Un jour de pluie à New York

The script has not a real story, but that fact is almost a statement to show that a film can and may be dialogue-driven. When Tarantino was stupid enough to let every catchy dialogue slip out of his last film, Allen must have caught those lines and let his actors Rock and Roll with them.

Ellen Fanning. Did I know her? No. Do I want to know her forever now? Yes! The two or three scenes where she has monologues are already legendary. And if she keeps her mouth shut, she still completely dominates the frame.

NY... 'She' does not easily combine with "melancholic", but Woody Allen is able to show and exploit that side of this city. Love it. No one else is so capable of visualizing the love you can have for this city.

Allen does not often sink through the 'class' his dialogues already have, to really expose underlying emotions in a more raw way. A lot often remains wrapped in infectious and very erudite - Jewish - humor. But at the very end of this movie actress Cherry Jones has the opportunity to cause goosebumps on my arms in a short, gripping monologue that digs up those emotions. It is proof of the total control that Allen has over his profession over the years. Just like the entire movie. A control that shows itself in a total release of the material, as if this film was recorded in one take of pure improvisation.

Great movie!

Woody Allen keeps showing why he is one of the best things to ever happen to cinema. Why we need him so much. without Allen, the cinema industry would have been a little boring. His films are unique and very powerful by meaning of beauty, art and emotion. "A Rainy Day in New York" is another perfect example of true art. The film stars with a young couple visiting New York for the weekend and end up in a rainy day full of excitements. The movie feels like another Allen love story from the start: the location of New York, the narrating, the differences between characters, how they fall in love against all chances, and the sweet ending that all viewers wish to have in their lives. When I first saw this film I immediately had a sense of nostalgia towards "Manhattan" and "Annie Hall". All films perfectly connect to each other, not by plot but more in a sense of genre and dialogue. The dialogues in this film are just like in any other of Allen's films, catchy, humorous and with a lot of sense towards life. The cast is amazing: Timothèe Chalamet is wonderful, his character resembles a lot of Allen's performance in his other films. Basically it's the same character but different actor. Selena Gomez is adorable and shines in her role, Elle Fanning is humorous, the entire cast works so well with the genre of the film. Overall I am in love with this film, I enjoyed it so much and I recommend it to everyone, I think this is my new favorite Allen movie.

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.

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.