I stayed away from this one, having read Woody's dismissive comments about the project (not to mention the generally lukewarm-to-negative critical reviews). So I was taken aback to discover "Crisis in Six Scenes" is actually solid latter-day Allen. While the plot is predictable, it serves as a sufficiently effective frame for Woody's always delightful dialogue. The Old Man's still got it.
52 Reviews
I don't understand the bad reviews!
Snoopy17 October 2016
I'm a Woody Allen fan, but I wasn't sure what to expect when I read some of the reviews. Now that I'm finished, I honestly can say that I don't understand why this got slammed by the critics. Is it on the level of Annie Hall? Of course not. But I thought it was an enjoyable way to spend a few hours. Woody Allen's character is very Woody Allen and fun to watch him fumbling around. Elaine May and her gaggle of book club friends are amusing, but the funniest scene is with Trooper Mike in the last episode.
I think the weak point is probably Miley Cyrus. I just didn't buy her as Lenny.
I think the weak point is probably Miley Cyrus. I just didn't buy her as Lenny.
The Critics over analyze this one
additallup23 July 2018
I'm not a Woody Allen "Stan" so I don't have his previous work to reflect on but I don't agree with the critics reviews on this series. I found it funny and a pleasure to watch. It wasn't life changing but it kept my interest. I think if you come with an expectation of something light and fun to watch you won't be disappointed.
Woody Allen and Elaine May
drednm7 October 2016
This 6-part series has it's ups and downs in a story about a sedate couple (Woody Allen and Elaine May) in the 1960s who get thrust into a world of radical politics when a fugitive (Miley Cyrus) breaks into their suburban home one evening. Over the course of the 6 episodes she radicalizes everyone in sight, including May's old-lady book club, while verbally jousting with Allen and stealing his fig newtons.
Co-stars include Joy Behar, John Magaro, Rachel Brosnihan, Lewis Black, Michael Rappaport, Deborah Rush, Christine Ebersole, Rebecca Schill, Margaret Ladd, Judy Gold.
Builds to an hilarious final episode that recalls the Marx Brothers.
Certainly worth a look.
Co-stars include Joy Behar, John Magaro, Rachel Brosnihan, Lewis Black, Michael Rappaport, Deborah Rush, Christine Ebersole, Rebecca Schill, Margaret Ladd, Judy Gold.
Builds to an hilarious final episode that recalls the Marx Brothers.
Certainly worth a look.
Overlong, but it has a lot of great stuff in it.
chuckster-16 June 2022
"Crisis in Six Scenes" is a lot of fun.
Woody is just as sharp and hilarious as he's ever been (today, in our embattled world, we need his genius and wit more than ever), and he's ably abetted by another legend, Elaine May, who is also in top form. Miley Cyrus, also turns in a wonderful performance: Allen's trademark dialogue is great when he's saying it himself, but it can sometimes sound a little stilted when it comes from other actors, but Cyrus totally sells it and makes her proto-Patty Hearst-esque character believable and real.
If there's a problem with "Crisis," is that it's a hilarious ninety-minute Woody Allen movie that's been stretched out to two-and-a-half hours, to equal the running time of a six-episode streaming series, and it kind of peters out somewhere around episode four. The fault, I think, isn't with Woody Allen, but with the Amazon streaming service that required him to add unnecessary length, and to wit, the show is padded out with a few dialogue scenes that seem long and/or repetitive.
(The script also has some anachronisms in it, and in that regard, maybe Allen should have given it one more pass through the typewriter: Elaine May invites her friends over to participate in her "book club," but the series takes place in the late '60s before book clubs became popular, and these women would have probably been more inclined to play bridge or mah-jongg; Woody and Elaine's house is alarmed, but this wouldn't happen in those days, because people back then used to routinely keep their doors unlocked; there's also a scene in which Woody pitches an idea to a network, but I'm not sure if this kind of pitch meeting was commonplace back then; and in another scene, Woody and his agent dine at a deli, and the agent has ordered a taco, which I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see in NYC in the late sixties.)
On the trite "1 to 10 scale," I give "Crisis in Six Scenes" a six, because it's got a lot of filler in it, but if Allen ever decides to whittle it down to ninety minutes, there is definitely a solid "9" or "10" hiding inside of it.
Woody is just as sharp and hilarious as he's ever been (today, in our embattled world, we need his genius and wit more than ever), and he's ably abetted by another legend, Elaine May, who is also in top form. Miley Cyrus, also turns in a wonderful performance: Allen's trademark dialogue is great when he's saying it himself, but it can sometimes sound a little stilted when it comes from other actors, but Cyrus totally sells it and makes her proto-Patty Hearst-esque character believable and real.
If there's a problem with "Crisis," is that it's a hilarious ninety-minute Woody Allen movie that's been stretched out to two-and-a-half hours, to equal the running time of a six-episode streaming series, and it kind of peters out somewhere around episode four. The fault, I think, isn't with Woody Allen, but with the Amazon streaming service that required him to add unnecessary length, and to wit, the show is padded out with a few dialogue scenes that seem long and/or repetitive.
(The script also has some anachronisms in it, and in that regard, maybe Allen should have given it one more pass through the typewriter: Elaine May invites her friends over to participate in her "book club," but the series takes place in the late '60s before book clubs became popular, and these women would have probably been more inclined to play bridge or mah-jongg; Woody and Elaine's house is alarmed, but this wouldn't happen in those days, because people back then used to routinely keep their doors unlocked; there's also a scene in which Woody pitches an idea to a network, but I'm not sure if this kind of pitch meeting was commonplace back then; and in another scene, Woody and his agent dine at a deli, and the agent has ordered a taco, which I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see in NYC in the late sixties.)
On the trite "1 to 10 scale," I give "Crisis in Six Scenes" a six, because it's got a lot of filler in it, but if Allen ever decides to whittle it down to ninety minutes, there is definitely a solid "9" or "10" hiding inside of it.
Woody's funniest since Whatever Works; know what to expect
Quinoa198411 October 2016
You know, I think Woody Allen went into this with both the right and wrong approach. What you end up with via his first foray into a "series", for Amazon specifically, is not something that would make for good TV one week after the next. Matter of fact, this is not even really a series, with the exception of 'Episode 5', that usually requires that you leave off at the end of an episode with some kind of suspense or at best a cliffhanger (unless it's more self-contained like Curb Your Enthusiasm or Louie or something). It has the feel of being a feature film - Allen's longest if you put it altogether in his 50 years of filmmaking at 142 minutes - that is cut up into six parts. Even the title sounds lazy in its way that it doesn't describe anything about it except, well, it's a 'Crisis'. But more than that, I think critics especially hoped for Allen to use the form of a series to be ambitious, to try something really new, to perhaps go deeper in a medium where, at least supposedly (what do I know about new TV except, uh, 83,000 shows that are blowing people's minds right now on streaming video and/or cable), an artist can go wherever he/she desires.
So what does Woody do? Kind of a broad political comedy (though I haven't seen it, the only one of his actually, I've heard Don't Drink the Water sort of has this tone) about a, surprise, nebbish-like novelist and therapist (Allen and Elaine May, nice to see her again), and the wackiness the ensues when an acquaintance of May's, a revolutionary-anti-war-Marxist-Maoist-you-name-it type, played by Miley Cyrus, comes to their home to stay low. The wackiness isn't entirely hyperbole; this is Allen going for comedy in such a way I haven't seen in a while, going full throttle for line-quip-line-quip at times like it's a ping-pong match, though at other times characters get to develop like the friend of the family also living with Allen and May who falls for Cyrus and all of her political hype with it (though he's engaged to someone else).
In other words, this is not Allen stretching so much as going back to something a bit familiar... though in a way, not at the same time. What impresses me the most here are two things: first, that Allen, for the first time in I can't remember when, is delivering a performance that's right for his age (he's finally playing... old, not trying to be with some younger woman - same with To Rome with Love, but nevermind that), and it's a fully-formed character and performance as a guy with a lack of confidence but always with a streak of indignation, fear and sarcasm ("To you guys, opium is the opium of the masses," is one such line he throws at Cyrus' character). So I was happy to see, maybe for the first time consistently since the 90's (maybe Deconstructing Harry) I've really liked an Allen performance.
The second thing is... it's funny. Very funny, like, laughing consistently and HARD at many of the lines and how far Allen goes as a writer for certain scenarios. For example, Kay has a book club full of little old ladies and suburban house-wives and the like, super-upper-middle class, and when she starts to bring books that Lennie (Cyrus) brings to her to read - Mao's little red book mainly - Allen builds on one funny reaction upon another, each fairly clueless and aloof (one of them has the takeaway that the book is useful because of its message about foot-binding!) In that sense, as well as in that colossal "Episode 6" when it turns into something like out of a cross between the everybody-stuffs-in-the-room in A Night at the Opera crossed with the "Gub" bit from Take the Money and Run - over-stuffed, awkward and uncomfortable, one thing going to another - Allen actually IS trying here. It's just not what people might expect.
It's someone who is an old pro at the kind of comedy that Woody Allen's done for an entire career, but playing a little with the form. I think the issue is that it's for the first half kind of shallow enjoyment, like it's not too deep, it's more about the pleasure of seeing two players like Allen and May (with great comic timing and simply a believable pairing), and with Cyrus who comes into her own after a shaky start. It's hard at first, at least it was for me, to see her as someone not Miley Cyrus. But she finds the character soon enough and more than holds her own - she commands certain scenes away and takes Allen's dialog and gets a lot of laughs on her own.
So will everyone enjoy it the same? It may depend on what you expect, though for someone just coming to this cold, like you happen to see it on Amazon and think 'Huh, interesting enough', Allen sets up everyone and plays in such a way that it works for the casual viewers too looking for some laughs out of character that comes out of dialog. I'm basically happy that Allen decided to have fun; only if he had stretched a little more, perhaps taken fuller advantage of what a SERIES has to offer (not to mention with budget, occasionally it looks cheap and sometimes, painfully, not "60's") as opposed to making a longer film and cutting it up, he might have one of his best works of the decade. As it stands between this and Cafe Society, he's had a very good year for "minor" tier Woody, which is fine by me.
So what does Woody do? Kind of a broad political comedy (though I haven't seen it, the only one of his actually, I've heard Don't Drink the Water sort of has this tone) about a, surprise, nebbish-like novelist and therapist (Allen and Elaine May, nice to see her again), and the wackiness the ensues when an acquaintance of May's, a revolutionary-anti-war-Marxist-Maoist-you-name-it type, played by Miley Cyrus, comes to their home to stay low. The wackiness isn't entirely hyperbole; this is Allen going for comedy in such a way I haven't seen in a while, going full throttle for line-quip-line-quip at times like it's a ping-pong match, though at other times characters get to develop like the friend of the family also living with Allen and May who falls for Cyrus and all of her political hype with it (though he's engaged to someone else).
In other words, this is not Allen stretching so much as going back to something a bit familiar... though in a way, not at the same time. What impresses me the most here are two things: first, that Allen, for the first time in I can't remember when, is delivering a performance that's right for his age (he's finally playing... old, not trying to be with some younger woman - same with To Rome with Love, but nevermind that), and it's a fully-formed character and performance as a guy with a lack of confidence but always with a streak of indignation, fear and sarcasm ("To you guys, opium is the opium of the masses," is one such line he throws at Cyrus' character). So I was happy to see, maybe for the first time consistently since the 90's (maybe Deconstructing Harry) I've really liked an Allen performance.
The second thing is... it's funny. Very funny, like, laughing consistently and HARD at many of the lines and how far Allen goes as a writer for certain scenarios. For example, Kay has a book club full of little old ladies and suburban house-wives and the like, super-upper-middle class, and when she starts to bring books that Lennie (Cyrus) brings to her to read - Mao's little red book mainly - Allen builds on one funny reaction upon another, each fairly clueless and aloof (one of them has the takeaway that the book is useful because of its message about foot-binding!) In that sense, as well as in that colossal "Episode 6" when it turns into something like out of a cross between the everybody-stuffs-in-the-room in A Night at the Opera crossed with the "Gub" bit from Take the Money and Run - over-stuffed, awkward and uncomfortable, one thing going to another - Allen actually IS trying here. It's just not what people might expect.
It's someone who is an old pro at the kind of comedy that Woody Allen's done for an entire career, but playing a little with the form. I think the issue is that it's for the first half kind of shallow enjoyment, like it's not too deep, it's more about the pleasure of seeing two players like Allen and May (with great comic timing and simply a believable pairing), and with Cyrus who comes into her own after a shaky start. It's hard at first, at least it was for me, to see her as someone not Miley Cyrus. But she finds the character soon enough and more than holds her own - she commands certain scenes away and takes Allen's dialog and gets a lot of laughs on her own.
So will everyone enjoy it the same? It may depend on what you expect, though for someone just coming to this cold, like you happen to see it on Amazon and think 'Huh, interesting enough', Allen sets up everyone and plays in such a way that it works for the casual viewers too looking for some laughs out of character that comes out of dialog. I'm basically happy that Allen decided to have fun; only if he had stretched a little more, perhaps taken fuller advantage of what a SERIES has to offer (not to mention with budget, occasionally it looks cheap and sometimes, painfully, not "60's") as opposed to making a longer film and cutting it up, he might have one of his best works of the decade. As it stands between this and Cafe Society, he's had a very good year for "minor" tier Woody, which is fine by me.
Last episode is the winner
harkallia24 April 2019
I think in a series like that what bothers is the end and the end was a fully mix of how Woody expresses his joy. The story is common its authentic Alen and for all these deserves your time. With WA you somehow know what you expect but it's always fun.
One of the funniest projects Woody Allen has come up with in years
moonspinner5524 June 2017
In late-1960s upstate New York, an elderly writer and his wife, as well as their impressionable houseguest who's about to be married, are all given a crash-course in political radicalization by a young woman on the run from the police and FBI. She's of the Constitutional Liberation Army, rebelling against the Vietnam War, imperial fascism and the U.S. government; the wife, an acquaintance of the girl's grandmother, invites her to stay in their house against her husband's wishes until she can escape to Cuba. Writer-director Woody Allen's six-episode series for Amazon Studios (each installment lasting about 23 minutes) is one of the loosest, craziest projects the filmmaker has delivered in a long time. He's assembled an unusual cast, including Elaine May as his spouse and Miley Cyrus as the radical. The series has some lapses in timing and occasionally a geriatric pace (this is a white-haired Woody Allen whose character wears a hearing aid, after all); nevertheless, the funny one-liners are there and the characters are colorful and ingratiating. Allen publicly commented on how surprised he was at the work involved in seeing this project through, and yet he has another film for Amazon on the way.
Just as funny as his earlier movies
arisderksen23 December 2017
I have missed Woody Allen acting in his own films.
This Amazon project brings him back to the screen " cause the dough is good" as his character tells his hairdresser. In that opening scene Allen gives his testimony of this for him unique project.
If you like the earlier films of Woody Allen, in which he always acted in the leading roles, you will like this.
It's the continuation of the New York laid-back humour and wise cracks like in the film "Small Time Crooks". This is not a politically correct series and I appreciate Amazon didn't censor its content too much.
Still, I think this series will be generally better received in Europe, where Allen's biggest fans are, strangely enough concentrated in Italy, France and Spain (countries where all his movies are dubbed).
Standing ovation for Crisis in Six Scenes.
This Amazon project brings him back to the screen " cause the dough is good" as his character tells his hairdresser. In that opening scene Allen gives his testimony of this for him unique project.
If you like the earlier films of Woody Allen, in which he always acted in the leading roles, you will like this.
It's the continuation of the New York laid-back humour and wise cracks like in the film "Small Time Crooks". This is not a politically correct series and I appreciate Amazon didn't censor its content too much.
Still, I think this series will be generally better received in Europe, where Allen's biggest fans are, strangely enough concentrated in Italy, France and Spain (countries where all his movies are dubbed).
Standing ovation for Crisis in Six Scenes.
A mix of great and tedious moments
cherold27 October 2016
I liked the first scene in this series, with Woody Allen getting a haircut from an insulting barber. And throughout this series, there are really funny bits, like Miley Cyrus sleep talking in front of the police, or a couple debating their unusual approach to sex, or an elderly book club expressing its radicalism.
Between these funny scenes are less funny ones. There is a lot of typical Allen dialogue with two people just talking about politics.
The story takes a couple of episodes to get going and has a lot of filler, but I think you could edit this into a solid 90-minute movie. I don't know why Allen decided to make this into a mini- series, though; he clearly only had enough material for a movie.
The cast varies. Elaine May is great, Allen is fine, and Miley Cyrus is ...
I'm honestly not sure what to make of Cyrus. I know she was an actress in some tween sitcom or something, but I thought she was just kind of unlikable. To some extent, this is because she's playing a left-wing radical who spouts a bunch of left-wing clichés. But one character describes her as charismatic, and she really isn't. It's hard to believe in her as someone who could radicalize those around her.
The thing is, she's a lot like a character like this would be. She's unpleasant, self-centered, has a deep, shouty voice, and exhibits little personality beyond zeal for the cause. And I think her character would work really well in some gritty drama about a group of obnoxious radicals on the run. But I feel she just doesn't work at all in this part. I don't know if it's her acting, or Allen's direction, but she just doesn't work.
I don't mean to suggest that a better casting would make this series all that much better, although it would help a little. I just find this an interesting example of miscasting.
Should you watch this? I would say don't bother unless you're an Allen completionist, but it's pretty watchable, and if you're a fan of one of the stars or just want to catch the series' occasional good bits, go for it.
Between these funny scenes are less funny ones. There is a lot of typical Allen dialogue with two people just talking about politics.
The story takes a couple of episodes to get going and has a lot of filler, but I think you could edit this into a solid 90-minute movie. I don't know why Allen decided to make this into a mini- series, though; he clearly only had enough material for a movie.
The cast varies. Elaine May is great, Allen is fine, and Miley Cyrus is ...
I'm honestly not sure what to make of Cyrus. I know she was an actress in some tween sitcom or something, but I thought she was just kind of unlikable. To some extent, this is because she's playing a left-wing radical who spouts a bunch of left-wing clichés. But one character describes her as charismatic, and she really isn't. It's hard to believe in her as someone who could radicalize those around her.
The thing is, she's a lot like a character like this would be. She's unpleasant, self-centered, has a deep, shouty voice, and exhibits little personality beyond zeal for the cause. And I think her character would work really well in some gritty drama about a group of obnoxious radicals on the run. But I feel she just doesn't work at all in this part. I don't know if it's her acting, or Allen's direction, but she just doesn't work.
I don't mean to suggest that a better casting would make this series all that much better, although it would help a little. I just find this an interesting example of miscasting.
Should you watch this? I would say don't bother unless you're an Allen completionist, but it's pretty watchable, and if you're a fan of one of the stars or just want to catch the series' occasional good bits, go for it.
I wanted to love this...
woosterek10030 September 2016
I love Elaine May. I could listen to her read a grocery list and die laughing. I love Woody Allen. His movies are wonderful. After three episodes I had to stop watching this. The characters all seem uncomfortable with their characters and with each other. May and Allen seem somewhat unsteady and frailer than usual. Miley Cyrus is not a particularly nuanced actress and struggles with Woody Allen's dialogue. I wanted to love this - it has all the right elements, but it just doesn't seem to click. On the plus side, all of the turmoil and angst of the Sixties is beautifully rendered. The young people are ready for change, and the older generation is bewildered and unsure of how to deal with it. This series is not terrible by any means, but it just didn't work for me.
Great old Woody Allen
giocchan14 September 2018
I absolutely loved this. Everything starts a little slow, but the pacing increases up to the last episode, where everything becomes really fun and with a great rhythm (really laughing out loud in the end... I don't remember the last time I did like that watching a comedy)... like one of the most messed up movies of Allen from the 70s, but with less nonsense.
I can't understand the bad reviews. Maybe it's because I'm an Allen fan (but not an "hardcore one"), maybe it's because I'm 40, maybe the italian dub was way better than the real actors (it was good, but not amazing...)... I don't know.
It's not a movie, so you won't find that kind if production values. It's not a huge series with hundreds of episodes (game of thrones, breaking bad...). It's a sort of "theatrical" movie.
I registered on IMDB just to post this review.
Another Woody Allen Film
ASuiGeneris15 September 2018
Crisis in Six Scenes (2016)
Director: Woody Allen
Watched: 9/11/18
Rating: 6/10
Favorite Episode: #5
"Chaos in One Episodic Film"
Miley Cyrus exceeds expectations, even outshines. Had no idea she could actually act, let alone enliven a scene. Elaine May came out of retirement for this, but her slurred lisp grates. John Magaro has some monologues that show potential. Unfortunately, ultimately plays an archetype. Press pause on the once wondrous Woody Allen. 6 scenes, around 24 minutes each. 2.5 hour film. Some witty banter. Cyrus echoes thoughts as she berates the "mindless cowardly follower" that is Allen. Humorous altercations- bombs made, rooftops escaped, briefcases exchanged, authorities encountered, engagement nearly effaced by radicalism, dubious marriage counselor advises husband to pay wife for sex.
fun and laughs plus wit, a propaganda sitcom; call for raw zealots?
Contrived, pretentious name dropping of revolutionists- Castro, Guevara, Lenin, Mao, Marx. Other scholarly names- Dean, Jefferson, Salinger, even Job. Takes place in suburban Connecticut during 1960s Vietnam Era. Starts with a middle class couple living peaceful though eccentric lives. Ends with an entire house full of radicalists, elderly book club members, therapy patients, surrogate son and fiance, family friends, and city maintenance men. Translation? Chaos.
long film in six scenes, largely spent in trite squabbling. left irked and weary.
Press play. Woody Allen plays a geeky paranoid hypochondriac Jewish author involved in show business. That sounds familiar. Strong supporter of Freudian psychology, in show business, and engages in an implausible relationship. That still sounds familiar. Jarring, often unsuitable music including jazz. Now it literally sounds familiar! Alas, his love interest- here, his wife- is relatively close in age. Well, maybe not so familiar?
prolific oeuvre, but stale acting subpar script- time for curtain call? ---- Haibun is a prosimetric (written partly in prose and partly in verse) poem with simple yet unique rules. A title, followed by a prose-like paragraph. Afterward, a simple poetic haiku adds more descriptive and creative elements. The most common form is one prose paragraph followed by one Haiku, but variations alter the sequence and quantity. #Haibun #PoemReview #TVSeriesReview #Political #Revolutionary
"Chaos in One Episodic Film"
Miley Cyrus exceeds expectations, even outshines. Had no idea she could actually act, let alone enliven a scene. Elaine May came out of retirement for this, but her slurred lisp grates. John Magaro has some monologues that show potential. Unfortunately, ultimately plays an archetype. Press pause on the once wondrous Woody Allen. 6 scenes, around 24 minutes each. 2.5 hour film. Some witty banter. Cyrus echoes thoughts as she berates the "mindless cowardly follower" that is Allen. Humorous altercations- bombs made, rooftops escaped, briefcases exchanged, authorities encountered, engagement nearly effaced by radicalism, dubious marriage counselor advises husband to pay wife for sex.
fun and laughs plus wit, a propaganda sitcom; call for raw zealots?
Contrived, pretentious name dropping of revolutionists- Castro, Guevara, Lenin, Mao, Marx. Other scholarly names- Dean, Jefferson, Salinger, even Job. Takes place in suburban Connecticut during 1960s Vietnam Era. Starts with a middle class couple living peaceful though eccentric lives. Ends with an entire house full of radicalists, elderly book club members, therapy patients, surrogate son and fiance, family friends, and city maintenance men. Translation? Chaos.
long film in six scenes, largely spent in trite squabbling. left irked and weary.
Press play. Woody Allen plays a geeky paranoid hypochondriac Jewish author involved in show business. That sounds familiar. Strong supporter of Freudian psychology, in show business, and engages in an implausible relationship. That still sounds familiar. Jarring, often unsuitable music including jazz. Now it literally sounds familiar! Alas, his love interest- here, his wife- is relatively close in age. Well, maybe not so familiar?
prolific oeuvre, but stale acting subpar script- time for curtain call? ---- Haibun is a prosimetric (written partly in prose and partly in verse) poem with simple yet unique rules. A title, followed by a prose-like paragraph. Afterward, a simple poetic haiku adds more descriptive and creative elements. The most common form is one prose paragraph followed by one Haiku, but variations alter the sequence and quantity. #Haibun #PoemReview #TVSeriesReview #Political #Revolutionary
Am I The Only One Who Saw This As Satire?
tishacp17 January 2017
From word go this series read as pure satire to me. This isn't about the sixties. It's about today set in in the sixties. I've read several other reviews and apparently I'm the only one who focused in on this. In fact, no one else even mentioned it. Am I really the only one? Half the dialogue is, yes, shout-outs to the sixties, but half the dialogue is also straight out of our recent presidential primary and election. I think if people approach this show as a political commentary rather than a comedy it will read much funnier. Just a suggestion.
Woody Allen feels as clunky as always and certainly this is not a comfortable venue for Allen in storytelling. Still, they're hitting us over our heads with quotes straight out of the Bernie Sander's campaign speeches and everyone is talking about less-than-subtle parallels with Salinger. We get the Salinger connection but not the Bernie Sanders ones? Were it many months or years past this monstrous political year we just experienced (and are still experiencing,) I might understand this. In our current political space in time, however, I'm surprised to see this element dismissed.
If that's really the case, then personally, I think we need a lot more headbanging. Anything but subtle correlations with just how far backward we have gone in this country should be the only thing allowed...if it's a satirical political commentary you're after, that is.
Probably, that's not what anyone was expecting from Woody Allen, including Allen. But that's how nearly every scene of this series read to me.
Tishacp
Woody Allen feels as clunky as always and certainly this is not a comfortable venue for Allen in storytelling. Still, they're hitting us over our heads with quotes straight out of the Bernie Sander's campaign speeches and everyone is talking about less-than-subtle parallels with Salinger. We get the Salinger connection but not the Bernie Sanders ones? Were it many months or years past this monstrous political year we just experienced (and are still experiencing,) I might understand this. In our current political space in time, however, I'm surprised to see this element dismissed.
If that's really the case, then personally, I think we need a lot more headbanging. Anything but subtle correlations with just how far backward we have gone in this country should be the only thing allowed...if it's a satirical political commentary you're after, that is.
Probably, that's not what anyone was expecting from Woody Allen, including Allen. But that's how nearly every scene of this series read to me.
Tishacp
Miley Cyrus is a pain in my head
dantascezar19 September 2020
Enjoyable but only because
rcshoff1 April 2022
Myles cyrus steals the show. She is incredibly beautiful and u can't help but desire her in some sort of weird Woody Allen demented way. He must have listed after her throughout the production. He probably found this script in his archive just a vehicle to be near her. He demented like that. I understand why.
Miley can't act.
Android2 March 2022
This would have been so much better with a real
actor in her role. Her amateurish acting is conspicuous. She delivers lines as if she has no intellectual idea what's behind what she's saying.
Interesting and Original show though.
Interesting and Original show though.
A Woody Allen movie that you can pause every 20 minutes
StregaAsuka29 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
First reason is that this is the first and the last Wood Allen series ever, so it should be watched just to see what it is about and how it has been made. But remember, if you are not a Woody Allen fan you better skip it and save you suffering; although the series is really short, just 6 episodes of 20 minutes each, meaning that in 3 hours you are done with it.
Keeping up with the style, this series takes place in the 60s and the two main characters are the old couple played by Wood Allen himself and Elaine May, who by the way are really hilarious in their roles, as we are used in his films. They play and old married couple, she more receptive to changes and he is against changes, the perfect combination. Then, their life is changed when Miley Cyrus character appears, a hippie against Vietnam War, and then the couple's world in completely changed.
The series has its funny moment, some understandable some a bit more unrealistic, but nonetheless funny. It has also drama, because we must not forget the topics that are discussed and shown in the background (it's the sixties, Vietnam War, Peace and Love .) are something that were daily matters on the age of change.
It must not be his best work; no "Annie Hall" in here, but it is also not his worst; I still can recover myself after that "Vicky, Christina, Barcelona" thing. It is just a longer movie that you can pause every 20 minutes.
Keeping up with the style, this series takes place in the 60s and the two main characters are the old couple played by Wood Allen himself and Elaine May, who by the way are really hilarious in their roles, as we are used in his films. They play and old married couple, she more receptive to changes and he is against changes, the perfect combination. Then, their life is changed when Miley Cyrus character appears, a hippie against Vietnam War, and then the couple's world in completely changed.
The series has its funny moment, some understandable some a bit more unrealistic, but nonetheless funny. It has also drama, because we must not forget the topics that are discussed and shown in the background (it's the sixties, Vietnam War, Peace and Love .) are something that were daily matters on the age of change.
It must not be his best work; no "Annie Hall" in here, but it is also not his worst; I still can recover myself after that "Vicky, Christina, Barcelona" thing. It is just a longer movie that you can pause every 20 minutes.
Back to the Sixties - Nostalgia and Roots - Essential Allen Comedy
jayraskin128 November 2016
Harsh critic reviews keep me from watching this for almost two months. As usual the mass of critics were wrong and I totally enjoyed the two and a half hours I spent binge-watching this on the day after Thanksgiving. By the way, Elaine May's "Ishtar" is another movie the mass of critics were totally wrong about. Trust me, it was hilarious - see it).
I felt that this was very much like some of Allen's early movie efforts from the 1960s and 1970s like "Take the Money and Run" "Bananas" and "Love and Death" where plot took a backseat to absurd and ridiculous one-liners and dialogues.
For example:
Lenny (Miley Cyrus): I don't dislike you, its just everything that you stand for.
Sidney: God's going to punish us in this. Kay: God's not going to punish you, you're an atheist. Sidney: But if I'm wrong we're in big trouble.
Kay: Chairman Mao say "Death's certain, life unpredictable." Sidney: He got that from Charlie Chan.
If you're familiar with early Woody Allen, watch this and see the amazing continuity. If you are unfamiliar, watch this and then get DVDs of "Bananas," "Take the Money and Run" and "Love and Death." You will see what a rich source of material the 1960s youth rebellion offered for sharp comedians of the time.
Miley Cyrus is terrific and Woody Allen is Woody Allen and Elaine May is Elaine May. That should be enough of a recommendation. After you see it, come back here and write a great review of it.
I felt that this was very much like some of Allen's early movie efforts from the 1960s and 1970s like "Take the Money and Run" "Bananas" and "Love and Death" where plot took a backseat to absurd and ridiculous one-liners and dialogues.
For example:
Lenny (Miley Cyrus): I don't dislike you, its just everything that you stand for.
Sidney: God's going to punish us in this. Kay: God's not going to punish you, you're an atheist. Sidney: But if I'm wrong we're in big trouble.
Kay: Chairman Mao say "Death's certain, life unpredictable." Sidney: He got that from Charlie Chan.
If you're familiar with early Woody Allen, watch this and see the amazing continuity. If you are unfamiliar, watch this and then get DVDs of "Bananas," "Take the Money and Run" and "Love and Death." You will see what a rich source of material the 1960s youth rebellion offered for sharp comedians of the time.
Miley Cyrus is terrific and Woody Allen is Woody Allen and Elaine May is Elaine May. That should be enough of a recommendation. After you see it, come back here and write a great review of it.
Brilliant Woody Allen, but why Miley Cyrus, and why so much time?
guisreis2 February 2023
While sold as a 6-chapter series, this is actually just a very long feature movie by Woody Allen. As it begins, all his impressive skill is very present: those extremely smart and funny dialogues and situations, his (and Elaine May's) brilliant and very natural acting, great core (and also many peripheral) characters. Smart and playful situatons eventually appear again from time to time, but there are two problems that made this production far from being among the best of Woody Allen. The first, and the most serious of them, is Miley Cyrus. Her character Lennie Dale is perhaps too flat and stereotyped, but it could work better with a more skilled actress had been casted. Her acting skills were embarassingly out of step with Allen, May, and also many other actors and actresses in minor roles. And her role was so important, and had so much time on screen... The level of the film/series clearly downgraded since her character appears (although appearing after hilarious scenes played by Allen and May). While many other characters and events were nice, imaginative and funny, the general outcome was also hampered by the film's excessively long length. The artificial strategy of presenting it as a mini-series in six chapters just meant grafting unnecessary time that could be avoided in a more balanced and normal-length movie. Unfortunately, the boring presence of Cyrus (despite her character be praised as charismatic by the others) for so much time led the film to be tiring sometimes, and end in a much more tepid way than it began.
I would say it's 5 scenes too long....
jamawag4 October 2016
But since absolutely nothing happened in the first scene, make that 6 scenes too long. An embarrassment to all who appear. Except for Ms. Cyrus, who apparently cannot be embarrassed. Awful ending to an otherwise remarkable career. IMDb forces me to say more. Not much to say. Acting is awful. Plot is...well, in the first 1.5 episodes there was no plot. It was silly. Not smart, not well written. Embarrassing. Why is he doing this? IMHO his recent work is a failed attempt at humor and makes me think that I was right about his work after the 80s. Self- conscience and pedantic.Second attempt to post my review, which they keep saying isn't long enough. Irony is not lost on me. I'm writing a review about someone who stayed in the game too long until he sounded like he'd run out of things to say. I know the feeling.
On radicalism and how to avoid it. Clue: You can't!
woodpecker-757528 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Binge-watched Woody Allen's sitcom 'A Crisis in Six Scenes' last night.
The bantering conversations of deluded characters set against a New York skyline with jazzy overtones were all there. His anxious, unkempt protagonist presided over alarming situations, which caused bouts of nervousness, despair and desperation as he tries to understand, prevent and remedy the hilarious but serious situation he finds himself in.
The older Allan gets, the more philosophical his movies are. They've become less pleasing to the eye to watch (he looks awfully old, it's not Paris/Rome), and his leading actors are not the creme de la creme of Hollywood, but slightly recognizable actors who - don't get me wrong - do a great job of reading his scripts and sounding exactly like him; something I've always enjoyed and think it original of his art.
Now to the plot: it is set in the 60s at the height of anti-war sentiment and radicalism. He plays a not-so-successful writer called S.J. Munsinger, rather optimistically self-fashioned on the great American writer J.D. Salinger (Catcher in the Rye), and enjoys his semi-retired life in suburbia, watching baseball on television and sharing a home with his wife who is a marriage councillor.
He doesn't watch the news so he is only shoulder-shruggingly aware of what is really going on in the city - the protests, the student uprisings, the arrests, etc are not his concern. One night, a break-in occurs at his home: a young lady, a wanted radical freedom fighter (played by Miley Cirus), who he learns is related to his wife, seeks refuge from the police, FBI, etc for breaking out of jail and shooting an armed guard and who has been on the run.
Obviously his world is turned upside down. Hilarity and angst ensue. The young woman, with a very well-spoken and bordering on rude attitude starts to very quickly influence everyone around him; she takes over his house, eats his food, redecorates the walls with Che Guevara posters, hands out books on Fanon and Zedong and waxes lyrical about the injustices of war and the stagnant, meaningless lives of comfortable Americans at the expense of others. No matter what he tries to say or do, no one can agree with him that 'doing nothing is alright too.'
It escalates to a somewhat farcical end. Swayed by the deliciously dangerous ideas of revolution in their minds, the people start acting altogether ridiculous. It literally blows up in their face. Aspects of the Theatre of the Absurd came to mind in the final episode - everyone arrives, swimming drunkenly and confusedly, gathering together but not to actually do something revolutionary, but to enjoy having a single purpose. Our protagonist realizes that he must get rid of the young lady guerilla fighter before everyone loses their minds and so he volunteers to help her escape to Cuba. He turns out to be her best (albeit reluctant) helper, while the rest have been mostly passive admirers of revolutionary literature.
So what's in it for us?
Welllll. Shoooo.
Radicalism, while exciting, can be dangerous to one extent, and also fanatical at another. We love the idea of helping, supporting, uplifting the down trodden or fellow man, or bemoaning the status quo, but how many of us actually DO something about it? I can quote Fanon and I can philosophize in what SHOULD be done, but will I ever put it into practice? Probably not. Because I too, want to watch television all day and live in the suburbs and ignore the news while at the same time Viva!-ing the people who do DO something because that's easy.
It's also very much part of the human condition. I am just here to study it. And to write it. That's my part. And if I ever meet a radical who asks me to help them get to Cuba, I'll help her! But very reluctantly!
The bantering conversations of deluded characters set against a New York skyline with jazzy overtones were all there. His anxious, unkempt protagonist presided over alarming situations, which caused bouts of nervousness, despair and desperation as he tries to understand, prevent and remedy the hilarious but serious situation he finds himself in.
The older Allan gets, the more philosophical his movies are. They've become less pleasing to the eye to watch (he looks awfully old, it's not Paris/Rome), and his leading actors are not the creme de la creme of Hollywood, but slightly recognizable actors who - don't get me wrong - do a great job of reading his scripts and sounding exactly like him; something I've always enjoyed and think it original of his art.
Now to the plot: it is set in the 60s at the height of anti-war sentiment and radicalism. He plays a not-so-successful writer called S.J. Munsinger, rather optimistically self-fashioned on the great American writer J.D. Salinger (Catcher in the Rye), and enjoys his semi-retired life in suburbia, watching baseball on television and sharing a home with his wife who is a marriage councillor.
He doesn't watch the news so he is only shoulder-shruggingly aware of what is really going on in the city - the protests, the student uprisings, the arrests, etc are not his concern. One night, a break-in occurs at his home: a young lady, a wanted radical freedom fighter (played by Miley Cirus), who he learns is related to his wife, seeks refuge from the police, FBI, etc for breaking out of jail and shooting an armed guard and who has been on the run.
Obviously his world is turned upside down. Hilarity and angst ensue. The young woman, with a very well-spoken and bordering on rude attitude starts to very quickly influence everyone around him; she takes over his house, eats his food, redecorates the walls with Che Guevara posters, hands out books on Fanon and Zedong and waxes lyrical about the injustices of war and the stagnant, meaningless lives of comfortable Americans at the expense of others. No matter what he tries to say or do, no one can agree with him that 'doing nothing is alright too.'
It escalates to a somewhat farcical end. Swayed by the deliciously dangerous ideas of revolution in their minds, the people start acting altogether ridiculous. It literally blows up in their face. Aspects of the Theatre of the Absurd came to mind in the final episode - everyone arrives, swimming drunkenly and confusedly, gathering together but not to actually do something revolutionary, but to enjoy having a single purpose. Our protagonist realizes that he must get rid of the young lady guerilla fighter before everyone loses their minds and so he volunteers to help her escape to Cuba. He turns out to be her best (albeit reluctant) helper, while the rest have been mostly passive admirers of revolutionary literature.
So what's in it for us?
Welllll. Shoooo.
Radicalism, while exciting, can be dangerous to one extent, and also fanatical at another. We love the idea of helping, supporting, uplifting the down trodden or fellow man, or bemoaning the status quo, but how many of us actually DO something about it? I can quote Fanon and I can philosophize in what SHOULD be done, but will I ever put it into practice? Probably not. Because I too, want to watch television all day and live in the suburbs and ignore the news while at the same time Viva!-ing the people who do DO something because that's easy.
It's also very much part of the human condition. I am just here to study it. And to write it. That's my part. And if I ever meet a radical who asks me to help them get to Cuba, I'll help her! But very reluctantly!
Not Woody Allen's finest
BadSausages16 August 2021
The first thing noticeable is the weak dialogue. The characters don't have much to say, substantively or quantitatively, but just repeat their lines a whole lot.
The second thing noticeable is the plodding storyline. This is a 30-minute (if that long) story told in 3 hours.
The third thing noticeable is that Miley Cyrus is not a good actress. If they didn't keep telling us that her character is beautiful and intelligent, it would never have occurred to us and we would not remember it.
The second thing noticeable is the plodding storyline. This is a 30-minute (if that long) story told in 3 hours.
The third thing noticeable is that Miley Cyrus is not a good actress. If they didn't keep telling us that her character is beautiful and intelligent, it would never have occurred to us and we would not remember it.
An uneasy mix of good farce and unfunny/forced banter
bob the moo29 January 2017
Curiosity brought me to this show; I am a fan of Woody Allen – which means I tend to give all of his stuff a chance but am not blind to the times when he is not producing his best work. As a result I did not bring any hype or excitement to this show – indeed I didn't know anything about it (not even if it was a comedy or drama). So, I do think I gave this a fair shake, and was open to see what it did.
It was frustrating then to have it so uneven and seem so unsure of what it was doing. Essentially it is a farce set in the midst of a politically turbulent time in America; and the scenes which are broad farce do tend to work pretty well. In particular, the side characters and scenes tend to produce the few laughs in the episodes – the therapy couples, the book club members; these are the strongest moments. It is the scenes between such moments that limit it though – and there are more of them than the others. The dialogue cries out for informed absurdity and comedy, but what we get feels forced and lacking a spark too often.
The cast don't help. Allen does what he does, and I enjoyed his performance even when sometimes that was not enough. May took me a minute to get into, but she works well and has lots of the better material. Magaro doesn't get out of impression mode often enough, although his material doesn't always help. Cyrus is miscast; I didn't find her as awful as some have said she was, but for sure she is not a good fit here and doesn't convince in her character. The various small roles add more value though, helped by them having the better material on the edges.
In the end Crisis has moments which are great fun, and it has a fairly enjoyable energy to it, but the material and laughs just aren't there, and too much of it doesn't really do a great deal.
It was frustrating then to have it so uneven and seem so unsure of what it was doing. Essentially it is a farce set in the midst of a politically turbulent time in America; and the scenes which are broad farce do tend to work pretty well. In particular, the side characters and scenes tend to produce the few laughs in the episodes – the therapy couples, the book club members; these are the strongest moments. It is the scenes between such moments that limit it though – and there are more of them than the others. The dialogue cries out for informed absurdity and comedy, but what we get feels forced and lacking a spark too often.
The cast don't help. Allen does what he does, and I enjoyed his performance even when sometimes that was not enough. May took me a minute to get into, but she works well and has lots of the better material. Magaro doesn't get out of impression mode often enough, although his material doesn't always help. Cyrus is miscast; I didn't find her as awful as some have said she was, but for sure she is not a good fit here and doesn't convince in her character. The various small roles add more value though, helped by them having the better material on the edges.
In the end Crisis has moments which are great fun, and it has a fairly enjoyable energy to it, but the material and laughs just aren't there, and too much of it doesn't really do a great deal.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
