When you've seen many films by the same director, and you consider yourself a fan of that director's work in general, it is almost impossible to approach a particular film without a certain set of expectations. This isn't fair, no, but it's inevitable. While I will certainly admit that "Celebrity" is far from Woody Allen's best work, I did endeavor to focus on the film itself and try to ignore the disappointments that come from dashed expectations. In that light, I'm pleased to report that "Celebrity" is a good film.
First, let's get something out of the way. I'm sick to death of people complaining about Kenneth Branaugh imitating Woody Allen. Ok, so if you happen to find it irritating, well, then it'll pretty much ruin the movie for you. That's fair. But I don't find it irritating in the least. Moreover, I think it's a legitimate artistic choice which succeeds in what it sets out to do.
Consider: it wasn't Woody Allen's idea for Branaugh to ape his own screen persona. In fact, Allen did all he could to discourage Branaugh from this approach, because he knew critics would skewer it. But Branaugh decided to play it that way regardless. Why? Well, perhaps to make it funny. Looking at the script, it's a perfect role for Allen to have played himself, and Allen would have made it extremely funny. However, the role really needed a younger, more handsome actor. So, what's the ideal solution? Get a younger, more handsome actor to deliver the same performance Woody Allen would have. You can debate all you want whether or not this is a good idea (as, presumably, Allen and Branaugh did), but I think it's a legitimate artistic decision.
Anyway, it isn't Branaugh that pulls this film down, in my opinion. It's the lack of focus. Allen's films frequently include a number of major characters. This allows him to explore an issue from several different viewpoints. He does this here, but "Celebrity" seems to lack the central core that binds most of his films together. It's exploring the idea of celebrity, and raising all sorts of questions and issues about it, but it seems to lack a coherent, central thesis. It doesn't seem to have any strong premise at all.
So, the film consists of disconnected pieces fitting together into a sort of formless, unsatisfying whole. But the pieces are funny, insightful, well-acted, and gorgeously shot. So how bad can it really be?
Plus, I think what framework the film does have is overlooked by most of the audience. Some viewers here have said that the film is about making movies in contemporary Hollywood. It's not. That is one aspect of celebrity that this film explores. But this film is packed with almost every conceivable form of celebrity, from movie star to senator to literature critic to TV weather man to coma patient. Yet people seem to fixate on the Leonardo DiCaprio sequence (in my opinion, the weakest part of the film). Why? Perhaps because Leo is such a celebrity.
As usual for Allen, this film boasts a tremendous supporting cast of famous and not-so famous actors. Charlize Theron, Joe Mantegna, Bebe Neuwirth, Famke Janssen, Hank Azaria and Winona Ryder all put in strong performances in supporting roles of various depths. The only weak link, acting wise, is DiCaprio, who is entirely unconvincing.
This film, while quite legitimately not numbered among Allen's strongest films, has never the less been unfairly maligned. It's funny, it raises interesting issues and makes insightful points about it's subject matter, and it looks great. What more do you want?
First, let's get something out of the way. I'm sick to death of people complaining about Kenneth Branaugh imitating Woody Allen. Ok, so if you happen to find it irritating, well, then it'll pretty much ruin the movie for you. That's fair. But I don't find it irritating in the least. Moreover, I think it's a legitimate artistic choice which succeeds in what it sets out to do.
Consider: it wasn't Woody Allen's idea for Branaugh to ape his own screen persona. In fact, Allen did all he could to discourage Branaugh from this approach, because he knew critics would skewer it. But Branaugh decided to play it that way regardless. Why? Well, perhaps to make it funny. Looking at the script, it's a perfect role for Allen to have played himself, and Allen would have made it extremely funny. However, the role really needed a younger, more handsome actor. So, what's the ideal solution? Get a younger, more handsome actor to deliver the same performance Woody Allen would have. You can debate all you want whether or not this is a good idea (as, presumably, Allen and Branaugh did), but I think it's a legitimate artistic decision.
Anyway, it isn't Branaugh that pulls this film down, in my opinion. It's the lack of focus. Allen's films frequently include a number of major characters. This allows him to explore an issue from several different viewpoints. He does this here, but "Celebrity" seems to lack the central core that binds most of his films together. It's exploring the idea of celebrity, and raising all sorts of questions and issues about it, but it seems to lack a coherent, central thesis. It doesn't seem to have any strong premise at all.
So, the film consists of disconnected pieces fitting together into a sort of formless, unsatisfying whole. But the pieces are funny, insightful, well-acted, and gorgeously shot. So how bad can it really be?
Plus, I think what framework the film does have is overlooked by most of the audience. Some viewers here have said that the film is about making movies in contemporary Hollywood. It's not. That is one aspect of celebrity that this film explores. But this film is packed with almost every conceivable form of celebrity, from movie star to senator to literature critic to TV weather man to coma patient. Yet people seem to fixate on the Leonardo DiCaprio sequence (in my opinion, the weakest part of the film). Why? Perhaps because Leo is such a celebrity.
As usual for Allen, this film boasts a tremendous supporting cast of famous and not-so famous actors. Charlize Theron, Joe Mantegna, Bebe Neuwirth, Famke Janssen, Hank Azaria and Winona Ryder all put in strong performances in supporting roles of various depths. The only weak link, acting wise, is DiCaprio, who is entirely unconvincing.
This film, while quite legitimately not numbered among Allen's strongest films, has never the less been unfairly maligned. It's funny, it raises interesting issues and makes insightful points about it's subject matter, and it looks great. What more do you want?