One of the best films i have seen

A lot of fun.

The movie's only flaw is also a virtue: It's jammed with characters, stories, warmth and laughs.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

A wacky inventor (Woody Allen) and his wife (Mary Steenburgen) invite two other couples for a weekend party at a romantic summer house in the 1900s countryside.This was the first of thirteen movies that Allen would make starring Mia Farrow, and quite possibly the worst. Farrow was nominated for a Razzie Award, making this the only Allen film to get any such nomination. Indeed, Farrow is terrible here, and it seems bizarre that she is the object of more than one character's affections. Steenburgen, on the other hand, is quite charming and is given an unfortunate role.This is one of Allen's lesser works, and definitely not a financial success. But it is not without its merits. The characters (other than Farrow) are good fun, and there is plenty of that classic intellectual fodder Allen loves to have his characters spout.

Review: I really wasn't that impressed with this movie because I didn't find it that funny or slightly interesting. The concept, which is basically about a group of friends who lust over each other in the wilderness, got a bit tedious after a while and Woody Allen's weak jokes and silly characters didn't have any depth or substance. The fact that everyone is lusting over Mia Farrow, didn't help because I really couldn't see what was so adorable about her. Woody Allen, who plays a mad inventor, was also quite annoying after a while and he just seemed to be running around, setting up rendezvous's with the different characters. The whole look and feel of the movie was quite dated and the storyline goes down some weird avenues that go a bit too far. Disappointing!Round-Up: With only one movie left in this Woody Allen series, I still haven't seen anything that amazing from this accomplished writer/director and I personally think that the movies with Diane Keaton are much better than the Mia Farrow ones. All of his films seem very similar to one another and the concepts, which are usually based around troubled relationships set in New York, aren't that imaginative. Before I got into this filmography, I was hoping to see the mind behind his unique work, but all I have seen is that he is definitely one for the ladies and he loves writing about relationships which are in turmoil, which shadows his own life in his latter years. Because I watched these films back to back, I honestly got fed up with them after a while and his humour is for a certain crowd which I am not part of.Budget: N/A Round-Up: $9millionI recommend this movie to people who are into there Woody Allen movies about a group of friends who get together in the wilderness and end up lusting for each other. 3/10

A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy takes a bit of time to get into(though you can sort of say the same thing about Smiles of a Summer Night, a Bergman masterpieces, and A Midsummer Night's Dream, one of Shakespeare's best-known plays for a reason), and while it is not one of Woody Allen's absolute best it is still a great film and one of his most overlooked(fairly accessible too). While not as gorgeous-looking as Manhattan for example, A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy is beautifully filmed, in keeping with the whimsical tone the film has and the scenery is magical with lots of character and colour as well as a real fantasy vibe. The music is fabulous, no big surprises there as it is Mendelssohn, not only that but the music fits absolutely perfectly, as soon as I saw this title Mendelssohn's music immediately came to mind. The script mayn't be one of his most sophisticated or quotable, that shouldn't be expected though because the dialogue is still very funny with a chockfull of witty and snappy lines that has Allen's writing all over, and all done in a subtle and slightly endearingly silly way. The story is one of the most whimsical and charming of any Woody Allen film(very light in tone as well), while maintaining a good amount of realism. The characters are well-written, not the most likable but a long way from detestable as well. The performances from all 6 of the lead ensemble are just great, especially from a hilarious and suave Tony Roberts and Mary Steenburgen. Woody Allen has some fine comic moments too, Jose Ferrer relishes some of the film's best lines, Julie Haggerty is charming and always amuses and Mia Farrow does show some ease in comedy despite it being different to what she's known for(I don't think she deserved that Razzie nomination). The chemistry between all 6 is believable. So overall, a great and overlooked film. 9/10 Bethany Cox

I think I see what Woody Allen was getting at here -- a kind of salubrious combination of Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and Ingmar Bergman's "Smiles of a Summer Night." A handful of real or aspiring intellectuals spend a weekend in a country estate just after the turn of the last century. (And what a cast they are!) Some of them know one another and others are strangers.All are distinguishable in one way or another. Jose Ferrer is the snooty man of science who doesn't believe in spirits or spiritual lives. Tony Roberts is the naturalist and doctor who is more interested in leaves than science. Mia Farrow is Ariel (another nod to Shakespeare), an old love of Allen's who is about to marry the older Ferrer on Monday. Mary Steenburgen is Allen's wife who is concerned that their marriage is going stale and asks the other women about the best way to please a man in bed. Roberts falls for Farrow. So does Allen. Ferrer wants to make it with Julie Haggarty. Assignations are clumsily arranged and then fall apart for one or another reason. The guests see visions of fairies when they stare at a spirit ball. Globular lights dance around among the trees.Well, I'm all for enchanted forests. The folklore of northern Europe is itself enchanted. "Fairy rings" formed of mushrooms and all that.That this movie didn't work for me -- it might well work for others -- is because I simply couldn't care about any of the characters. And the conversational exchanges were only mildly comic. Without characters to care about, lacking a winsome sweetness, and without real laughs, what's left? The usual congeries of Allen's neurotic New York intellectuals falling in love with the wrong people and at odds with one another.Best performance -- and best scene -- go to Jose Ferrer singing lugubrious German Lieder while Steenburgen pounds on the piano. Woody has the good sense to look at the camera (twice) with a mournful expression.But the story is more confusing than enchanting. I understand Woody wrote the screenplay in two weeks, and I believe it.