Café Society

If you like Woody Allen, his character in this movie will definitely catch you eye real quick. And I have to say that Jesse Eisenberg really nailed the classic emotional nut case. Apparently, he’s been watching all of Woody’s movies, because not only did he have the gestures down, but also the general body movements, faces and overall behavior towards women. What’s more, for this movie, Woody chose a rather rewarding theme that he loves very much and so he poked fun at the extravagance of the legendary Hollywood generation of the 1930s once again. Steve Carell, for example, was absolutely excellent in his role. But what initially looks like another Woody dialogue movie from a world of the young, hopeful and the rich eventually reveals itself to be a very light melancholic drama with a hint of gangster movie. Once again, Woody shot a movie that’s absolutely typical of him and once again, he brought in something inconspicuously fresh that can caress the soul and fascinates at the same time. (08/31/2017)

Woody Allen seems a bit worn out in this film. Sure, it's very well shot, the dialogues occasionally make sense and are even interesting, if not entertaining, but overall, I kind of felt like it was about nothing in particular. I couldn't really connect with the characters, and for example, the second Veronica seemed unnecessary and self-serving, although, of course, she has a certain purpose. (10/23/2016)

“Where's character? Where's loyalty?” The protagonist's father asks the right questions. In Woody Allen’s new film, you won’t find multi-dimensional characters that behave toward each other with any degree of loyalty. You will also search in vain for humour (a few amusing lines merely recycle what we have already heard in Allen’s films, but in funnier versions), compositional motivation for a number of scenes (such as the opening scene with a prostitute), type-appropriate casting (only Steve Carrel with his parted hair is more or less suitable for the 1930s setting), meaningful involvement of an omniscient narrator (is it really necessary to describe absolutely everything, even the beauty of the sunrise that we are just looking at?), any sign that the plot is leading to something (in fact, the story could just go on and on in cycles until the characters get old and die), or any reason that the story is set in the era of classic Hollywood. Well, any reason other than the fact that Woody simply loves this period and until someone builds a time machine, the only way to return to it is through movies. Rather than the need to tell an engaging story and share an original idea, it seems that love for the depicted period and setting was the main (or perhaps even the only) motivation for making Café Society. Thanks to Vittorio Storaro’s cinematography, the film looks beautiful. The abundance of light and a golden hue give the shots a supernatural charm and it is clear that we are in a world where dreams are born. Populate this world with characters who constantly blabber on about famous actors, actresses and directors (and they blabber only not to be quiet – the point and main purpose of the dialogue is simply for us to hear a familiar name), add a jazz soundtrack and you have a film. Actually, no, you don’t, because it is still necessary to at least somehow connect the individual scenes with the most lackluster romance under the sun, even if you really don’t care about the people involved in that romance because they rather prevent you from enjoying the period costumes, architecture and set decorations (based on which the lead roles were written – two self-satisfied characters defined only by the fact that they want to go to the movies and are unable to make independent grown-up decisions). Café Society is such a soul-crushing case of total directorial and screenwriting laxity that if it weren’t for the higher production values and a few well-known actors, I would think that this is the first attempt by a not very good writer who doesn’t understand that telling a story with pictures is not the same as telling a story with words. Looking at it from a more generous angle, it is significantly more likely that Allen’s first series (Crisis in Six Scenes) will be far more entertaining than his (so far) last film. The consolation to be found in that, however, is as comparably worthless as Café Society itself. 40% (09/22/2016)

Last time, I was quite enthusiastic about Magic in the Moonlight, but Café Society is even better. I haven't experienced this much authentic happiness from interwar Hollywood in a long time. There are plenty of excellent details, winking, and playing with names and projects, as well as the classic relationship analysis. It's not necessary to enjoy a romance that isn't quite tip-top, but if you appreciate art deco and a zillion references to all those names like Gloria Swanson, Barbara Stanwyck, Ginger Rogers, or Jean Harlow, you've come to the right place. The costumes, the sets, and the atmosphere are all top-notch, and only after all this did I realize that the make-up is not period-based, but fortunately, that doesn't ruin the whole (which is an interesting paradox). (09/26/2016)

The enchanting atmosphere of the Golden Age of Hollywood era and the playing out of a love story promises more than what the movie can deliver in its second half: a clichéd love tangle and the unnecessary secondary storyline with a gangster brother. Jesse Eisenberg and Steve Carell are great, while Kristen Stewart doesn’t seem the right choice for her role. Blake Lively would deserve more space, though the development of her character would probably bring more clichés to the film. The movie feels longer than it actually is. A tired Woody. Two and a half stars. (09/22/2016)