Customer Reviews

Melinda and Melinda

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(22)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(17)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

For those familiar with Woody Allen's films there is nothing radically new here; but it is a refreshingly novel approach to his familiar obsessions for fans, as well as a nice introduction for newcomers. The central conceit of the film -- that the "same" story can be told quite differently from the point of view of tragedy and of comedy -- works as a clever reminder and allusion to films like Rashomon (in which the narration of events is shown to be inseparable from the values and perspectives of the narrator) but also as an intriguing reflection on Allen's own body of work that for some time was alternating between slapstick comedy and Bergmanesque drama. His best films, like Hannah and Her Sisters and Manhattan and Crimes and Misdemeanors have alternated between a tragic core and a comic and usually hilarious undercurrent. Here Woody Allen has opted for a separation between these, and told the whole story both ways at once. As a thought experiment it is a very intriguing idea, and as a set of stories it is fairly effective though not quite as effective as some of his very best work. One very nice touch was to have the theoretical discussions about tragedy and comedy that form the backdrop of his story take place at a dinner conversation, with Wallace Shawn as one of the central figures. In this way, the discussions, which are only partially effective, can work as a modest parody (or homage?) of "conversation" films like "My Dinner with Andre" that starred Wallace Shawn. Will Ferrell does a great reworking of the traditionally insecure and neurotic character that Woody Allen plays; and Radha Mitchell gives a brilliant dual performance as Melinda and Melinda. Overall the film was quite intriguing and enjoyable; it was only disappointing to this viewer when compared with some of the best of Allen's films.

It has been a while since I have wrote a review for Amazon, the only thing that could move me to do so is the hypocritical bad reviews for this film. Woody Allen is one of the last genuis directors we have. Everyone uses a seperate standard to judge his films. If this film were made by anyone else, then everyone would rave about it. This is the best film you will see this year, if you like artistic films. But some people feel this is "not up to Woody's standards." More about that later.
The film is, in its concept, more daring than 99% of the crap you will see this year, last year, or next year. Is the world comic or tragic, the film asks (in a world where films usually ask: how many explosions can I create).
Woody then gives us an interesting comic tale, and an interesting tragic tale, both well shot, well directed, and well acted. Let me repeat: both of these are IN THE SAME FILM! Woody constantly re-invents himself in an intelligent way.
The comic tale is indeed FUNNY, and intellectually so. Will Ferrell is perfect and perfectually directed to play his role, and we are not given the easy, expected storyline, but one that keeps us paying attention. In the tragic role I challenge reviewers to find a more emotional scene than the final one of Melinda's breakdown.
Antything Else was wonderful: a film with teen stars Jason Biggs and Christina Ricci in which the director gets an artistic performance out of both, a film in which intelligent TALKING, not car chases and fart scenes, dominate. But Melinda and Melinda is willing to be a pure concept film, but one in which each story is told with loving care and attention to the details of each characters humanity, capturing the magic of Woody's past films like Manhattan, Annie Hall, or Deconstructing Harry. Rent or buy it! This is our generation's Hemingway, Da Vinci, etc.

I didn't see this movie in the theater when it initially came out. I was watching every Woody Allen movie in the post-Mia Farrow era, near opening night in the theater, with the nerdy-Jewish version of a rowdy audience, for a while, until they really started to disappoint. He was on a great streak there, culminating in the mid-nineties with a pair from opposite ends of the emotional spectrum, the gloriously upbeat, joyful Everyone Says I Love You, followed the next year with the negative, bitter, (but also funny) Deconstructing Harry. The quality then dropped off precipitously, first with Kenneth Branagh's near-epileptic Allen-imitation of him in Celebrity, followed soon thereafter by the lame, vintage-Vaudeville style comedies such as Small Time Crooks and The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, movies that felt old at their premiers. But "Melinda and Melinda," (or is we say in Boston "Melinder err-ah Melinder,") followed by Match Point (they say it's good, I haven't seen it yet), is hopefully the beginning of a rebound into another great run.

Like I said, I didn't see this when it came out, but I did read an interview with Woody Allen at the time this movie came out. He described this movie as something of a personal experiment for him. He really wanted to explore the question of whether life is fundamentally tragic or humorous, and he thought that answers would be reviewed in the process of trying to make a movie that told the same story as both a tragedy and a comedy. In this interview, I remember him acknowledging that the movie was a failure in that respect, that he didn't learn anything about the fundamental differences between comedy and tragedy. But- displaying at least a modicum of promotional instincts- he described the movie as a success anyway. He was half right and selling himself short. I think this movie does speak to the differences between tragedy and comedy, does contain its share of lessons. And I will give him credit for the movie also being a success from the entertainment point of view as well. The comedic parts are not all that funny, and the tragic parts are painfully unpleasant in the same unwatchable way as "Interiors," and yet somehow it does work as a single cohesive movie.

But we don't get a real chance to fully explore the question. Here's the problem: Woody Allen cheats his premise. He does not show the same story portrayed two different ways. But there is a lesson in the ways he swindles the audience. The stories are different, with the tragic version being rich in heartrending and sometimes disturbing details, and the comedy version conveniently skipping over the more gloomy details of the back-story and focusing on the comedic elements of the relationships in the movie. I would say there is a lesson there. Turns out the universe in neither tragic nor comic. It's indifferent. The Universe is not embarrassed when you track toilet paper out of the bathroom and the Universe doesn't celebrate when you lose your winter weight. It's a big vibrating nothingness with chunks, chunks that are themselves even more vibrating nothingness of lessness. It's quite uninterested in your life. Sorry.

Things are sad and funny in our minds as we interpret them, and a skilled artist can manipulate any subject to relatively emphasize or de-emphasize the more tragic or more humorous aspects of things. The lesson illustrated so well here: How we interpret thoughts and actions color our emotional experience. But it is a reciprocal relationship. It is just as true that our emotional state colors how we interpret thoughts and actions. So, the shifting back and forth is quite unsettling, which is part of the point.

I'm recommending it overall, a good enough movie a hopefully a sign of a return to form. The DVD doesn't have any extras, which is fine, I think those voiceover tracks- though occasionally very cool- are generally gimmicky. Outtakes and theatrical trailers- unnecessary.

Not one of Allen's greater movies, but not bad either, better then most of the garbage out there. Both stories center around a character, Melinda, played by Mia Farrow look-alike/act-alike Radha Mitchell, who enters a dinner party and shakes up the lives of established couples. As with most Woody Allen films, we get to see couples break up in particularly cruel eruptions of infidelity. The characters in Woody Allen's movies are themselves so emotionally tone-deaf, self-absorbed neurotic pawns who mete out callousness and then languish in guilt. All as portrayed by a male lead not so subtly imitating Woody Allen and a female lead imitating Mia Farrow. Kind of funny. And sad.

It's strange that Amazon.Com doesn't offer Woody Allen's Melinda and Melinda as I just saw it on DVD yesterday. That actually fits well into the film's theme - the existence of two parallel universes; For some, life is a comedy, for others, a tragedy.

A discussion between two writers as to whether life is a tragedy or a comedy ends with two radical reinterpretation of what is basically the same situation. In both, the distraught Melinda (Radha Mitchell, playing a neurotic female Woody Allen type) crashes an important dinner party, and spins the previously ordinary lives of the guests into mayhem. In both tales Melinda is part in a love triangle or two, and in both there is a suicide attempt.

Other than that, the stories couldn't have been more different. The 'tragic' Melinda is a suicidal divorcee, with two children she has no access to and a secret past, who comes to entangle the marriage life of her childhood friend Laurel (Chloe Sevigny). The 'comic' Melinda is the whacko neighbor of Hobie (Will Farrell) and his wife Susan (Amanda Peet), who reawakens both of their love life, albeit not to each other.

Melinda and Melinda is among the best of Allen's recent work. The 'Comic Melinda' reminds you of his recent stuff, and is as funny as 'Hollywood Ending'; the tragic story, although not flashed out enough, recalls Allen's classics "Annie Hall" and "Hannah and her sisters".

Ultimately, Allen refuses to offer us his own answer about whether life is a comedy or a tragedy. But the tale of two Melindas is neither a comedy nor a tragedy; it's simply a good movie.

The biggest challenge facing Woody Allen as a filmmaker these days is that every movie he makes is directed by Woody Allen. As soon as his name is attached to a film people want to judge it by a different set of rules. You have a group of people who don't like Woody Allen films, they don't "get" them, and they never will. You have another group that chooses to judge Allen based on his personal life, not his work, and they've openly despised him for the last decade.

Of course, the worst group is made up of the so-called "Allen fans" who always want to compare Woody to Woody. Every film he makes is destined to be criticized because it's not as excellent as "Annie Hall" or some of his other instant classics. That hardly seems fair. The truth is that a lot of Allen's recent films would be praised if they were made by a young director on the way up, but because it's Woody Allen he's unjustly scrutinized for not making the films that other people expect. Again, this hardly seems fair.

"Melinda and Melinda" might not be a great movie, but it is very good. If you've previously enjoyed any of Allen's lighter movies, then it's safe to say you should enjoy this one. The film begins with two writers having a dinner conversation about comedy versus tragedy in life. Another diner relates an anecdote to the two men and they each claim it for their preferred genre. The movie then turns into each author telling his story. We see the character, Melinda, arriving at two different dinner parties followed by two stories that play out differently. One is a tragedy about a woman leading a cursed life and the other turns into a romantic comedy. Just as you get a feel for one story, the movie jumps to the other. It can be a bit frustrating if you're getting involved with the first tale, but it's still an interesting idea for a movie.

The two stories told by the writers don't really go anywhere, and some viewers might have a problem with that. The point of the film isn't the actual story. Instead, it's to show how tragedy and comedy are intertwined and how two people can see the same thing in a different light. The stories each feature over-the-top performances and story lines that fit their respective dramas. In the tragedy the Melinda character chain smokes, takes pills, and gives monologues straight out of a Lifetime movie. The comedy doesn't inspire hysterics, but instead it's a witty send up of Allen's own movies, complete with Will Ferrell and Amanda Peet doing their best Allen and Diane Keaton impersonations, while the Melinda character seems like your average, overwhelmed sitcom lead. It's almost as if Allen intended to satirize each genre.

As I mentioned earlier, the movie can get frustrating at times. Ultimately, neither story amounts to much and they lack the type of conclusion that some people might expect in a movie. In the case of the comedy, it seems like there was enough of a story to make a fun, inconsequential movie that would easily top most the romantic comedies made today. But the acting in each segment is great. In the tragedy, Jonny Lee Miller and Chloe Sevigny do an excellent job of impersonating dramatic stage actors. As previously mentioned, Peet and Ferrell adequately imitate the screwball comedies of the studio era, though you have to wonder if Ferrell should have been given more opportunities for physical comedy.

In the end, this is a satisfying movie that should entertain the biggest of Allen fans, but it might not be of interest to casual fans or those in search of something deep.

There's been growing (and justified) suspicion in recent years that Woody Allen is trapped in some kind of cinematic time warp. In Allen-land, his beloved New York has not aged a day since...um, since he first got his idealized vision of the Big Apple. Twenty-somethings still discuus classical composers, listen to Big Band, and kvetch about anxiety attacks. Some jazz buzzes in the background. In step with this mindset, his films have become more and more retro, whether they be the gumshoes- and-dames daydream of "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion", or the well-treaded road of Hollywood parody walked by "Hollywood Ending". To call these films watered-down Allen is not really accurate; they belong in a whole diferent ball-park than Allen's masterpieces ("Annie Hall", Manhattan", "Hannah and her Sisters"). Still, they possessed enough decent one-liners and attracted enough quirkily talented actors to keep the affair, if not quite interesting, at least cozily predictable. Seeing these films were like visiting an aging uncle; you ignored the moth balls and well-worn stories because you remember what a firecracker he used to be, and sometimes still is.
Consider these visits over. With "Melinda and Melinda", Allen has the opportunity to escape inconsequential reverie and reconnect with the vital lifeforce of the city he loves. He squanders it with flat direction, jaw-dropping pretension, and some of the worst dialogue to wheeze off the silver screen in some time. It's worse than bad filmmaking; it's lazy filmmaking.
Consider something as small as the new feature from artisto indie director Susan (Amanda Peet, her natural radiance dulled by the film's grime). It carries the imposing title of "The Castration Sonata", yet the character doesn't possess a shred of her film's radicalism. Like every other character that embodies this vacuous exercise of a film, Susan is little more than a collection of blandly irritating eccentricties and nerouses.
At its beginning, "Melinda and Melinda" imagines a raucous cafe discussion among New York intellectuals. One has just heard a quirky little tale about an attractive and unstable blond woman who stumbled, unannounced and uninvited, into a swanky dinner party. He, a renowned writer of tragedies, imagines the tale as a dark lesson in the imperfections of love. Another guest, a celebrated comedy scribe, envisions a screwball romance tinged with black humor. The resulting one-and-forty-five minutes (it only seems like three hours) imagines these parallel narratives, playing out against one another in the vast space of human possibilty.
If this sounds pretentious, it is, not to mention self-important and ultimately without any consequence. One might be able to make the case that Allen is commenting upon the champagne-and-opera-glasses arrogance of the modern intelligensia. Yet such a theory is pumped full of holes once one makes the sorrowful realization that Allen actually takes these narcissitic basket-cases seriously. I don't know who infuriated me more: the glum wife of a struggling actor (a career-low turn by Chloe Sevigny), Susan's natty husband (a miscast and bizarrely insufferable Will Ferrel), or Melinda, the blond herself. Radha Mitchell, who gave quiet dignity to Johnny Depp's frigid, socially-conscious wife in "Finding Neverland", does what she can with what is essentially a dual role. She possesses a confident, chameoleon-like quality reminiscent of Naomi Watts. Too bad Melinda, particularly in her "tragic" incarnation, is an irony-free wreck prone to flights of profoundly shallow introspection. And Allen does nothing but zoom in on her finely-ethced features and listens intently.
Doesn't he remember when he used to tweak New York narcissists while still giving them the compassion they so desperately need? The opposite occurs here: he takes there flippancy and self-involvement at face value while denying them a stray drop of humanity. How can we connect to these iceburgs, particularly when they spout ear-splittingly awful banalities about life and death with a solemnity that defies comprehension? The writing is worse than bad Woody Allen; it's cut-rate sitcome parody of bad Woody Allen.
In his defense, Allen does find ways to connect and overlap the two stories with middling success. Yet even these come across as mechanical and chilly. Lacking the bracing wit and insight that tends to kiss even his mediocre attempts, "Melinda and Melinda" entraps us in a completely artificial world. At one point, Melinda pops in, overdosed on sleeping pills that were washed down with vodka. You know you've entered a new circle of cinematic hell when you consider her possilbe demise a better fate than spending time with the rest of the screen's occupants.

I know the critics in general said this movie wasn't very good, and maybe for that reason I didn't try too hard to see it when it came out, but when I bought the dvd and watched it, I LOVED IT. I have seen maybe half of Woody Allen's movies and he is truly a wonderful maker of movies. This is among my favorites of his.

This story, or rather, these two stories, the way it was done, seemed to me so unique. It wasn't one story told two ways, it was several small facts woven quite differently two ways into two totally different stories.

I loved that Melinda was played by the same actress but the other actors were different.

At the end, although their stories were different, it was so clear to me that the tragic Melinda had made her life tragic herself, the choices she had made and continued to make proved her undoing and the happy Melinda had also had some bad things happen to her, and possibly made bad choices, but obviously had decided to make better choices.

What a human being is compelled to do for whatever inner reason, who knows, and it's easy to criticize someone's choices in hindsight, to say that the tragic Melinda brought it all on herself, but she did. She continued to do the same stupid things over and over. The "comic" Melinda obviously decided to look at her own life differently.

It's hard to explain it and do it justice. You just have to see it.

After watching this movie, immediately afterwards, I felt better about my own life. The past year has been not one of my best, some due to my own stupidity and passions and some from outside things I have no control over and, overwhelmed, I have been rather blue, but this movie, watching it, for whatever reason, helped me turn a corner, a good corner.

I recommend it as entertainment and as a mild but effective anti-depressant. Thank you, Woody Allen.

The quality of Woody Allen's work as both comedic actor and director has continually eroded since SMALL TIME CROOKS (2000). This 2004 offering ("Melinda and Melinda") is one of his weakest efforts-- there's not one decent laugh to be had, none of the usual clever connections, brilliant dialog or deep insights into humanity we've come to expect. M&M is little more than warmed-over and half-hearted Allen material.

The debate in the restaurant over whether Melinda's story is tragedy or comedy is reminiscent of the comics gathered in a famous New York deli listening to the legendary tale of BROADWAY DANNY ROSE (1984). Other similarities to past WA films abound here.

That Will Ferrell is decidedly unamusing can be directly attributed to a mediocre script. Many of the movie's mostly lesser-known actors garner zero sympathy (again, through no fault of their own) and without this vital emotion to sustain us, why does it matter at all what category Melinda's story falls into? When we finally reach the too-predictable ending, the thought is" "I should have watched Woody's ____________ instead." (fill in the blank)

Is the essence of life comic or tragic? Can the same events give birth to a comedy or a tragedy, depending on the point of view? That is the central issue in this short but fairly original movie.

I don't want to spoil things for you. Suffice it to say that "Melinda and Melinda" kicks off with a scene in a restaurant, where some friends are having dinner. Two of them are writers, but one is into comedies, while the other prefers to write tragedies. They start a discussion on the essence of life, something that leads one of their friends to propose a challenge: each writer must interpret some facts regarding the story of a young woman, Melinda, from his own unique perspective.

Truth to be told, both writers manage to weave extremely good stories that mirror each other but are at the same time quite different. The spectator is able to compare the stories within the story, and to enjoy the excellent acting of a uniformly good cast. I suppose I should highlight the splendid performance of Radha Mitchell, the actress that plays Melinda, due to the fact that her role was specially difficult, but I think that you will notice that as soon as you start watching this movie.

All in all, I really enjoyed "Melinda and Melinda". Its premise is interesting, and it delivers. What else can we ask of a movie? So sit back and enjoy :)

Belen Alcat

After watching "Melinda and Melinda", I discovered that this was a Woody Allen film. I've just never been a fan of Woody Allen and have always found him overrated as a screenwriter and filmmaker. However, after watching "Melinda and Melinda", I admit I was pleasantly surprised how good a movie this was. In fact, I was also surprised why this movie didn't do well at the box office. With Hollywood being focused on remakes, the concept of this movie is definitely something that is "out of the box" . I was entertained throughout the movie. It also features an unsung performance by Will Ferrell.

"Melinda and Melinda" actually has two parallel stories taking place around a character named "Melinda". The movie starts off with two filmmakers conversing with a group of people over dinner. One filmmaker makes comedies and the other focuses on the tragedy - and the two engage in a debate over why one is better than the other. During the dinner gathering one proposes a story where a distressed woman shows up at the door crashing the dinner party - that woman being Melinda. From that premise, we see the parallel stories develop as told from the two filmmakers - one from the comedic end and one from the tragic end. Melinda, who is played by Radha Mitchell in both storylines is the central character in each of the storylines. While Mitchell does play Melinda in each story, the character of Melinda are really two different people - with two different personalities. At the same time, while these are two separate storylines, there are a lot of parallels between the two storylines. For example:

* Each Melinda crashes a dinner party in a distraught mood
* Each Melinda is returning from the Midwest
* Each Melinda will be rebounded from a broken marriage that involved infidelity
* Each Melinda wrecks havoc on a married couple
* Each Melinda will be fixed up on dates, who are both dentists - and each will end up going up with different men

Mitchell's character of Melinda will appear in both of the storylines, but none of the other characters will appear in both. In the tragic version, the married couple that Melinda will wreck havoc will be Lee and Laurel (played by Jonny Lee Miller and "Big Love"'s Chloe Sevigny). In the comedic version, the married couple is Susan and Hobie (played by Amanda Peet and Will Ferrell). The two storylines could have easily been made into individual movies - and while both versions of the story are highly entertaining, I found myself more interested in the comedic version. The comedic version took on much more of the form of a romantic comedy as opposed to a classic comedy. A lot of why the comedic version worked was because of the performances by Peet and Ferrell. Peet seemed born to play the career-driven Susan - and was very believable in the role. However it is Will Ferrell that really shines as Hobie, the laid-back unlucky husband of Susan. Ferrell has really emerged as one of the top Hollywood actors with audiences accustomed to his "big name" movies he has starred in (many are most familiar with his classic role of "Frank the Tank" in "Old School"). At the same time, Ferrell proves he can do the "artsy" film. The amazing thing is while Melinda was the central character of the film, I found myself gravitating to Hobie's character throughout the comedic storyline. By the end of the film, I felt that Hobie emerged as the hero of the storyline - and of the whole film.

The tragic story isn't bad either, but it just didn't stand out compared to the comedy. Miller and Sevigny's portrayal of Lee and Laurel were good, but didn't really standout to the characters of Peet and Ferrell. At times I felt the tragic story was dragging on compared to the comedic story. This is seen in the tragic story when Melinda and Laurel's friend pregnant friend Cassie (played by Brooke Smith) throws a dinner party to fix up Melinda with a dentist - it was just very slow. I found the elements of the tragic storyline more difficult to follow. I also found the ending of the tragic storyline unsatisfactory. There were more loose-ends that could have been pulled in that storyline (i.e. such as Cassie being pregnant) that were just never explored. Still this wasn't a bad story - it was just one that could have shined, but didn't.

Another thing that one must be careful of is "coming in during the middle of the film". The viewer will definitely be confused if they don't understand the premise of the film as both stories switch back and forth.

With Radha Mitchell playing both Melindas, she has to be given credit for such a performance. She does an excellent job in both movies - and does a great job at coming across as two different Melindas. Like Ferrell, I'm surprised Mitchell's performance didn't get more attention - as it was a good one. Wallace Shawn is very believable as the comedic filmmaker.

The setting for both storylines (as well as where the filmmakers debating tragedy and comedy) is New York City. This seemed to be the perfect setting for the entire film. Most of the characters are definitely yuppie-like characters and New York City seems to be the perfect backdrop for this movie.

Despite some of the weaknesses of the tragic storyline, overall this is still a very good film. I have to give Woody Allen credit for keeping the storylines flowing and knowing when to switch back and forth between the storylines. This is definitely a movie that shouldn't have flopped at the box office and is something worth checking out.