Allen's side and good music.
Overall rating is a mere 6, dragged down by Coppola. Without his segment I would rate this movie an 8.
**1/2 of****
Three completely different short stories told by three of Hollywood's most influential and profilic directors in the most exciting and mythical city on earth. Seems like a shoe in doesn't it? Well almost. Looking forward as I did to the Woody Allen piece "Oedipus Wrecks" the wait was worth it, but still somewhat unsatisfying. This featurette would've been a welcome change of pace for Woody at the time given that he hadn't made a flat-out silly comedy for a while and he manages to make good use of every moment. He has a great cast,(Kavner, Questral are particular standouts) and a genuinely strange premise to work with and the results are a riot, dare I say one of Woody's best. So what's so unsatisfying? As good as "Oedipus Wrecks" is , it still suffers because it has to follow Coppolla's god awful and charmless "Life Without Zoe." Seriously I had absolutely no clue what the hell was going on in this obnoxious, cutesy-poo clinker. Can anyone help me understand why Coppola thought anyone would like this? Sitting through "Zoe" is so emotionally draining that by the time you get to "Oedipus" you're too annoyed and confused to fully enjoy it. As a result Scorsese's "Life Lessons" comes off the best of the three. Nolte and Arquette are flawless and the intensity and friction between them make for an engaging if not distressingly tense 35 minutes.
Three completely different short stories told by three of Hollywood's most influential and profilic directors in the most exciting and mythical city on earth. Seems like a shoe in doesn't it? Well almost. Looking forward as I did to the Woody Allen piece "Oedipus Wrecks" the wait was worth it, but still somewhat unsatisfying. This featurette would've been a welcome change of pace for Woody at the time given that he hadn't made a flat-out silly comedy for a while and he manages to make good use of every moment. He has a great cast,(Kavner, Questral are particular standouts) and a genuinely strange premise to work with and the results are a riot, dare I say one of Woody's best. So what's so unsatisfying? As good as "Oedipus Wrecks" is , it still suffers because it has to follow Coppolla's god awful and charmless "Life Without Zoe." Seriously I had absolutely no clue what the hell was going on in this obnoxious, cutesy-poo clinker. Can anyone help me understand why Coppola thought anyone would like this? Sitting through "Zoe" is so emotionally draining that by the time you get to "Oedipus" you're too annoyed and confused to fully enjoy it. As a result Scorsese's "Life Lessons" comes off the best of the three. Nolte and Arquette are flawless and the intensity and friction between them make for an engaging if not distressingly tense 35 minutes.
I'll step out of the loop here about "New York Stories," three tales of New York from 1989, directed by three formidable directors: Martin Scorcese, Francis Ford Coppola, and Woody Allen.
I happen to think all three films had something to offer, and the fact that the Zoe sequence is about a child does not for me make it the weakest segment.
I found the Scorcese segment starring Nick Nolte and Roseanna Arquette the most thought-provoking, the Zoe segment the most charming, and the Allen segment the wackiest.
The first episode is about a tortured artist (Nolte) who expresses his sexual frustrations and problems with his young protégée (Arquette) in his work. She no longer sleeps with him and wants to quit New York and go home; he wants to kiss her foot and professes undying love for her.
To Puccini's Nessun Dorma, he stares at his artwork and goes through a variety of emotions as he paints another masterpiece. This particular muse in the form of Arquette is used up; one sees him at his art show connecting with another would-be artist/muse whose identity will also be lost in his genius.
The second sequence, directed by Coppola, is a take-off on the Eloise stories by Kay Thompson. This little girl's name is Zoe. Her father, Claudio Montez (Giancarlo Giannini), is a famous flautist who travels, and her mother (Talia Shire) is a photo journalist who travels. Zoe lives with a butler and her dog Vegas at the Sherry Netherlands Hotel. She proves herself smarter than either parent in this charming film.
My only question is why Giancarlo Giannini speaks Italian to his daughter when the name Claudio Montez is emphatically not Italian. Okay, it wasn't typical Coppola, but who said it had to be?
The last one is pure Woody, Oedipus Wrecks, about a man with a nagging, critical mother who wants to marry a young woman (Mia Farrow) with children. He loves his mother, but he wishes she'd disappear.
During a magic show, he gets his wish, when his mother goes into a magician's box and never comes out. Later she shows up in the sky telling him what to do, with the world as a witness. His girlfriend can't take it. He then goes to a psychic (Julie Kavner) who makes him a boiled chicken dinner. A complete delight.
Three different, interesting stories by three great directors.
I happen to think all three films had something to offer, and the fact that the Zoe sequence is about a child does not for me make it the weakest segment.
I found the Scorcese segment starring Nick Nolte and Roseanna Arquette the most thought-provoking, the Zoe segment the most charming, and the Allen segment the wackiest.
The first episode is about a tortured artist (Nolte) who expresses his sexual frustrations and problems with his young protégée (Arquette) in his work. She no longer sleeps with him and wants to quit New York and go home; he wants to kiss her foot and professes undying love for her.
To Puccini's Nessun Dorma, he stares at his artwork and goes through a variety of emotions as he paints another masterpiece. This particular muse in the form of Arquette is used up; one sees him at his art show connecting with another would-be artist/muse whose identity will also be lost in his genius.
The second sequence, directed by Coppola, is a take-off on the Eloise stories by Kay Thompson. This little girl's name is Zoe. Her father, Claudio Montez (Giancarlo Giannini), is a famous flautist who travels, and her mother (Talia Shire) is a photo journalist who travels. Zoe lives with a butler and her dog Vegas at the Sherry Netherlands Hotel. She proves herself smarter than either parent in this charming film.
My only question is why Giancarlo Giannini speaks Italian to his daughter when the name Claudio Montez is emphatically not Italian. Okay, it wasn't typical Coppola, but who said it had to be?
The last one is pure Woody, Oedipus Wrecks, about a man with a nagging, critical mother who wants to marry a young woman (Mia Farrow) with children. He loves his mother, but he wishes she'd disappear.
During a magic show, he gets his wish, when his mother goes into a magician's box and never comes out. Later she shows up in the sky telling him what to do, with the world as a witness. His girlfriend can't take it. He then goes to a psychic (Julie Kavner) who makes him a boiled chicken dinner. A complete delight.
Three different, interesting stories by three great directors.
In New York Stories, three segments are shown back to back, and they are all engaging in their own ways however it's only 2/3 successful as a total motion picture. Martin Scorsese's Life Lessons is a good example of what caliber of work Scorsese had when he made those three student films in the 1960's. It is a film that has a lot of depth, but it is quite worth it for fans of the actors and those who could get interested in Richard Price's story.
Coppola, director of THE GODFATHER and APOCALYPSE NOW makes Life Without Zoe here, a film that is 180 degrees out of whack from those two movies in that it tells the story of a little rich girl whose best friend is a doorman and revolves around a rich boy's birthday party. In a way, it almost could appeal to kids, but it's the wrong place to put in between a story of artists by Scorsese and a comedy of mother and son troubles by Allen.
Which brings me to the last short film, Oedipus Wrecks, where Woody plays a character whose mother suddenly out of the blue disappears. This is a good showing of what Woody can do in comedy without having to have a picture length presentation (not that he makes many bad films by the way).
So, New York Stories is worth checking out for Life Lessons and Oedipus Wrecks, and there could be an audience somewhere for Life Without Zoe, although the biggest flaw of the movie comes that neither one can connect at all outside of the fact that they all take place in New York and are made by New York directors- in short- fascinating and imperfect in some ways. B+
Coppola, director of THE GODFATHER and APOCALYPSE NOW makes Life Without Zoe here, a film that is 180 degrees out of whack from those two movies in that it tells the story of a little rich girl whose best friend is a doorman and revolves around a rich boy's birthday party. In a way, it almost could appeal to kids, but it's the wrong place to put in between a story of artists by Scorsese and a comedy of mother and son troubles by Allen.
Which brings me to the last short film, Oedipus Wrecks, where Woody plays a character whose mother suddenly out of the blue disappears. This is a good showing of what Woody can do in comedy without having to have a picture length presentation (not that he makes many bad films by the way).
So, New York Stories is worth checking out for Life Lessons and Oedipus Wrecks, and there could be an audience somewhere for Life Without Zoe, although the biggest flaw of the movie comes that neither one can connect at all outside of the fact that they all take place in New York and are made by New York directors- in short- fascinating and imperfect in some ways. B+
Life Lessons - I've probably seen it 10 times. You can refer to it as a 'short', but I get so wrapped up in it that I almost consider it to be a full-length movie. It's very close to perfect.
Life Without Zoe - Past comments have stated that this is the weakest of the three. I don't like to think of any of the stories as weak. I think the order of the stories is what is important. First is the tense art world drama, then the fairytale-like Zoe. Zoe doesn't have the punch of Life Lessons, but it's a relaxing follow-up. Enchanted flutes, princesses, sheiks, diamonds, parties, sunsets. I hate to use the word 'cute', but that's what it is - very cute, and that's not a bad thing in this case.
Oedipus Wrecks - Leaves the movie ending on a very outrageous and very funny note. This short is better than several of his movies (and I'm a HUGE Woody Allen fan).
Life Without Zoe - Past comments have stated that this is the weakest of the three. I don't like to think of any of the stories as weak. I think the order of the stories is what is important. First is the tense art world drama, then the fairytale-like Zoe. Zoe doesn't have the punch of Life Lessons, but it's a relaxing follow-up. Enchanted flutes, princesses, sheiks, diamonds, parties, sunsets. I hate to use the word 'cute', but that's what it is - very cute, and that's not a bad thing in this case.
Oedipus Wrecks - Leaves the movie ending on a very outrageous and very funny note. This short is better than several of his movies (and I'm a HUGE Woody Allen fan).
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesThe performance piece that Steve Buscemi delivers in the Martin Scorsese segment was conceived and written by the actor himself.
- Citações
Lionel Dobie: [When Paulette sees Lionel appearing unexpectedly in Paulette's bedroom] I just wanted to kiss your foot. Sorry, nothing personal.
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosCoppola's segment introduces cast and crew members only by their first name during the opening titles.
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is New York Stories?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- New York Stories
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 15.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 10.763.469
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 432.337
- 5 de mar. de 1989
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 10.763.469
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente
Principal brecha
By what name was Contos de Nova York (1989) officially released in India in English?
Responda