To Rome with Love

Je rejoins l’avis de D. Křivánková qui disait, dans son avis publié dans le magazine Instinkt, que chaque fois que Woody Allen sortait un film, il était meilleur que la plupart des autres. J’approuve totalement cette affirmation. Même si To Rome with Love ne m’a pas autant plu que Minuit à Paris, et ce pour de nombreuses raisons personnelles, ça reste une comédie classique de Woody Allen. Et outre ses thèmes habituels, les fans inconditionnels peuvent se réjouir de sa présence après un long hiatus et des absurdités typiques qu’il nous sert une fois encore. Ici, un croque-mort chantonne des arias véristes sous la douche et une satire sur les stars et la folie médiatique qui les entoure nous est présentée. Ce qui ne m’a pas plu, par contre, et la raison pour laquelle je ne mettrai probablement pas la note maximale, c’est la distribution. Jesse Eisenberg est franchement mauvais ; il manque de charisme et de piquant et représente pour moi une version ratée de Michael Cera. J’aurais préféré voir réapparaître Owen Wilson, car il était absolument fabuleux dans Paris et constituait le choix idéal pour le personnage traditionnellement joué par Woody. Ellen Page ne m’a pas convaincu non plus et Alec Baldwin m’a quelque peu irrité par l’étrangeté de son personnage. Donc en fin de compte, à part Woody, il n’y a que Penélope Cruz et Roberto Benigni qui jouent magistralement. L’un dans l’autre, Rome mérite quatre étoiles. Et maintenant, en route pour Copenhague avec Mikkelsen, Thomsen et Lie Kaas ! (17/08/2012)

Another bland and half dead film by Allen. Rome has a lot of charm, but it can’t do much by itself. Storywise, To Rome with Love is about nothing and when it comes to the humour, well, I chuckled a little here and there, but nothing hilarious, really. Everything is ruled by predictability and lack of interest. Even the on paper strongest and most original absurd story of a bureaucrat who becomes famous out of nowhere… Everyone knows how it will turn out: that the exaggerated interest by the press will vanish just as fast, that he will feel relieved immediately after, but soon will start to miss his fame. And that is actually it. I wasn’t crazy about Midnight in Paris, either, but objectively it’s substantially better than this one. (14/12/2012)

The narrative of To Rome with Love offers poor justification for the transparent attempt to cram into the film as many shots of picturesque Roman lanes and attractive tourist locations as possible – if the Italian way of life is thematised, it is without any sense of detachment, from the perspective of a person who is uncritically enthusiastic about everything Italian (food, opera, historical sights and the language, which are among the few aspects that make watching this film a tolerable experience). There is a minimum of jokes that require the viewer to think (and it’s better not to think too much even about the few better lines that Allen kept for himself) – more often, something “humorously” falls on someone or someone is caught in flagranti with someone else and, most often, i.e. through most of the film, nothing funny happens at all. Resignation to a more complexly constructed narrative – the stories are not connected by anything except the city and the subject of love, nor are they in any way intertwined, and due to their varying degrees of fantasticalness, it would have made more sense if one had just followed the end of the previous one. Blatant sexism in the treatment of the female characters – the more three-dimensional heroines (Greta Gerwig, Judy Davis) are given significantly less space than the passionate Anna, the superficial Monica and the unsophisticated Milly, for whom intimate contact with a man she only recently met is as natural a part of the day as morning hygiene. The hackneyed plots and the shared wisdom – if you are lenient enough to accept that Allen is telling us something other than “I visited Rome and had a wonderful time”. There is an excess of Allen’s neuroticism, probably in an attempt to save time on coming up with new characters – three agitated male characters are too many for one film. The result? Woody Allen’s weakest comedy (and I’ve seen What’s Up, Tiger Lily?). 50% (19/07/2012)

Woody Allen seems to be paying tribute to all the most romantic places in Europe. For the umpteenth time, he films a story of several people and couples that is equally entertaining and incredibly "heartwarming”, experiencing everything from falling in love, through everyday routine, to stormy breakups and the search for the meaning of life. Allen is traditionally strong in dialogue lines and gripping script twists in the almost intimate personal tales and thoughts of the main characters. It is very enchanting and very cleverly directed. Unfortunately, it is only for a very specific type of audience who enjoy these kinds of stories and see at least a partial reflection of their romantic selves in them. For the rest, it will just be empty blabber, always the same, with the incredibly gorgeous Penelope Cruz. (18/05/2013)

Although Woody’s previous visits to the old continent (and most of those to London too) are a cut above this, it doesn’t mean that this satirical farce in Rome isn’t any good. It is good, but at the same time too over-combined, so the good in it (and there’s lots of that) is mixed up with everything average to bad (and there’s a lot of that too). (13/07/2012)