Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Better Late Then Never

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

My video store was doing an everything-must-go operation on their music and film articles so I bought a Blu-Ray copy of Woody Allen's Vicky Cristina Barcelona for 5$ as I remembered that Penelope Cruz's performance was exceptional. When I put it on this evening I couldn't believe how insufferably bad everything else about it was.The story is pretty simple. It's a soft love/sex quadrangle between a guy and three women with a vague Woody Allen lemon flavor. The first woman (Rebecca Hall) is square, rich and fond of art, poetry and music. The second woman (Scarlett Johansson) is more unstable, not-so-rich but not-so-bad and fond of art, poetry and music. The third woman (Penelope Cruz) is self-destructive, not-so-rich but not-so-bad and an artist herself. The guy (Javier Bardem) is square, extremely rich and an artist himself. Together, they go sight-seeing, develop pictures in their darkroom, paint, write poetry, listen to Catalan guitar, have sex and drink expensive wine. And then everyone goes back where they came from and it's over.Almost a decade after watching it for the first time, I can say that Cruz's performance holds up in depth and subtlety and that the film is still worth watching for that (the confrontation scene in the kitchen is brilliant). It actually makes up for Johansson and Hall's often-embarrassing screen time. Having said that, it's not their fault; it's the director's. Woody Allen's reputed technique of having his ensemble cast recite his dialogue is responsible for a lot of the film's mediocrity because the lines themselves lack the sarcasm and the grace of his finer work. As for Javier Bardem, he's stuck in neutral gear, trying to temper the monstrous imbalance between Cruz's atomic bomb of a performance and Hall and Johansson's unflavored acting.One of the most frustrating elements of the entire film is the voice-over that constantly explains what the audience is supposed to figure out on its own if the film is well directed, but for some reason Allen doesn't want you to think. He'd rather have a narrator tell you what the characters are feeling or take you through an ellipsis of questionable subtlety. So for example the voice-over would tell you someone's sad when they're supposed to be sad. Maybe the director doesn't want you to think as mentioned before, or perhaps wants to think for you for ego-related reasons, or maybe tell you what to think for pretentiousness-related reasons. Whatever the case, the audience ends up feeling useless and stupid. I find the use of voice-over in a fiction film very questionable in general, and quite problematic in Vicky. I always have trouble understanding why some directors try to blur the line between cinema and literature. There is no separation between novel language and screenplay language in here. The voice over in Vicky Cristina Barcelona is like an audiobook with optional shots. Not to mention that the characters speak nothing like real people. Woody Allen's really happy having one woman recite another woman's character bible instead of giving the audience the pleasure and luxury of unveiling it. This might have been fun a few times in the past but now it looks like narrative incompetence (which might actually be true). The editing is flaky as well. I can mention several close-ups where I would've liked to see the reverse shot instead of being stuck with the original shot lasting several seconds longer than needed (which, in a feature film, can feel really awkward).You've asked for a Woody Allen film and you're getting one. You get the color corrector who explodes the yellows to make the film look Spanish, artistic and old. Spain is yellow. You get the aforementioned manipulated acting (if you mute some scenes you'd think Scarlett Johansson is saying "I was told to stand like this!"). You get punk rock explained to you by Woody Allen: a grandfather who refuses to publish his poetry because SCREW THE SYSTEEEEEM. See, Woody knows everything about the Sex Pistols. An excerpt from an unknown black-and-white film also makes its way out of nowhere to accompany a piece of lost voice-over midway into the film. Vicky Cristina Barcelona wouldn't be a Woody Allen film without him lecturing us on cinema. On classical cinema. On what's "good cinema" and what's "bad cinema". And we could go on and on about almost all other artistic disciplines. Classical guitar, for example, is "good music". It's the Catalan version of a standard Woody Allen jazz soundtrack. Taking pictures is also "good art" (with a silver camera, of course, not those decadent digital cameras!). Also, the more sensual scenes of the film beg the question: has Woody Allen ever actually seen a romantic sexual encounter, let alone between two women? I'm speaking for myself but I don't think two people have ever caressed each other's arms for two seconds and started having sex right away without prior signals. Ever. Not even in Humphrey Bogart movies; at least they argued before every kiss. The events that lead to sex in Vicky Cristina are too neutral.But the worst sin of the film is that its creator has no clue whatsoever who he's catering to. Who are the people who watch romantic comedies? Who are the people who watch sex comedies? Who are the people who watch the romantic sex adventures of Woody Allen characters in Spain? Who are the people who watch comedies, considering that Vicky qualifies as a comedy in Woodyland? "Two university graduates go wine-tasting." "Two BFF's suddenly have passionate sex and fall in love with a wealthy painter (throw in a suicidal ex-lover because otherwise it's a non-story)." "A woman happens to be studying Catalan painting and happens to fall in love with a Catalan painter who happens to still have feelings for his destructive ex who happens to be a Catalan painter." What's the demographic for that? After some thinking, now I know. It's the people who, like Woody, think that only straight, vanilla, female polygamy is cute and acceptable and who worship the director for "shining a light" on that. It's the people who, as much as you criticize a Woody Allen film, will always answer "Hey, it's Woody!" It's the people who refuse to admit that there are very specific reasons why 9 Woody Allen films out of 10 lose money and that "art-house" is not an excuse.Vicy Cristina Barcelona has its interesting aspects but it perfectly shows you that Woody Allen really lives in his own bubble. Almost all of his movies from the 21st century lack the substance to make up for that and Vicky's one of them. This used to bother the fans, now I don't think anyone bothers anymore. All in all, the quality of the film is awfully mediocre. Long story short, towards the end, the square girl gets shot by the unstable woman. The square girl tells her husband Doug that her former Spanish teacher shot her by mistake. Doug buys it. That's the movie we're dealing with.And that's one of the "good" 21st century Allen films. If you want, you can go watch Larry David scream at the camera for an hour.

Woody Allen is one of those directors that either we love or hate. I confess, I am the exception: I don't like nor hate, I've never had much contact with his films. This film was, probably, the first of his work I saw from beginning to end, and I liked it. It has a somewhat unrealistic but acceptable script in which two American girls get involved with the same man during a summer trip to Barcelona. Both are dissatisfied with their love life for different reasons: Vicky attaches great value to commitment but needs passion to support it; Cristina is very passionate but she cannot be in a relationship because she always feels something missing. In this duality lies the great criticism the film makes to the emptiness of American society, described as very conservative and worried with appearances. On the other side the Spanish Juan Antonio and Maria Elena, a former couple whose love is deep and destructive to the point of not being able to live without melodramatic fights. Through them, Allen seems to criticize the way of being of European society, described as being very liberal. The whole movie is a clash of mindsets of different people, representing very different civilizations and different ways of facing love.Of course, this is all based on Woody Allen's own views. I, for example, have a very different idea of ​​what Europeans and Americans are like, and I don't think they are so different. We must not forget that American society has been shaped in the image of Europe. Never has Europe seemed to me as liberal and open-minded as the film suggests, and even Latin countries (like my own) are quite conservative, partly because of religious issues, although its also true that they're becoming more liberal (maybe too much). But this only proves that these ideas are points of view, debatable and subjective. Either way, the way the characters behave is very interesting, creating situations that are very hilarious. The narrator works well and has an excellent voice. Concerning the actors, they're all big names. Bardem and Cruz, however, deserve special applause for the way they ended up standing out, starring in some of the funniest scenes. Rebecca Hall did a good job in the role of conventional Vicky, giving her special psychological depth from which she falls in love. Scarlett Johansson fulfilled her role, not surprisingly but also without disappointment. She was OK most of the time. A note of praise still for the very careful cinematography and for the choice of filming locations, who knew how to take advantage of the landscapes and tourist icons that we associate with the Catalan capital.Intelligent, beautiful, passionate, romantic, elegant... there would be several adjectives for this film. It's not enough to shut up those who hate Woody Allen but, for those like me, who are not familiar with his work, it's enough to give him more attention from now on.

Do not believe the 7 stars this movie gets. I'm guessing this is enjoyed by Americans that are too lazy for subtitles and they accept this politically correct lame attempt at copying Pedro Almodovar. The reason I compare the two directors is because this movie takes place almost entirely in Spain, it has Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz in it. And the plot could have been fun had the master Almodovar directed it. Let's pretend that this was actually made by Almodovar. No annoying narrator. The two American girls would have went with Javier on his friends plane without Hall judging him and turning him down. They would have had sex in a passionate threesome and the girls would have shown their tits (or in Rebecca Halls case, lack of tits) and Javier would have sucked on them. Penelope would have shown up and one of the girls (Hall) would have ended up dead. And the others would have buried her and maybe gotten away with it. There would have been lots of Spanish dishes with references to sex. The characters would have acted immorally. Sex and lust and desire would have been what have driven the story forward. And it would have been fun to watch. In Allens movie the so called sex-scenes are reduced to kissing, one time in slo-mo (what the hell Allen??) And after the sex which is always skipped the women cover up their tits from the man they just had sex with. Oh and apparently in Spain artists are rich and successful. As one of Javiers artist friends own a small plane. And of course Javier can fly it and lives in a very nice villa and he has a sportscar. It's ridiculous. And don't even get me started on the fact that Scarletts character just accepts it when Javier brings home ihis psychotic ex girlfriend who tried to kill him. A normal girl would have packed her bags and left. But not only does Scarlett stay. The three of them eventually becomes lovers until Scarlett gets restless for no reason at all, except that that is how her character is suppose to be and leaves them. So Hall can come back into the Picture with Javier.Come on, Allen, that's just poor writing. It's also bigot and racist the way Spanish people are portrayed as irresponsible passionate people who only care about sex and never about the consequenses. Yes that is also how they behave in Almodóvars movies, but its in a bizare yuniviverse and it's pure comedy. This movie however tries to come off as a serious drama. Where the uptight Americans in the movie are the ones acting like people should be acting. The fact that Javier and Cruzes characters have that love/hate relationship, Means that they will never be happy. According to Allen. But at least they have passion and are alive, unlike the boring Americans. What made it possible for me to suffer through this snooze fest, is the stunning Johannson and absolutely beautiful Cruz. The chemistry between Javier and Johansson and between Javier and Cruz is amazing and very real. Hall, however, is too tall, flat chested, boring and annoying and the kind of woman I would slap around as she's judgmental bitch from the get-go of the movie. Her character was not needed and had she not been in in the movie, it would have been more fun. Also the fact that Hall and Johansson are best friends as they're complete opposites, is not believable. Also they're clearly at different stages in their life and Hall seems to be 10 years older than Scarlett. Avoid this and watch Jamon Jamon instead by Almodovar. And also with Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz, only with passionate sex scenes, Spanish food, horny people behaving irresponsibly and lots of fun.

I do find the character of Vicky irritating though. As she moves from one guy to the next. I know the point is that she doesn't know what she wants....or thought she did. But why the Ben character then? She's got a husband who she supposedly loves. She meets a Spaniard and begins an affair with him. Which creates her confusion. But then Ben too? What's with his presence in the movie? I think her brief involvement with him is what makes her confusion rather irritating.