L'homme irrationnel

Basically, I'll watch any film that Woody Allen makes. That said, it doesn't mean I think all of his films are top rank. His best films blend comedy, psychology, and philosophy with a good storyline. His worse fall short in one of these areas. When I first started watching the film, I thought it had all the potential of some of his better films. A charismatic, somewhat famous, professor comes to a small college. His questionable reputation intrigues and titillates students and colleagues alike. The professor (Joaquin Phoenix )is in the throes of mid-life angst and burdened by the expectations others have of him. In an attempt to recharge his life, he heads down some questionable trails.

The psychological aspects of the plot evaporate into a crime drama. For a moment, the professor becomes a Raskolnikov-like character and I began to think the psychological aspect may once again come to the fore and make this an interesting movie. Instead, this potential plot twist is brushed aside and, sadly, the rest is more or less predictable.

The acting is good enough, though the romantic relationships among the characters are shallow and not well-developed, making them somewhat difficult to believe.

Woody Allen fans may find the film interesting enough, but don't expect another Midnight in Paris or a crime story as good as Manhattan Murder Mystery. If Irrational Man was more in keeping with its title, it would have been less predictable and more interesting.

Sometimes a guy can't catch a break, and it may be for good reason. With Woody Allen and the critics of Irrational Man, one may think there's a rational reason, no clever spin intended. Here's a man who is spectacular at what he does, but he doesn't have the most immense range of the American iconoclast-auteurs - by this point, after writing films for 50 years and directing for over 45, critics and most audiences get the gist of what the man works with: some occasional fantasy, light-hearted comedy, serious, brooding drama, romance, mystery, magic, existentialism and the separation of reality and fantasy. But for myself, I went into this trying to take it just on its own terms: does it work as its own story, as to what it's trying to do, with or without the author's baggage? I think it does, often quite well, and it makes a sort of cap to an unexpected, thematic trilogy of movies, which I'll get to in a moment.

In Irrational Man it starts out like what seems to be a story of a philosophy professor (Phoenix) caught in despair, while an eager, bright student (Stone) starts to fancy him. He's blocked, he can't seem to write (or "sleep with" Parker Posey's character early on), and he drinks fairly heavily (Phoenix adds a pot belly to the mix). But its main turning point turns it into what is a Hitchcockian tale of murder and deception, all due to eavesdropping on the sad tale of a cruel judge presiding over a custody case. It turns this professor's life around, albeit with a rather dark twist.

By Hitchcockian it's easy to throw that label around, but this is a filmmaker who has previously used a scene from Shadow of a Doubt (I forget which movie, but I remember characters watching it in one of his films), and now has some elements taken from it. Hey, how about a discussion in a very lively, satirical manner about the best way to go about a murder? Or what if it's a complete stranger with a poison of some kind? At the same time Allen throws in Emma Stone, once again after 'Moonlight' but here now modern and always great to look at as a star on screen with full-on talent and energy to burn with her co-star. Phoenix, meanwhile, gets a lot of this man's despair, and then his odd joy too - though Phoenix may not seem like the most spot-on actor to show 'energy' in the later half of the film, he is still completely there for what this character requires.

What I liked about Irrational Man, even with some of its familiarity in the Allen world - professor with a younger student romantically, questions of morality, what it means when PURE luck really defines what happens for people - is that it was genuine about how its characters saw and changed with their views on the world, and that on its own you get wrapped up in the question of "Will he really get away with this?" To be sure, this question was asked with greater intellectual rigor in Crimes & Misdemeanors, and Match Point had an even tougher, bleaker view of what it means for people to get ahead in the world no matter who stands in heir way. But all three of these movies seem to make up a trilogy - maybe we can call it his 'Dostoyevsky' series - with this one being what I should think is the capper of them. Now it's not an older businessman or a young upstart, but someone who has spent his life trying to figure out what it means to live a meaningful life in theory vs practice.

It may be the literalness of this comparison that will throw off some viewers. That and/or the narration. I have to say that is the one thing I'm really unsure of after seeing it for the first time; on the one hand it works with the realm of film noir, as in here are characters who are constantly plotting or trying to think their way through some sort of emotional or moral logic (and the moment where the plot really kicks off, it seems hard for me to figure how it could be done without voice-over), but on the other there are moments where it is too much, that a moment could work without the character's direction. On the other hand again, it's an existential comedy that takes itself very seriously, or a semi-romantic and dramatic love story that has some light touches (and that ending!) Irrational Man isn't great, but it's very good, exceeding any expectations I could've had, in large part thanks to a cast and, by the way, some really skillful and beautiful direction on the whole (and the warm cinematography, all shot in Newport, Rhode Island). I'll be curious if this gets re-evaluated in 10-15 years.

I enjoyed this even more than my rating suggests and I haven't scored it higher because it didn't make me want to see it again straightaway, which is basically my rationale for giving a film tops. Why not? Because, I think, I simply loved everything about this film and sat smiling and tingling not sure what was coming next but loving it all and I don't think all that would happen second time. Daft? Yes, maybe but certainly this is a must see film, perfectly constructed with full on comedic script and intelligent and sparkling dialogue. There is even a bit of action! Woody gives a nod here to Strangers on a Train but i think he he were honest there is even more of 'Dexter'. Its that clever mix of logic, rationality, morality, sin and humour. Lots of little things amused me, I particularly liked the elements of 'chance' and the astute and sharp critiques of various philosophers. i also enjoyed being surprised and never quite knowing where this was going - just loving the ride. This is most defiantly like 'one of those early funny ones, indeed we may have to start referring to 'those later funny ones' if Woody Allen carries on at this rate. Excellent.

As said in my review for 'Café Society', and similarly in my other reviews for Woody Allen's films, Woody Allen often is an interesting and insightful director, whose films regardless of how they come off overall look great, have great soundtracks and he often knows how to get strong performances out of actors.

When Allen was at his best his writing was a fine mix of the hilarious, the poignantly dramatic and the thought-provoking. 'Irrational Man' doesn't see Allen at his best and is not among the best of his recent efforts. As also said in my review for 'Café Society', Allen's glory days were in the late 60s through to the early 90s, with the 70s and 80s (which saw masterpieces like 'Annie Hall', 'Crimes and Misdemeanours', 'The Purple Rose of Cairo', 'Love and Death', 'Hannah and Her Sisters' and 'Manhattan' for example) being particularly good decades. From mid-90s onward he became hit and miss (though personally don't consider any of his films awful, the lowest rating given is a 5), with the odd gem like 'Midnight in Paris' and 'Blue Jasmine' but generally his glory days are long gone.

'Irrational Man' is not a great film, but not a poor one either. To me, it is a mixed feelings sort of film. As far as his films from the 2010s decade go, 'Midnight in Paris' and 'Blue Jasmine' are vastly superior but 'Irrational Man' does fare better than 'To Rome With Love' and 'You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger'.

There are obvious great things here. The cinematography is magnificent, then again all of Allen's films look great, while the attention to detail in the rest of the production values is both visually striking and meticulous. The soundtrack is a good fit and stands well on its own, but the repeated jazz song does grate and is overused. 'Irrational Man' does start off very promising, there are some genuinely hilarious moments as well as some thoughtful one.

Performances are extremely good, and Allen is no slouch in the directing department either. Joaquin Phoenix is simply terrific here and demonstrates why he is one of the better actors working today. Not everybody has warmed to her character, but Emma Stone makes for a great leading lady, showing a skill for comedy but also an ability to bring substance and bite as well. Parker Posey is underused but is a scene stealer whenever she appears.

On the other hand, when things take a darker and more of a mystery tone 'Irrational Man' is nowhere near as strong. It is derivative of other Allen films like 'Crimes and Misdemeanours' and 'Match Point', which were both philosophical and dark (while the former had a perfect mix of comedy and drama and succeeded brilliantly at both) and explored the themes much better. 'Irrational Man' when taking on this tone feels bland and not suspenseful enough.

Much of the script didn't either, one of Allen's weaker scripts generally. There are parts that do genuinely sparkle, but many other parts are clunky and lay it on far too thick with the philosophy to the point of being heavy-handed. Some of the writing is annoying and over-explanatory too with little point of being so.

The story feels like too much is crammed in but in a way that doesn't feel developed as much as it should be. Also take issue with the ending which is rushed and inconclusive, plus one character behaves way too out of character for no obvious reason.

In conclusion, starts promisingly and has many great things but feels unsatisfying. There are worse Allen films, but also much better, and the film in general could have been much better executed. 6/10 Bethany Cox

A tight script? Check. Capable actors? Check. Lots of witty dialogue? Check. A jazzy soundtrack? Check. Beautiful photography in idyllic settings? Check.

Yes, all the ingredients are there. Just leave it to the 79-year old chef to create a delicious dish out of it. When everything is right, a Woody Allen movie is a delight to watch. And with 'Irrational Man', this is absolutely the case.

Joaquin Phoenix and Emma Stone are clearly enjoying themselves as the grumpy philosophy professor and his admiring student and lover. Allen's script plays in a lighthearted way with serious philosophical concepts such as guilt, evil and righteousness. Also, he throws in a murder mystery and makes the suspense last until the very end.

'Irrational Man' will not be one of Allen's greatest movies, because it lacks an extraordinary element like Cate Blanchett's performance in 'Blue Jasmine', or the historical dimension of 'Midnight in Paris'. But even without such an extra ingredient, 'Irrational Man' shows an expert craftsman at work. In a couple of years time, it might just turn out to be one of his most underrated films.