Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Don't listen to the negative reviews

A Disappointing Continuation

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Dear Woody Allen,Every scene of Crimes and Misdemeanors is made with so much love. You often surprised me during the indoor scenes when suddenly there would be some superb lighting in the background. You usually like to set scenes in beautiful American parks. This film is no different. The outdoor scenes are a pleasure to look at. The scene where Martin Landau visits his childhood home was spectacular, there were so many great bit players in that scene. And that scene is not the only one. You packed it in with this film, Woody. There are so many poignant and hilarious moments. You even invented this philosopher dude who mouths some awesome dialogs. This is probably your best film, even though I am partial to your work in the 60s and 70s.Two story lines parallel to each other(though the characters do meet at the end of the film). One about an upstanding ophthalmologist who gives the nod for his secret lover to be killed. The other one is about a naughty documentary filmmaker who refuses to sell out but is frustrated with the mediocrity around him and also sad about the fact that the woman he covets is increasingly attracted to the man he hates.It is an amazing achievement that you make the lives of these civilized and sophisticated characters so entertaining to audiences around the world. Good job.Best Regards, Pimpin.(9/10)

This is a deftly made movie with parallel stories and portrayal of the world of Jewish New Yorkers. The angst over whether there is a true morality from an omnipotent God makes the film thought-provoking and, to some, disturbing. Allen has grappled now twice with this idea of getting away with murder and whether one can go on to live a good life without fear of retribution. He explored it in this film, and then again in Matchpoint. In Crimes and Misdemeanors, the issue was whether God was watching and if the guilty character could live well with his conscience. In Matchpoint, retribution is a matter of random luck.The conclusions of both films can seem brilliant to some, but quite troubling to others. The reason this is so, is because Allen's main question, "Can the murderer get away with it?" hinges on one important assumption: that all rewards and punishments occur in this life...and that moral behavior is subject to rewards and punishments. This is in fact a very Jewish point of view (hence the family debate in their Midwood, Brooklyn, home). Jews do not believe in Heaven or Hell, so all has to be achieved in this life. Within the logic that emerges from the above question is inevitably a morally confused universe and cynical point of view. What's worse is that the movie assumes the rewards are things like wealth, career success, love.If murderers do not get found out and do not suffer punishment, does that mean there is no moral God watching over us? No, their crime or misdemeanor is still wrong, because it caused harm to someone. If they have no conscience and they are not caught, it is still wrong. If there is not a God meting out rewards and punishments in this life or the afterlife, what makes it wrong? Does it not matter if one decides to murder for personal gain? Is not the rule to follow simply dog eat dog and every man for himself? Allen has not progressed in questioning the assumption, whether material rewards are the appropriate measure of morality.To get past his ongoing conundrum, the next time Allen takes on this theme, he needs to consider how society as a whole would break down if no one subscribed to any code of morality. There would not be anything to get away with, since everyone would subscribe to the law of the jungle: who ever eats, wins. Without a common code of morals, we would be reduced to a primitive state.Allen is very literary, but to address moral issues, he needs to go beyond the individual and consider social systems as a whole. Morality is a matter of relationships to our fellow human beings, not of individual success in life. One might argue that societies have a long history of sanctioning, through the law, behaviors we find abhorrent today, so morality is still all relative and there is no moral absolute. I think, rather, that human societies evolve as we learn from our mistakes, and we find out these mistakes because indeed there is a moral absolute that reveals them to be wrong: gradually it becomes recognized that it is not okay for women to be an underclass to men; that racism violates the rights of people; that lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering result in a breakdown of the trust required to engage in transactions and the economic health of a society; that crime is a symptom of a lot of social ills, from economic inequities to mental illness to social pressures that sway the individual's moral compass. Obviously, there are sociopaths and criminals who have no empathy for their victims and no conscience about gaining at the expense of others, including murder -- we now have clinical terms for them, and even can link aberrant, deficient behaviors to parts of the brain. Judah's brother is such a one with no twinges of conscience. Judah enjoys the trappings of success very much because those around subscribe to a moral code to which he must pretend.Criminals are put in jail to punish them, to protect society from them, and to reform them. Society's sense of morality evolves in the effort to achieve some social order that is sustainable. If someone gets away with murder, the goal of the law is that society does not implode with everyone doing the same as some norm of behavior. One does not need a God to tell us what works or not. Our different beliefs in God or not, meanwhile, color how we codify our morals in social conduct and the law.Good movie, within its narrowly defined universe, but Allen needs to expand beyond that small universe to truly answer the question of moral absolutes. I hope he reads my review somehow, as I get the sense that his is indeed a very troubled man.P.S. To those who analyze the film in terms of Utilitarianism and Kant, my above take based on human relationships draws from Asian philosophy and Confucianism, and the concept of societies as complex systems.

An ophthalmologist (Martin Landau)'s mistress threatens to reveal their affair to his wife, while a married documentary filmmaker is infatuated by another woman.Allen excels when he takes philosophy, theology and other intellectual pursuits and blends hem with his love of cinema and classical music. Some are better than others, and this is among the best, bringing in Jewish morality, nihilism and Dostoevsky...Woody does not often tackle crime, but it is nice when he does. The theme would be revisited by Allen in his films "Match Point" (one of his best) and "Cassandra's Dream". Perhaps this is something he should focus on more often?

I won't discuss the plot of this film much. It has been detailed thoroughly on this site. Perhaps too much.Woody Allen has assembled a great cast for "Crimes and Misdemeanors". He shot the film then, reportedly, trashed one third of it, rewrote and reshot that third. The result is an interesting film. Like all Allen products, a film of ideas.Allen likes to tackles cosmic questions, philosophical conundrums, the absurdities of conventional wisdom. Here he intertwines these meditations with the mundane--one of his greatest talents.Faced with disheartening circumstances or life-shattering decisions, Allen's characters behave like humans. Allen plays Clifford Stern, a documentary film maker in an unhappy marriage. But he does not seem extremely unhappy. He finds humor in the universe and happiness in the things he loves.Through all the real-world machinations of its plot, this film keeps returning to the universal view, looking for absolute answers to the eternal questions. In this film, Allen tells us that humor helps us survive the stark realities of existence. And that love gives (us) meaning to an indifferent universe. On the other hand, his search for a universal definition of justice goes unresolved--a tricky concept that few agree on.