capricornius
This is a great movie. Far better than I expected; I'm not the biggest fan of movies set in the past, though.
It's a great mix between drama and comedy, I would definitely buy this on DVD if I should find it.
But I just don't get why it's taking place in the 1930's, in my opinion the movie would be just as good if it took place in out time.
And, again in my opinion, I feel that Steve Carrell is slightly miscast in that role, I'd prefer someone like John C. McGinley or someone like that instead.
But otherwise it's a great movie.
I'd give it 80%, or 8/10.
davidstork
What can only be described as a wandering, aimless exploration of a story with no emotional resonance to speak of. Saved by good (though clearly overrated, judging by the number of reviews lauding it) cinematography and a nostalgic set, this movie is weakest in its writing, which is an excruciating combination childish simplicity and unbearable pretension. The score in this film was easily one of the worst ever put to the screen, and it was repeated, like clockwork, over and over again even in the middle of scenes. Steve Carell and Kristen Stewart did the best with what they had given this atrocious screenplay, but the male lead was horrendously miscast and Blake Lively gives one of the worst performances of her normally solid career. To paraphrase a review from a Seattle (I think) journalist I thought summed up this movie best, this film could best be described as a half-assed reboot of itself.
ElMaruecan82
Watching "Café Society" was such a depressing and frustrating experience I couldn't believe I "owed" it to Woody Allen. But on second thoughts, it makes sense because only a director of his caliber, one who accustomed us to thought-provoking and/or heart-warming gems of originality, could heighten our expectations so high they would literally smash into deception, breaking in thousand pieces of disbelief. That's how I felt when the film ended, it wasn't even bad, it was just a lame and lackluster attempt to explore all the usual shticks for a plot so vacuous it wasn't even "interestingly" bad.The story? In a nutshell (and I mean a very small one), a young New Yorker named Bobby (Jesse Eisenberg) wants to work in Hollywood for his uncle, a rich and famous producer (that's for the pleonasm) named Phil Stern (Steve Carell). Phil has a mistress, his secretary Vonnie (Kristen Stewart), naturally, Bobby falls in love with her, the resulting triangle cannibalizes the first act until Vonnie picks Phil and we can't even tell if she chose him like she meant it. Never mind, a defeated Bobby goes back to his Big Apple of a hometown, and with the help of his gangster brother, he opens a restaurant, meets a young woman (Blake Lively), they marry and have a kid. Bobby meets Vonnie again, she's married, they share a romantic night in Central Park. Then they get back to their lives and the film ends with the two of them feeling alone.I could mention that there's a criminal subplot supposed to spice the film a little, but you might as well throw a pinch of salt and pepper on Lake Ontario. One could say that it's not "what" happens but the way it happens. Sorry, but even the treatment couldn't have been worse if it was someone trying to imitate Allen. Each element of the story is a poor man's version of what he did before, and better. The real love letters to Hollywood and show business were "Broadway Danny Rose", "The Purple Rose to Cairo" and "Bullets Over Broadway". The bittersweet romance is an Allen staple ever since "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan", the Jewish family element has never been as endearing as in "Radio Days". There's not a single element that doesn't feel like we've seen it before.But even then, it would have been acceptable if it these ersatz were half as good as their originals. Woody Allen has lost his touch on this one, so bad it hurts. Eisenberg tries desperately to make an impression of Allen in his early scenes, falling in a similar trap than Kenneth Branagh in "Celebrity"... why all the actors feel the need to impersonate Alvy Singer when they're in a Woody Allen film? Now, Kristen Stewart isn't bad but the role is rather unflattering, she just plays a secretary who goes from being an unpretentious free-spirited girl above the 'starlet' mentality, to a sophisticated socialite. In between, she's torn between the two men and you can tell she tries to get rid of that awkward 'puzzled' expression inherited from the 'Twilight' series. You can tell that for youngsters Eisenberg and Stewart, working with Allen was a wet dream, but I wonder if they were really pleased to play such bland and dull roles. Even Steve Carell isn't given many scenes to shine, everything is handled in a casual, peaceful and matter-of-factly way. And if the romance is toned down and subdued, Allen insists on the ethnic element more than needed. Allen has always been a window to New York Jewish culture, but talk about overplaying it. If another director made the same film, let alone a Gentile, this would have been raised a big polemic and even accusations of stereotypical portrayals.I always laugh at Allen's references to a nagging Jewish mother figure or his interaction with his rabbi, this is one of the defining elements of Allen's humor, just like self-derision is prevalent in Jewish humor, but in "Café Society", it is overused to the point of… pointlessness. So, the producer is Jewish, the nephew works for his father, a Jeweler, named Marty, his mother is a version of Julie Kavner after she went in a dryer, overcooking food because of germ-phobia and uttering Yiddish expressions just in case we forgot. Even the prostitute in Hollywood, happens to be Jewish. I swear there are more ethnic references in "Café Society" than all of Woody Allen's movies combined. That critics would point it this characteristic in an Allen film can give you an idea of how serious it is.We would have guessed Bobby's background without it be thrown to our faces every forty-seven seconds. If it was a religious film à la "A Serious Man" (the underrated masterpiece from the Coen Brothers) it would have made sense, but here, it was uncalled for. This insistence from Allen on elements of the background while the plot was devoid from the usual excitement and creativity left me puzzled. I didn't know if I had to be angry or sad, but I guess I'm worried. I felt like Allen lost his touch and could only rely his story on (another) nostalgic letter to Hollywood, New York and his Jewish roots. In fact, there's a well-meaning intent behind "Café Society", but I felt like an over-nostalgic, maybe melancholic (or mildly senile) Allen made it.2016 wasn't the best year for homage to old Hollywood anyway, both "Café Society" and the Coens's "Hail Caesar" were forgettable movies but they say a lot about the evolution of filmmaking, forcing directors to be reminiscent of good old days, "La La Land" did better without turning it into a period movie. I hope that excess of nostalgia doesn't mean Woody Allen lost his touch with the present. I hope this is just a misstep and that he has one or two masterpieces under his sleeve.
massimostrino-11411
I could have spent the 1h 35 minutes length of this movie watching the traffic moving by from my living room window and be more entertained! Boring is the only word I can come up to describe this movie. Really, go take a walk, browse the web, check some kittens on Facebook...it all will be more meaningful in the end than watching this trite, soapy, stereotyped, boooriiiiiing movie! BTW...I used to love Woody Allen movies, but now I think he just keeps making movies because he can, although he has nothing left to show us! Boring! No redeeming qualities, boring! Did I mention how boring this movie is?
