Irrational Man (2015) User Reviews

Woody doing Philosophy Noir rounds out a trilogy - underrated though flawed

[Quinoa1984 · 8/10 · 28 July 2015]

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.

One of the best laid out movies ever!

[subxerogravity · 7/10 · 22 July 2015]

I just love the whole plot of this movie.

Joaquin Phoenix plays a brilliant and drunken philosophy professor who contemplates the perfect crime as a way to get a new jolt of energy to his wipe out existence.

Woody Allen is not really my cup of tea, but I dig some of his work. The movies that jump out at me that I really like are Magic in the Moonlight that also stars Emma Stone and Midnight in Paris.

What I saw of Irrational Man on the surface that was being portrayed in trailers is nothing compared to what was being passed off as the real plot of this movie.

Phoenix give such an magnificent performance I feel that it's more his vehicle than a Woody Allen movie. Adding to his performance was what he shaped his body into, which was ironically impressive. I can't remember the last time I saw such a fat gut being exploited in a movie, It literally help him to become the center of attention.

Similar to the Hitchcock classic, Strangers on a Train (especially in plot), The movie gives a very interesting take on the perfect crime. It's not coming from a cops perspective at all, or about solving the perfect crime, It's all about the emotion of the man who tries to commit such a crime, and how easily he can blend into our society.

It starts as very lighthearted movie about a self-loathing over thinker and then turns really dark without actually becoming dark.

It made me laugh and it held my interest. I'm very impressed with what Woody Allen put together.

An expert craftsman at work

[rubenm · 7/10 · 6 August 2015]

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.

Rational Irrational Man

[SteveMierzejewski · 6/10 · 14 January 2016]

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.

Some truly great things here, but feels overstuffed and under-cooked with a promising start but turns clunky when it gets darker

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 7 October 2016]

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

Morality Has to Be Faced, Even to an Existentialist, Maybe Moreso

[Hitchcoc · 7/10 · 16 February 2016]

When one reads the book "The Irrational Man" by William Barrett, one gets a touch of everything that haunts the persona of Joaquin Phoenix's professor in this film. He had almost developed a sort of out of body experience as he lays the principals of philosophy on his private school students. He is a loner and a cynic and can't find happiness. He has begun to pick and chose the most abysmal views on life. All those philosophers from Kant to Kierkegaard have seen the underbelly of reality in the world. Yet, like Wooody Allen, they continued to write and produce. Why? Because when push comes to shove, our mortality is what we have; our lives are still all we have. Unless you believe in some afterlife where we continue to act as we do now, even that is filled with uncertainties. Abe, in this film, has a kind of mental constipation going on. He can't write and can't have sex and can't be embraced socially in his world. He is truly reckless, as shown by his encounter with Russian roulette. When he begins to see himself as Raskalnikov in "Crime and Punishment," he commits a murder which he justifies by saying the world is a better place without a harsh judge. I think where it falls apart is that Abe never, for a moment, considers that police often have to blame someone. Emma Stone's character lays it out for him later and it's as if he had never thought of the results of his actions. He really believed in the perfect crime. He really believed that they would never blame someone. He is then faced with a Jean Valjean choice as to whether to fess up and give up his life for someone he doesn't even know. The result of the whole thing is quite disappointing, but, then, Allen paints him into a corner. '

Commercial Moralist Conclusion

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 16 November 2018]

The philosophy professor Abe Lucas (Joaquin Phoenix) arrives at the Braylin University with the reputation of alcoholic wolf. However he is a nihilist man living an existential crisis after the losses of his best friend in Iraq and of his wife that left him with a friend while he was helping people in New Orleans. The promiscuous Professor Rita Richards (Parker Posey) unsuccessfully tries to have sex with Abe. However he feels a platonic attraction by his brilliant student Jill Pollard (Emma Stone) and spends most of his leisure time with her as a friend. One day, they overhear a conversation about a corrupt judge in a diner and Abe secretly plots the plan of a perfect crime. Will he set his plan in motion?

"Irrational Man" is a film by Woody Allen where he blends his style with the idea of Hitchcock´s "Strangers on a Train". The lovely Emma Stone has excellent performance. The plan of Abe Lucas based on the principle that a stranger without motive could commit the perfect crime works very well until the commercial moralist conclusion. Instead of making a thought provoking amoralist conclusion, Woody Allen makes a convential ending for the disappointment of his fans. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Homem Irracional" ("The Irrational Man")

A moral response to "Match Point" and a very high point in Allen's recent filmography...

[ElMaruecan82 · 9/10 · 21 May 2019]

Finally! A Woody Allen film with a linear plot and "what if" dilemmas disseminated all through a thought-provoking campus-set story, a symphony of thoughts and actions without any false note and that would catch any skeptical mind off-guard. Allen surely delivered on that one!

"Irrational Man" covers many philosophical questions about the rationality of individual "morality" and their possible interference with ethic. Abe, the newly hired philosophy teacher played by Joaquin Phoenix, doesn't believe the intellectual medicine he sells to his students, his dark and brooding attitude makes up for the lack of enthusiasm in his endeavor and is enough to earn admiration, if not fascination, but the man remains totally unsatisfied about himself and pretension isn't his strongest suit.

One day, he's given a test (not a taste) of his own medicine through an intellectual challenge that could only emerge from the creativity of Woody Allen: a situation that gives its full meaning to the word existentialism, a hackneyed word that only inspired vague interpretations of the word "accomplishment" but in the film, it's shown as a moral weapon, more specifically, a double-edged sword when confused with a sort of misguided sense of entitlement, a great illustration of the idea that hell is paved by good intentions... or maybe that quote from "Chinatown" that sums it up perfectly: "most people never have to face the fact that at the right time, the right place, they're capable of anything." Abe won't be one of these.

And so Abe undergoes a smooth transition from one state of mind to another as if we had to understand what's eating him before understanding what could regenerate his lust for life. Phoenix feels like overplaying the intellectual malcontent in quest for a meaning in the beginning and it takes not one but two women to try to break the ice and finds what's under that depressed carapace of his, Parker Posey is Rita the lively and sensual teacher who instantly falls in love and Jill is the brilliant student who has the typical crush on her charismatic teacher. See, the film offers so many common tropes to better avert them. Abe looks like your typical alcoholic womanizer but he's impotent and his suicidal impulses turn everybody off... when eventually things go better, he's wise enough to keep it platonic with Jill, because she's engaged, and if you think Jill will abandon everything to follow her teacher and do the right thing by breaking up with the dull boyfriend, you've got another thing coming.

As usual with the best Allen films, you have a fine set-up that introduces to characters with clearly drawn personalities but unclear motives and then there's something that changes everything: the motives get clearer and the personalities reveal new depths. It's a simple conversation overheard in a café that changes the course of Abe's life, triggering a new vision with a tangible effect on Jill and Rita. It's a decision that calls for an act, one of heavy proportions but deemed necessary because wishing is useless and action is meaningful. And from that point, the film is like a great waltz under a tertiary tempo: one for the triangular love and the way Abe's charm works way too much not to be an omen for complications, one for the moral dilemmas over which I hesitated to give a definite judgment, telling myself "that better goes somewhere" and finally a response to "Match Point" where 'bad things' went unpunished, and not even suspected.

In fact, the film is so smooth and engaging that the ending feels a bit hasty in its execution, sometimes the right thing to happen isn't necessarily the right one when it comes to end with a final "wow", but obviously, "Match Point" had already made its point and "Irrational Man" needed to take us back to some sanity. Many movies provide cynical examples of characters succeeding while being morally corrupt, and it's refreshing to have films that bravely set the "boring" but necessary moral aspect of the problem. Abe is an interesting character indeed, he draws us toward his charismatic personality to the point that our own convictions are challenged... to a limit of course. And it's for movies like these that I've always admired Woody Allen and after the disappointing "You will Meet a Tall and Dark Stranger", here's one that succeeds in almost every department.

Not too many characters but what's there is three-dimensional, unpredictable yet consistent, a plot that goes through many fluctuations while attached to its spinal topics and that little zest of wit that tickles your intellect and makes you wonder what you'd do if you were in "their" place. The film saddened me when I thought of the director's recent downfall into persona non grata territory. I've taken his last movies like consolations, if he's lost his touch then there was no need to go further, maybe his creative juice had stopped to drain such clever and brilliant films but "Irrational Man" made me reconsider, Allen can still surprise you... and he does it so brilliantly that I would separate the art from the artist, and I wish enough actors in Hollywood would do it so the only true Hollywood auteur can make movies like this, disinterested and interesting, devoid of any calculation except for giving a shot to "it" actresses, like Emma Stone who delivers a terrific performance one year before her Oscar-winning role in "La La Land".

The film restored my faith in Woody Allen, his "Café Society" left me cold but I guess there's a pattern in his long filmography, every 2-3 years, he makes 'that' film that feels undeniably good, if not great. "Irrational Man" is the second highest point of the 2010s after "Midnight in Paris", I wish there's enough time for Allen to make one great film... might be his last from the way things are going.

Nothing Irrational About Woody

[JohnnyWeissmuller · 6/10 · 25 October 2015]

Joaquin Phoenix is still one of the best an most interesting actors working today, and Emma Stone, who is just getting better and better is one of the most enjoyable actresses to watch just now. In Irrational Man, Phoenix plays a college professor who is new to the campus where Stone's character studies, although his reputation proceeds him, as students and lecturers alike are abuzz with excitement over his arrival. Men can't figure him out and women cling to him despite his paunch and nonchalance, never mind his unconventional teaching methods in philosophy. What ensues is a friendship between Phoenix and Stone that grows over her affection for him, and by way of a conversation heard in a diner that puts a local judge in poor light because he's in a position to strip a seemingly good mother of the rights to see her children. This puts the movie in familiar territory for anyone who has seen Rope, but also Allen's own Match Point, Love and Death and Crimes and Misdemeanors, where the morality and immorality of murder is discussed. Which puts Phoenix in an interesting position as a philosophy professor with some very frank and matter-of-fact ideas about life and living. And he plays this well, without channeling his director in the way other actors have in the past, but creating a character who is smart, troubled and very inviting. There's a world weariness and a nervous energy in Phoenix that's countered by Stone's wide-eyed optimism and inherently decent qualities, which are traits that she encompasses so very well as an actress. She's easy to get on side with just as Phoenix is always able to invite viewers into the mind of the characters he plays. But it's Allen's script that underwhelms, if not his framing and staging of conversational scenes. Questions and ideas are posed without enough attached to them, although the stakes may be high, the narrative is familiar and one could expect Jessica Fletcher or Columbo to be involved in such a story. Whilst the frequent use of the Ramsey Lewis Trio's The In Crowd has meaning, but not enough purpose in how this become a theme for the movie. Which I quite liked, because I like Murder She Wrote, Columbo and Diagnosis Murder, and that's really the territory Allen is in here. But it's far from his best, although his work-ethic is remarkable, along with the fact that he isn't guilty of missing the mark or making poor movies, even when he's coasting.

I love an Allen film, but this was a little too cringy for me...

[graysonconversejazz · 4/10 · 3 October 2015]

Like so many, I will always go and see a Woody Allen film. If nothing else, there is something so nastalgic about the opening title sequence of white text against black background while dixieland music turns in the background (although during these credits there is a noticeably lack of music). Add Pheonix to the mix and chances are so high that the film will be enjoyable to watch. In short, it wasn't.

Pheonix sipping from a flask while driving fast in an old Volvo, black shades on - cool. But progressively less and less cool and realistic as the film goes on. How often do you expect me to believe that this professor drinks from his flask throughout the day without falling asleep or having someone say 'Hey dude, stop doing that, you're on a college campus'.

I wish I cared for the characters, but between all the abrupt cuts from one scene to completely different scene without ever feeling grounded, and the abundance of very lukewarm dialogue - 'philosophy is just verbal masturbation' (wow how witty for a philosophy professor to say) - i just never felt like I knew who the characters were, or wanted to know them.

I was put off by the obviousness of the premise - student falls for the tortured philosophy professor. Philosophy professor is too damaged to care about anything, until he finally finds inspiration...but in the wrong place - and expected that Allen wouldn't have bothered going down that road unless he had something truly unique to add. But there was nothing, it honestly seemed like a stripped down first draft of the film with dialogue feeling so uncomfortable at times as if they didn't get a very good take but just said, 'screw, move on', i.e. people talking over one another, but in an unnatural way like they forgot the other person still had some of their line to say.

The visuals were pleasant. I enjoyed seeing Pheonix with a pot-belly and a long t-shirt, looking like an app developer. There were nice shots of a college campus, cliffs by the sea, quaint east coast house interiors, and so on. Not enough to hold my interest, and not enough for me to forgive the cringy dialogue or accept the unbelievable second half of the movie.

Anyways, I probably won't dissuade an Allen fan from seeing one of his movies, and I wouldn't want to. Go and watch it, and check it off the list.

'those later funny ones'

[christopher-underwood · 8/10 · 24 September 2015]

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.

A Woody kinda comedy.

[Kirk1973 · 7/10 · 12 March 2017]

Another tick in the box for a Woody Allen film you can like. Not quite a classic but it has its moments and the leads are as good as the are in anything else. In terms of being a comedy, this is not going to make you laugh out loud - its more of a Woody Allen knowing smirk that stays with you throughout. Naturally it is smart, neurotic and melancholy. It plays like Crimes and Misdemeanours lite. So if you liked that one (and why wouldn't you? That one is a classic) then definitely give this a go. Perhaps most interesting as part of the journey leading Emma Stone from Superbad and The House Bunny less than ten years ago to Oscar glory in 2017.

Great idea, terrible execution

[wesselvandommelen · 3/10 · 26 August 2015]

When deciding to go to Irrational Man, I believed to be in for a treat. As a philosophy major struggling with an occasional existential crisis, I thought it might be cool to see a movie about a philosopher in similar peril. Although the movie starts our rather promising, it quickly lapses into utter disaster. About halfway you can stop watching as you know exactly how it will end and you might even be able to anticipate exactly what the actors are going to say. The movie is quite the opposite of a scenario in which you recognize only at the last moment that the situation is going dire. You do not really get sucked into the performance, but you just see random people uttering lines of text. The philosophy used can be taken from one introductory course but no real errors are made, except for running into dozens of cliché's. The dramatic ending resulted in hysterical laughter throughout the theater, not because it was funny, but because it was so poor. In fact, I have gone through the trouble of creating an account, just to be able to point out that this movie is a waste of time.

The title tells the truth.

[Quietb-1 · 7/10 · 23 July 2015]

If you are looking for the funny Woody Allen this isn't for you. If you are looking for the emotionally tortured Woody Allen characters step right up. There is an element of mystery in the style of Alfred Hitchcock where you know who did it, the similarities end there.

If Hitchcock made the movie Emma Stone would have been blonde. She does give a very good performance as does Joaquin Phoenix in the role of Abe Lucas which he is called too often. If Hitchcock made it using the same fun twist ending it might have been accomplished in a half hour.

There is an abundance of dialogue and plenty of walking and talking scenes. It's a small movie that looks good on the wide screen. A rare aspect ratio for an Allen movie. Don't look for this to make the ten best list for the year or the Allen career.

Nothing special but worth a watch

[NoTimeForCaution · 7/10 · 21 October 2022]

An interesting and enjoyable watch, but a little slow at times. Irrational Man is one of those movies where going in blind will certainly make for a better experience. Emma Stone gives a great performance in this and Joaquin Phoenix is amazing as always, and for the most part there is some great dialogue and chemistry between them. Probably would've been a much lower rating if not for Joaquin Pheonix's performance, who I am yet to see in a bad movie. It isn't the masterpiece I was hoping for from a Woody Allen film, and certainly does not compare to Midnight in Paris or Blue Jasmine, but it's still an enjoyable one and worth a watch.

The beginning of the end?

[emdeecee15 · 4 October 2015]

Although his moral integrity has been scrutinized a thousand times over, it is inarguable that Woody Allen has had one of the most productive careers in Hollywood. The director has released a new movie every year for the last thirty-three years and nearly every other year before that, going all the way back to What's Up, Tiger Lily?, his first film in 1966. Needless to say the man keeps himself busy, but a glance over his filmography gives rise to the question, does quantity consistently allow for quality?

Irrational Man, Allen's latest, seems to provide an answer: a relatively definitive no. The film follows Abe Lucas (Joaquin Phoenix), a disgruntled alcoholic of a philosophy professor who has recently taken a job in the philosophy department at Braylin, a small-town New England college. His prolific reputation precedes him as his peers and students revere him with a certain wonder, and eventually Lucas develops a relationship with one of his students, Jill Pollard (Emma Stone), and so the Woody Allen tropes ensue, as do the problems.

Lacking the emotional acumen of Blue Jasmine (2013) and the charming wit of Magic in the Moonlight (2014), Irrational Man is more about itself than the story it wants to tell. Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment clearly influenced the film, and I won't spoil anything for those of you who haven't read it, but that inherently leads to certain absurdities that the film just can't sustain. Within the confines of a book, such a story works well, but the brevity of film puts that story under unwieldy constraints.

That's not to say that books can't be adapted into film because that's obviously not true. Even this specific book has been adapted time and time again. But Allen's film runs at 95 minutes and merely places its influences where it wants them, never fully exploring or justifying their presence. Its loose base in Crime and Punishment isn't taken seriously and thus the moments of critical climactic power come off as completely unbelievable and unwarranted.

But Irrational Man isn't mediocre simply because it misuses its influences. The dialogue itself is schmaltzy from the onset of the film, as campus-goers openly discuss their amazement at Lucas' arrival and how interesting and edgy he is. Philosophic reflections abound, and although some of them connect, most come off as a bunch of actors reciting lines from a philosophy 101 textbook.

However, I don't mean to imply that the actors themselves are somehow at fault for their cheap lines. Phoenix still provides an engaging performance as Lucas, with his character's personal strife connecting where nothing else does, and Stone is as animated and sincere as ever. But these small victories can't prevent the overall withering of the film.

The disappointment that is Irrational Man gives rise to the question, is Allen reaching the age where his ability to produce quality content is declining? He will be turning eighty this December and is currently one of the oldest working directors in Hollywood. At what age is a man no longer fit to run large-scale productions?

The same question has been posed in regards to Clint Eastwood. Now at the age of eighty-five, Eastwood's ability to direct was put into question after J. Edgar (2011) and Jersey Boys (2014) were released, the former being positively terrible, with the latter proving to be only a marginal improvement. But the release of American Sniper (2014) silenced those critics after it garnered six Oscar nominations and one win, proving that Eastwood still has what it takes to produce quality films.

Is the same true for Allen? Some critics argue that he's been making the same film for his whole career, and even though I disagree with that, I see their point. Has Allen finally run out of ways to reshuffle the same romantic quandaries? I suppose we'll find out next year when his currently untitled project is released.

The coddled young female wet dream.

[monsterkil · 6/10 · 19 October 2022]

The conclusion of this movie is not that Abe got meaning because he was doing something good for someone else; it wasn't even because he gained meaning; what really happened is that he found away to unleash is Id (his most animalistic instincts) and channel his evil urges.

What trully made him happy is that he was convinced he found a way to one up everyone and he felt on top of the world.

Ironically, this movie two main characters are really the same coin from two sides. They are both, in a sense, infantile, innocent, trying to step out into a chaotic area and taking risks to find their limits and their exciting side (within themselves through life). She did it through him because he fulfilled her fantasies of male dominance, mystery and excitement, and he did it through his self-destructive behaviors and ultimately his newly found raison d'être in getting away with murder.

Although, his/her rationalizations are wrapped in moralistic overtones (she was stepping outside the conventional and he was trying to argue the conventional to her favor), both him and her switch positions in the end as the drama unfolds. He doubles down on his rationalizations of murder being legitimate over morals, over health and happiness - even though he was inversely becoming the evil he thought to rid the world - and she to some extend colluded with him until she realized not that it was immoral but that it was too dangerous. All of her actions (as his) where predicated on excitement, power/sexual games and in the end survival.

It's also worth noting that this started a philosophical dissertation and transitioned into a coming of age young female erotic-thriller fantasy.

This was all about excitement, stupid and egotistical pursuits and narcissistic emancipation.

They were both juvenile dazzled fools that decided to play around with the forbiden fruit out of their need to step out of their overly comfort zones (he a bored successful teacher with a cliché past of faux excitement and she as a coddled upper-middle class gal).

It's a very superficial and light take on a sad reality that people are turning into as if life was subject to their own narcissistic spicy juvenile experiments, where real consequences exist but they're brushed off as just a chapter or a book in a shelf.

It's a take on a society that is losing conscience and has become the characters of their own fantasies picked up their favourite explicit novels or tv series.

Rationalizing murder

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 28 October 2017]

Student at Rhode Island university falls for her philosophy professor, a burnt-out, hard-drinking older man with a pot belly and a reputation for sleeping with his students. He initially hopes to keep their relationship casual, that is until the thought of doing society a favor--eliminating someone with a worse reputation than his--comes to mind, which brightens his outlook and gives him the impetus to date and enjoy life for the first time. Fine Woody Allen drama, well-acted yet rife with the writer-director's familiar crimes-and-misdemeanors (with a tip of the hat to Dostoevsky). The teacher-student affair is another Allen-trademark, though Joaquin Phoenix and Emma Stone are subtly charismatic in these roles. Still, nothing much seems to happen in the first 45 minutes (Allen takes too much time kick-starting the plot) and the general cast of characters here is very small. Allen uses a jazzy rendition of "The 'In' Crowd" as a music motif, and doesn't rely too much on sex or sex talk to spark his narrative, though one does become impatient with Phoenix's teacher, who justifies his actions again and again--first in a voice-over and then to Stone, for whom his feelings are never really made clear. **1/2 from ****

A Pure Woody Comedy At Top Form

[cb2369 · 8/10 · 19 July 2015]

I saw this movie today and it was just a breath of fresh air. In this era of political correctness and the consequent surge of tragicomedies that seem to be made to drive home the point that everything in life must be serious, Woody, in his infinite wisdom, has prescribed us a style of comedy often hated, misunderstood, and forgotten: the murder comedy a la Chaplin's Monsieur Verdoux. I haven't laughed this hard at someone trying to kill another person since Preston Sturges's 1948 film Unfaithfully Yours, even though it's ultimately a much more understated English style of humor (very Comedy of Manners-ish.) As such, it doesn't surprise me that Irrational Man has been hated by most critics, since they are likely to fall into the trap of expecting that this movie will be one of the aforementioned tragicomedies, and thus simply think it fails to deliver. Instead, here Woody seems to find comedy in everything from Kant to sexism to suicide to faculty gossip, and as a consequence, the movie ends up as loose as his "early funny movies," unfortunately adding just another layer that might further confuse audiences. Essentially, if you don't find the satire quick you just won't understand what you're watching. On the actor side of things, Stone and Joaquin really kill it. It almost feels like they can turn the intensity up as easily as turning a knob, and there are three moments when you really get a sense of how far they can go.

This will certainly be on a list of Woody's most underrated movies in ten years time if the bad reception it gets doesn't slow down, and I hope that people will take the time to realize just what this movie is because I think they'd really have a good time watching it.

A good tale.

[redd0487 · 7/10 · 30 October 2019]

It was my first Woody Allien experience and, although it is not a masterpiece, it is a good movie, since there is a lot of decent things there: good acting, story and characters, kinda slow pacing, etc.

It seemed to me like a short drama tale you could read in a book, like the movies from Guillermo Del Toro, but without the phantasy aspects. The movie itself isn't too long (about 1h40), and the drama flows very naturally, but it's not too introspective; isn't a emotionally heavy movie (like Black Swan).

Also, there are some nice ironies there, wich are enlightened by the animated soundtrack during the "dark" scenes. Some people would call it "comedy", but I wouldn't say it's a comedy movie. It's more like a soft storytell drama.

Like I said, it's not a magnificent movie, but it is very entertaining and well done.

Woody Allen's take on "Crime & Punishment" is punishment to watch

[michaelmunkvold · 3/10 · 2 February 2016]

Woody Allen has made two masterpieces, 1989's "Crimes and Misdemeanors" and 2005's "Match Point", and a pretty good film, 2007's "Cassandra's Dream", about people who commit murder and have to live with it. With "Irrational Man" - his latest film, and one of his worst - he revisits this theme and screws it up, a failure made all the worse by its bungled effort to emulate one of the greatest novels of all time, Fyodor Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment".

For the uninitiated, "Crime and Punishment" is the story of Raskolnikov, a man who murders a crooked shopkeeper to prove that he can serve humanity while flouting society's notions of right and wrong. "Irrational Man" follows that theme with the story of Abe Lucas (Joaquin Phoenix), a depressed, alcoholic philosophy professor who decides to murder a corrupt judge in order to serve the "higher moral good". Once the deed is done, Abe feels he has done the world a favor, and is reborn: he feels alive for the first time in years, and finds love again with an adoring student (Emma Stone) and a married colleague (Parker Posey). His newfound happiness is threatened, however, when an innocent person is arrested for his crime, and his lovers discover what he has done.

Watching this movie is like being cornered at a party by a philosophy major who drones on for hours about the great European thinkers. It believes it is blowing your mind, but it is in fact ruining your night.

Allen seems to have forgotten how to create real, human characters, relying instead on clichés: the burnout professor, the fresh-faced ingenue, the discontent housewife. We never really know them, and we don't particularly want to.

I'm getting pretty tired of Woody Allen movies about wealthy white people going through existential crises. Every single person on screen is as rich and white as a cheesecake, and can't shut up about what a burden it is. (Really, what says "white privilege" more than "philosophy major"?) I don't know about you, but I have better things to do with my time and money than watching a bunch of trust fund babies regurgitate Heidegger while frowning.

The cast is badly misused. Phoenix is given little to do but mope, while Stone - in her second bad Allen film after 2014's goofy-in-a-bad-way "Magic in the Moonlight" - has such a paper-thin character and such terrible dialogue that she can't help but come off as rehearsed and mechanical. Posey's considerable comic gifts are squandered in a role that requires her only to look bored and misty-eyed.

The Woody Allen who makes us laugh and gives us something to talk about on the ride home is nowhere in evidence here. Instead, we get more of the Woody Allen of the last few years: a smug, self-indulgent blowhard who expects us to be dazzled by whatever comes out of his mouth.

No one expects him to be Dostoevsky, but we do expect him to be Woody Allen - to make funny, smart, interesting movies about funny, smart, interesting people. With "Irrational Man", he succeeds only in being an irritating bore who ruins the party.

Involving tense funny and original

[phd_travel · 9/10 · 24 July 2015]

For those who like 'Match Point' which I feel is a masterpiece, this is a more comic but equally interesting movie. The tone and music are more comical and light hearted but it's really quite nail biting when things come together.

Joaquin acts like a depressed person like no one else can and he's very suited to the role of the professor, pot belly and all. Parker Posey is quite hilarious as the colleague who throws herself at him. Emma Stone looks less bulgy eyed and clever than usual. The way she chooses the wrong guy over a good boyfriend is quite real.

Like the coastal setting, more natural and outdoors than usual for Woody Allen.

There have been some negative reviews from critics but I don't understand why. This movie is original, funny, exciting and you care for the characters and listen to the dialog.

Philosophical Character Study

[Spacenaz · 7/10 · 31 December 2016]

I would have to say that I did enjoy this movie. It starts off slow, and at first I was not sure what kind of movie it was going to be. I thought it might play out like a romantic comedy. I also thought it might of been a period piece too, the way they were dressed at the beginning, but it was just the rich East Coast college style. At its core Irrational Man is a philosophical character study, about a teacher and his student, who form a relationship.

It starts off quite slow, but builds up and gets better. The main meat and potatoes of the story regards a plot to kill a judge, and the fallout after the murder. It is an intriguing story that kept me interested, even though it did become a little predictable once Stone suspected. I am a fan of River Phoenix, and enjoyed him in movies like Walk The Line and The Master and thought he did a respectable job in this movie. Emma Stone was also good as the student that falls love with him. Overall it is a pretty good movie that will have you thinking about the morality of his actions, and whether he was right or not. I liked how things began to unravel for Phoenix as his two lovers suspected him. Not the best, but an interesting murder plot that will give you a couple of things to think about. 7/10

A painful lesson

[MacacoBanditi · 1/10 · 5 March 2017]

Maybe the lesson is that you can't make one movie per year and expect them to be all top notch. Although some will be brilliant, many will flunk, and some others will be massive failures, it's pure statistics. Unfortunately, this one sits strongly in the latter category. Even when he is not at the top of his game, Woody Allen manages to make movies that are entertaining, passable or at least watchable. Not this one. After 95 minutes of the first bars of "The In Crowd" repeated endlessly, it is a relief to get to the end titles. Many other reviewers have already pointed out the paper thin, miscast characters, the non-existent script or the laughable cop-out ending. But it gets worse, this movie fails even at technical aspects, which has usually been one of Woody Allen's strong suits. Awfully lit, badly framed scenes and appalling photography contribute to make this a very sad and painful cinematic experience.

One can't fail to notice how Woody's stories have evolved over the course of his directing career from being set in working class Brooklyn to the ultra-rich one percenters in The Hamptons or Martha's Vineyard. Not that there's anything wrong with that, in fact, that is probably the trajectory that Woody Allen's life itself has followed. The problem is that while his previous characters were usually quite likable quirky simpletons or neurotic intellectuals, they have now become unbearably spoiled, cartoonish, vacuous and pretentious ivy leaguers. Who can possibly like, or even feel the slightest interest for such despicable people? I would like to emphasize that this has nothing to do with their affluent lifestyle; you can make strong, interesting characters out of billionaires. The Great Gatsby being a case in point.

Will still watch a Woody Allen movie over a blockbuster any day, and I hope he continues making them for many years. But Irrational Man was a terrible misfire which does him no honor - skip it and you will be missing nothing.

The thriller is not thrilling. The comedy is.

[JohnDeSando · 13 August 2015]

"He was so damn interesting." Jill (Emma Stone), VO.

There he goes again, Woody that is. Kant, Heidegger, Dostoevsky—the usual suspects in the Woody Allen pantheon of intellectuals he loves to have his nerdy, conflicted protagonists mention and make the rest of us feel inadequate. Irrational Man is an irrational hodge-podge of philosophies placing conflict between emotion and reason.

Abe (Joaquin Phoenix) comes to a small college as a well-known philosopher. He is particularly interested in how one becomes actively engaged in life, in an existential way, because he definitely has lost his will to be happy. Now plenty of women are ready to make him appreciate life, most notably Jill (Emma Stone), one of his bright students, and because this is a Woody Allen movie, his lover.

Naughty college prof gets away with courting her in front of the entire community, another Woodman fiction or wish fulfillment. But, hey, he's the writer-director of this slightly dark comedy that becomes a thriller. Well, not a great thriller, just a small one wherein tortured prof becomes alive when he plans a murder. See, he's becoming a real human being with his decisions that will identify him as Abe, in an existential way. Only problem is the crime, which is not the way most of us determine our character.

The first part of the film, full of philosophical superficialities, is entertaining in a Woody way while the philosopher amazes the community with his melancholic wit and seduces his student. As the film moves into the thriller phase and she has to deal with the fact that her brainy teacher is a murderer, the Woodmeister charm loses to the machinations of murder, much more awkward than other murder mysteries such as Match Point and less entertaining than the romance, which is Allen's forte anyway.

Yet, Abe does become irrational as the film does. It ends up being a second-rate comedy thriller from the writing-directing first-rate mind of Woody Allen. Perhaps he wants to activate Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil," which he makes sure we see in the murderer's marginal notes to an edition of Crime and Punishment.

I'll take his challenges and his weak movies over most of the thrillers this summer. On the Other hand,The Gift, the best thriller of the summer, is a true psychological horror show—that is, it is what it is, existentially speaking.