This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

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

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

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!

OK, I thought we didn't miss Woody acting Woody because we had him do something last year. But I was wrong: it's since 2006 with "Scoop" that we don't see Woody doing the mostly omega, phobic, dumb, hypocrite but sometimes smart, wise and deceiving funny stereotype he's famous for.Here we have it once again, this time in the sixties where he acts as the usual lackluster creator (writer here) involved with his shrink wife in a farce representing the idealistic struggles of youth VS a cynic and blind establishment.The result is mediocre: the tone may perhaps be good for some 70 yo fan of Woody or for someone who never heard of him but everyone else will find it quite slow and repetitive. Not enough funny, not enough smart, not enough deep: boring and pointless.Miley is very sexy and has a very beautiful mezzosoprano voice (sorry if I find it worth noting... maybe it's just that this series deserves such a low rating given the production money that was invested)... but she doesn't quite get into the '60s character imho and sounds totally serious while everything around her is fake (as it should being a farce).

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.

I am, in general, a fan of Woody Allen's movies. I hate a few of them but mostly the ones that feature Allen himself in a leading role. Many of his recent movies I have found very entertaining and worth the time.I had heard about "Crisis" a few months ago, I put it on my calendar so I wouldn't miss it. We have an Amazon Prime subscription so it was easy to get to.I watched the first 23-minute episode and found it pretty boring. Mostly old New Yorkers doing what old New Yorkers do and Woody Allen's script isn't that funny. Having it set in the 1960s appears to be just a gimmick. I watched the second episode and found it to be mostly the same.At the end the resolution was anti-climactic. Overall I found it to be mostly a waste of my time. Who would like it? Mainly the die-hard fans of Woody who like to see and hear his unique brand of humor. Stammering, saying the wrong thing at just the opportune time. There are a number of name actors but the three most important ones are Woody Allen as author Munsinger, Miley Cyrus as radical fugitive Lennie Dale, and Elaine May as Kay Munsinger.