Such a frustrating disappointment

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.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Finally got to see this gem. As a film, I found it very interesting to watch for technical and directing reasons. I counted one take that was a minute and a-half long of walking through down a street in the city. I've always admired the way Woody Allen can use these long takes to such great advantage. And I admire the actors for managing to pull them off. As I slowly get through the entire Woody Allen library, one by one, I found this film to be a little too Woody Allen a times. Again, someone is going to be introduced to a dentist or a doctor named 'Sy Rubenstein," 'Sol Eplestein' or Juda, or Noah... The whole New York Jewish thing is so predictable in his films. Also, again the dialogue which is just not how people speak - Not even in New York. Will Ferrel's character was like listening to Woody Allen in Annie Hall, except the lines were delivered by someone else. Some of the gags were very good though. Over all I thought the performance were well done, all around. Thought everyone was well suited for the character and they all did a great job. Glad to have it in my Woody Allen collection.

Let's face it, even our favourite and most talented film directors get it wrong sometimes, and this is one of those times. This film script is one of those 'clever ideas' that people get late at night, and when they are half drunk they say: 'Wouldn't it be great if ...?' But in the cold light of the morning, this should have been abandoned as too artificial. The idea of having two alternative stories about a girl called Melinda, one comic and one tragic, is too theoretical. You might as well try and make a film out of DAS KAPITAL, which is also theoretical. Woody here is 'too clever for his own good' and it backfires. There is no use talking about the performances, as actors here are not the point. A film which is excessively contrived, as this one is, is simply an embarrassment to everyone associated with it. I must say, the evening scenes of the people talking about the two Melindas are the most contrived of all, and not at all cinematically well executed. Films are meant to be illusions, but they need to be convincing illusions, not artificial fabrications such as university undergraduates would come up with while chatting in the dorm.

Having recently reviewed this film when I happened to see it on IFC, I realized how Woody Allen is so much on the mark when writing tragic/comedic mixtures, and the film and actors are not necessarily over the top (or "larger than life", the trite Hollywood expression).Here he basically examines assorted characters, daily marital problems, and the Radha Mitchell character who is attempting to overcome a past crime.An interesting theme, paired with good performance by Mitchell, as well as side-story with solid performance by Chloe Sevigny,cameos with Wallace Shawn and Larry Pine: all add up to suspense and humor as Allen examines yet more trials and difficulties of living in NY, having relationships and being human.

Read more at http://blog.ParcEntertainment.comFollow me on Twitter - http://www.Twitter.com/ParcHDVideoHow one goes through life depends entirely on his or her perspective. One individual might see the tragedy inherent in a specific event, and yet someone else might perceive the same event to be a positive. Is the event itself tragic or comic, or does it depend solely upon your point of view?This philosophical merry-go-round is the foundation for Woody Allen's 2004 film, Melinda and Melinda. The film opens at a restaurant where four friends are in the middle of a conversation about life and relationships. Two of the friends are playwrights. One friend says that life is inherently tragic, but the other claims that life is inherently comic. A third friend sets the plot in motion when he asks the two playwrights to listen to a story and then comment on whether the tale is best viewed as a tragedy or comedy.From that point, the film follows two parallel stories, centering on Melinda, a young woman trying to get her life back together after a series of bad relationships and self-destructive behavior. One story follows a dramatic interpretation, and one follows the conventions of a romantic comedy.The premise of following parallel stories is engaging, although clichéd and formulaic. This movie would not seem quite so original had it been produced as a stand-alone tragedy or comedy. But because both story arcs are shown side by side, the film is much more interesting. I think most people enjoy contemplating how life's course can be set in one direction or another by events outside their control. It's fun to imagine what if? scenarios, thinking how things could have been different, if only…The dialogue in the film is a number of things - snappy, clever, poetic, and philosophical. Allen allows his characters to speak what many of us only think. The danger of doing so, however, is that a lot of the dialogue is too on-the-nose and expository. It doesn't ring true for real life. Characters (Melinda especially) engage in reflective and introspective monologues that are often tedious. At times it feels more like a stage play than a film, but perhaps that's the intent, considering that we are seeing this story through the eyes of two playwrights.Of the two "Melinda" stories, the light-hearted, comedic tale is much more interesting, due to the talents of the actors on screen. Will Ferrell plays Hobie, a struggling actor married to an up-and-coming director played by Amanda Peet.Ferrell's Hobie is charming and innocent, and he falls for Melinda (played by Radha Mitchell) when he realizes his marriage is going nowhere. Peet is equally likable as the ambitious workaholic filmmaker, striving to lock in the extra money to get her first feature into production. The dynamic between Ferrell and Mitchell is fun to watch, and the dialogue between the two rings truer than the dramatic counterpart of the film.The weaker of the two stories is the dramatic interpretation. Here, the characters are far less interesting, the dialogue far too stilted, and the acting too melodramatic. Aside from Mitchell's performance, the ensemble around her was flat, stiff, and too over-the-top. Mitchell's portrayal as the emotionally disturbed and suicidal Melinda really carried this portion of the film.Overall, Melinda and Melinda explores some very human themes in very conventional ways, but presents them in a unique way.