Manhattan (1979) User Reviews

Magical film about the city and those looking for love

[j30bell · 9/10 · 5 January 2005]

Woody Allen once said that, whereas Scorsese had generated a host of imitators, he had generated none. This may be true; films like Manhattan certainly come along far too infrequently.

That this is such a gorgeous film may strike those following the formulaic, Hollywood approach to cinema as strange and heretical. The story is unexciting (restless male in love triangle), most of the characters are unsympathetic, at least on the surface (particularly Isaac), Allen leaves lose ends lying around all over the place, and there's certainly no action (unless you count the car-chase-without-a-chase-scene involving Diane Keaton, Woody Allen and a VW Beetle).

So why should any self-respecting member of the MTV generation spend time on this film? Well, here are a few reasons.

The script is wit of the highest order. This is not gag-a-minute humour like Friends, but an altogether more acute art form stemming from character, some wonderful dialogue and a fair amount of darkness (I love the bit about Isaac trying to run over his ex-wife's lover). Allen is also prepared to turn his biting satire to personal issues, such as being Jewish. Just don't expect someone to look shrug their shoulders, slap their forehead and with mid-rising intonation say d'uh! It's not that kind of comedy.

Then there is the gorgeous cinematography. Woody loves Manhattan and you can certainly tell. If there is one criticism of the film, it is that it leaves a rather picture postcard impression of the city, but I suppose if it's love, then it's love. Much of the film appears to have been shot at either sunrise or sunset to soften the light, and there are spectacular views of the towers, bridges and waterways of America's finest metropolis.

Then, I suppose, there is the fact that Manhattan is probably the archetypal Woody Allen film. Other films may be better, like Annie Hall or Hannah and Her Sisters but, in Manhattan, all the elements of Allen's style are in perfect balance. There's the jazz, the neurotic, unsympathetic lead, the choice between stable and highly-strung women, the self-mocking humour (hilariously done in the opening voice-over), the railing against intellectual snobbery, the deep unease with popular culture.

And there are great performances. Allen is at his most difficult – and in some ways his least likable. As Isaac, he's trying to do the right thing, but is rarely selfless enough to follow through with it. Diane Keaton is great as Mary, the lynchpin between the two love triangles – vain, pretentious and yet you can see why Isaac falls for her. Well, all the actors are great, and very believable, but special mention must go to Meryl Streep, who manages to steal the show with her tiny cameo as Isaac's ex-wife, writing a book about their break-up and living with their son and her lover. She is magnificent.

Of course, the film will also do nothing to dispel the popular rumour that New Yorkers are neurotic, self-obsessed and self-indulgent – at least that narrow social circle Allen so often writes about. If you don't mind that, though (and I'm English, so what do I care) you're in for a treat. As with the city itself, the memories of this film will stay with you forever.

"Chapter One. He was as tough and romantic as the city he loved. Beneath his black-rimmed glasses was the coiled sexual power of a jungle cat."

[ackstasis · 8/10 · 11 May 2007]

After the phenomenal success of 'Annie Hall,' the hilarious Oscar-winning comedy detailing the romantic exploits of neurotic Jewish comedian Alvey Singer, Woody Allen had become of America's most respected filmmakers. In 1979, he released what is generally accepted as his second great masterpiece, 'Manhattan,' a poignant tribute to the city that Allen loves so dearly. Written by Allen and his 'Annie Hall'-collaborator Marshall Brickman, 'Manhattan' stars Allen as Isaac Davis, a twice-divorced, 42-year-old comedy writer who is intimately involved with a 17-year-old high school student, Tracy (an Oscar-nominated Mariel Hemingway). Meanwhile, Isaac begins to fall for Mary (Diane Keaton), who is the secret mistress of his best friend (Michael Murphy). Adding to all of Isaac's troubles, his former second wife, Jill (Meryl Streep), who had originally left him for another woman, has plans to write a tell-all book on their failed marriage.

If this all seems very confusing to you, then you're not alone. Just as in 'Annie Hall,' Allen plays the hopeless romantic who is struggling desperately to understand the maddening complexity of human relationships. Though Tracy is only seventeen years old, she is arguably the most honest and mature of the women in Isaac's life; nonetheless, he doesn't treat her seriously. In his mind, anything that she says is quite obviously influenced by the naivety and downright ignorance of the young. Their relationship was never meant to be anything more than a brief "fling," and so he feels no guilt for seeing another woman behind his back, an act that makes him livid when it ultimately happens to him.

'Manhattan' was shot in beautiful crisp black-and-white by Gordon Willis, who has also worked on, among countless other films, 'Annie Hall' and the three installments of 'The Godfather.' The cinematography offers New York City a romantic 1940s feel, reminiscent of how Allen claims to remember the city as a child: "Maybe it's a reminiscence from old photographs, films, books and all that. But that's how I remember New York. I always heard Gershwin music with it, too. In 'Manhattan' I really think that we — that's me and cinematographer Gordon Willis — succeeded in showing the city. When you see it there on that big screen it's really decadent."

Mysteriously, this film remains the least-liked by the director himself, though, at the same time, it was also his most commercially successful. As you've no doubt already noticed from this review, 'Manhattan' is often likened to 1977's 'Annie Hall,' perhaps due to the repeated casting of Allen and Keaton (a not uncommon occurrence) or its similar attempt to uncover the elusive secrets behind love and relationships. In terms of film-making style, however, the films are quite dissimilar. Unlike the highly-energetic 'Annie Hall' – which cut back and forward in time, visited old memories, broke the fourth wall and made conversations with passing extras – 'Manhattan' boasts a more classical approach – quiet, softly-spoken and accompanied by a wistfully slow jazzy soundtrack, also relying heavily on the works of George Gershwin.

Neurotic in NYC

[evanston_dad · 9/10 · 4 February 2008]

Woody Allen has been churning out mediocre films for so long now that it's easy to forget how good some of his older films were. "Manhattan" is the product of Allen's "mature" 1970s phase, the phase that also produced "Annie Hall" and "Interiors," and it's a wonderful film. It's not the plot that makes it singular -- it's typical upper-crust New York Allen, full of neurotic people in therapy cheating on one another and making mistake after mistake in their pursuit of what they think will make them happy. No, what makes "Manhattan" so effective is its style. Filmed in black and white (because, as Allen's character says in an opening voice over, New York is a city that has always and will always exist in black and white), the film is a love letter to NYC, and it suggests that the neuroses that fill its denizens are as much a part of the city's character as its architecture, culture and diversity. I would instantly be annoyed by the people that populate Allen's films if I met them in any other context. As it is, I can't imagine any Allen film (at least not one set in New York) without them.

Grade: A

A maddening tribute to an egomaniac

[jz1360 · 1 February 2004]

I used to hold this film as somewhat of a sacred cow when I first saw it in 1979. I was a proscribed Woody fan and

although I still like a few of his movies, this is no longer one of them, on recent review.

I recently purchased copies of Manhattan and Annie Hall.

I watched the latter first and it charmed my socks off again. One classic scene after another signals the height of Allen's art in this hilarious masterwork. Manhattan is a different story.

Perhaps my recent viewing of Wild Man Blues has hipped

me to what an whining, pampered egomaniac Mr. Allen is.

Perhaps it's the irony of his Chaplin-like dalliances with young women that have set me against him. But I now watch Manhattan

and see a pathetic, overblown Allen literally feeding lines to his

fellow actors to give him some smarmy comeback that never fails to show how intellectually superior he is. Different from Annie Hall, Allen is no longer the underdog but an ugly, obnoxious

over-lord...

His characters in Manhattan, are cardboard. They are not real and

the situations are not real. I have no feeling for anyone in this

movie, except Woody, who I feel contempt for, given his massive

and unfunny self-indulgence. It's pathetic to see Allen set up

Hemingway with lines that a teenager would never say in a million

years, just to trump up his flaccid ego. Everyone in this movie actually feeds him lines to trump up his ego.

Like Stardust Memories, this one shows Woody at his self- indulgent worst. This movie looks wonderful and sounds wonderful with the Gershwin score, but on further review, this

one's hollow and ultimately a maddening tribute to an egomaniac.

Rhapsody in NYC

[tvspace · 10/10 · 25 January 2003]

Manhattan is an exhilarating American romance set against the backdrop of New York of the late 70's: my favorite New York, the New York of painters, poets, punks, and Pauline Kael. Three great, very American talents -- Woody Allen, Gordon Willis, and George Gershwin -- intertwine their respective gifts to create a comedy that manages to satisfy both the brain and the heart, and even, perhaps, the lower regions.

Allen is so brainy and such a nebbish that he can get away with gestures that would be painfully sentimental in the hands of any other director: when he begins the movie with fireworks cut to Gershwin, it isn't to soften you up for a soap opera, but to remind you that however much his neuroses may seem to drive the scenes, its the love of New York that drives the movie.

The entire cast is note perfect: Meryl Streep as his caustic bisexual ex-wife, Diane Keaton as a nervous journalist from Philadelphia, and especially Mariel Hemingway, whose performance as Allen's 17-year old girlfriend is charming, heartbreaking, and wise.

Allen's comedy here is at its absolute finest. The fact that it is interwoven with a genuinely moving love story told with a subtlety and indirection that is unheard of in today's mainstream cinema only makes the laughs that much richer.

Gordon Willis' cinematography is good enough for the Museum of Modern Art. Scene after scene leaves a grin on your face as his moving (in both senses) black and white photography floats across the screen.

And finally underlying everything is the music of George Gershwin, whose exubertant melodies propel the movie forward at every turn.

This is Woody Allen's best movie, a great movie, and an American movie in the best sense. As an homage to the city of New York it will surely remain unsurpassed.

"You should meet some stupid people once in a while"

[nickenchuggets · 9/10 · 23 September 2021]

Manhattan is a movie that illustrates perfectly well the funny nature of Woody Allen, even if he's not trying to be. This is an odd movie for the 1970s in my opinion because it was chosen to be made in black and white, when most films had transitioned to color in the mid to late 1960s. This was obviously an artistic decision on Allen's part, because it helps make this film feel more moody. Taking place in what many consider the greatest city of the world, Manhattan starts with a comedy writer named Isaac (Woody Allen) arriving at a restaurant in Manhattan accompanied by some friends and his current love interest, Tracy (Mariel Hemingway), who is over 2 decades younger than him. Yale (Isaac's friend), is busy cheating on his wife Emily with a girl named Mary (Diane Keaton). Isaac eventually gets introduced to Mary, but she's too arrogant for his tastes. Despite this, he eventually starts to like her, but knows he's making a mistake because he is still going out with Tracy. Eventually, Isaac confesses to Tracy that he's unable to take her seriously because she's so much younger than he is and breaks off the engagement. This coincides with Yale's decision to dump Mary. Isaac seizes on the opportunity and goes out with Mary, which leads to her basically living with him. Some time later, Mary announces that she wants to reenter her relationship with Yale, and Isaac is too stunned to express any anger toward her. Instead, he goes to the school Yale teaches at and knocks on his door when he's teaching a class. A big argument ensues, in which Yale insists he found Mary before his friend did. Isaac criticizes him for using what he thinks is a 5 year old's logic and leaves. After this, Isaac lays on his couch and talks into a tape recorder, where he subconsciously starts talking about how beautiful he thinks Tracy is. He leaves his apartment to go find her, only to find out she's about to leave for the UK. Isaac apologizes for saying he didn't like her anymore, but Tracy's parents have already arranged for her to live in London. She promises to return to him after half a year. This is a strange movie. There's a lot of funny parts in it, such as when Woody says how masculine he looks holding a cigarette, but the storyline is a little too simple to qualify for classic film status. It's essentially about relationships going wrong and Woody going back to Tracy after he realizes he made a mistake by dating Mary. Diane Keaton here reminds me of her performance in Annie Hall, meaning that it's terribly funny to watch. Her and Allen have many arguments throughout the movie, as well as moments where he tries to seduce her. The fact that Woody resembles such a stereotypical nerd makes it all the more hilarious and unexpected. It seems like Diane realizes this because after all, she leaves him at the end. There's also the situation regarding the famous bridge scene that is used on the poster for this movie. Apparently, it was shot at 5 o'clock in the morning and the city's government automatically activates the lights on the bridge at a certain time. Allen wanted the lights to remain on until the scene was ready, but when they started filming, one set of them burned out, and he was forced to use that footage. Tracy is (in my view) the most important character in this movie because Woody doesn't take her seriously at first, and makes sure she understands this. There's not much she can do to change his mind other than letting herself age. In the final scene, he does take her seriously because she is going to Britain by herself, meaning she is independent now. I also thought it was strange how this black and white movie says in the credits that it uses Technicolor. That I can't understand. In any case, Manhattan is a pretty somber movie, but like I said, you'll probably feel the need to laugh every time Woody opens his mouth.

A love song to Manhattan disguised as romantic comedy

[suze-4 · 10/10 · 14 May 1999]

I won't rework the thorough comments which preceded mine here, because all the accolades I would give this film are stated quite eloquently. It is his best film; it does contain brilliant insights into human nature; it is visually breathtaking. I just want to mention a few aspects from my point of view.

It has been on my list of the five best movies ever made ever since I saw it in 1979, chiefly for its realistic dialogue and probing commentary on the desperate nature of human beings in search of love, but I had never seen New York with my own eyes, so I could only try to accept but not fully understand Woody's love for Manhattan, which is firmly stated in the introductory narration.

After my recent 4 day trip there, I have a new perspective - the city itself is so charmingly and compactly laid out, so full of history and culture and everything famous, that you can't go to New York without falling in love with it. After only 3 days I felt I wanted to live there. It is the city of not only Woody Allen but Bob Dylan, Tennessee Williams, Edgar Allan Poe, George Washington, Paul Newman, Jacqueline Onassis, and hundreds of other illustrious and creative people of the past and present. The tour guides can't possibly squeeze in the whole story of every district and every building; the air just vibrates with this knowledge that you are in the greatest city in the world.

The beauty of Manhattan that Woody conveys so perfectly in every camera shot and through the music of Gershwin has new meaning for me because I was there. It's not so much a physical beauty but a feeling that all is right with the city, that this is what a city is supposed to be. It puts other cities to shame.

All I can say is he fully succeeded in conveying what New York City is like. Not to mention that I now understand the obsession with delis; they have the best food in the world.

I would also like to add my new perspective on the story itself - a very 70's plot of several people switching romantic partners back and forth at the drop of a hat. Diane Keaton's Mary remains the most perfect of the characterizations as the neurotic free spirit who despite her total self-absorption inspires our sympathy and affection. The 17 year old played by Mariel Hemingway is more irritating with the passage of 20 years, not because Woody's real-life obsession with young girls came to light, but because Mariel is a truly vapid non-actress with no ability to convey any depth or feeling. The constant commentary about her stunning beauty falls flat because she merely has a strikingly angular face, no personality and really possesses nothing except the bloom of youth and shiny hair. Mary rightly tells Isaac that his first wife becoming a lesbian "explains the little girl."

The denouement seems more unsatisfactory now than in previous viewings, and I want to shake the characters awake. But it was the seventies, and this is how people acted. It captures the times perfectly. I can't discuss who ends up with whom without spoiling the end for those who haven't seen it, but the problem for me is that the characters seem to live for the moment and if they can't have the one they want, they simply change partners without much strain.

This attitude does not play quite so charmingly at the end of the 90's when fidelity is valued more highly than it was in the 70's.

Nevertheless the beauty of the city stands alone no matter what the characters' desperate machinations.

And as a hilarious commentary on the human instinct to find someone to love no matter what the consequences, there is nothing finer. Though I might not approve of Isaac's final choice, his almost religious experience which brings him to that conclusion is a stunning climax to the film. Whether he changes his mind about who is the right one for him, he has learned something crucial about what really is important to him in life.

The true stars of the movie are Manhattan, never more beautiful, and Diane Keaton, never more brilliant.

For anyone who's been in love, or anyone who loves New York.

[Scorsese-2 · 10/10 · 3 January 1999]

No-one can question Woody Allen's status as one of America's premier film directors, and anyone well-versed with his works should not hesitate before nominating 'Manhattan' as his finest film. This movie is a masterpiece; visually and intellectually, it shows Woody Allen at the absolute peak of his art. Shot in a stylistic black and white widescreen format, the cinematography of 'Manhattan' is breathtaking, and Allen's dialogue and command of situation are even better than usual, if that is possible. The heartfelt angst and bittersweet hopelessness of the characters are uncamouflaged even by the sleek cinematographic style of the movie. This movie is Woody Allen's valentine to the city he has such a symbiotic relationship with, and nowhere have I seen New York filmed as artistically as here. Mariel Hemmingway and Diane Keaton give inspired performances around Woody's perfectly played character resulting in what can only be considered a modern masterpiece.

Great Execution, But Creepy Content

[hinfinityl · 6/10 · 29 July 2007]

From a technical standpoint, this film is top-notch - the acting is brilliant, the cinematography is beautiful, and the George Gershwin soundtrack is excellent.

But the content of the film is another thing. Basically, Woody Allen comes across as an egomaniacal creep who writes parts for himself in order to make him look like he's God's gift to women (there are so many references to his sexual prowess one could start a group drinking game based off it).

And anybody with even a beginner's understanding of adolescent psychological development knows that men who pursue teenage girls are sick and sadistic bastards who find joy in ruining promising young lives.

So my summary is: Like the film for its craft, but loathe the creator for his statement.

Allen's best

[rbverhoef · 9/10 · 12 April 2003]

'Manhattan' looks beautiful in black and white. It is definitely Woody Allen's best. Two years after 'Annie Hall' we have Woody Allen and Diane Keaton together again. Allen plays Isaac who is dating the 17-year old Tracy (Mariel Hemingway). He has a friend, the married Yale (Michael Murphy), who is having an affair with Mary (Diane Keaton). Isaac falls in love with Mary and stops seeing Tracy to start things with Mary. In a sub-plot we have the ex-wife of Isaac publishing a book about their sex-life. Now she is living with a woman. The ex-wife Jill is played by Meryl Streep. Her appearances are short and not very often but she is more than great in her scenes.

'Manhattan' is even better than the great 'Annie Hall'. The black and white cinematograpy, done with a good reason, gives a little extra to the movie. Like I said Streep is terrific and so are Allen, Keaton and especially Hemingway (she was nominated for an Oscar). The monologues Allen had in 'Annie Hall' are still present, smart, interesting and funny. A great story, very intelligent, of course written (and directed) by Woody Allen himself.

Not as I remembered

[TonyG-7 · 6/10 · 17 February 2003]

On the basis of one viewing about 20 years ago, I always considered this my favorite Woody Allen film. Upon further review, I am not so impressed. The cinematography is wonderful (I'm a sucker for New York, too), the acting is ok (Mariel Hemingway better than ok), and there are some good one liners, but, overall I found it boring and self-indulgent, especially in the directing. This film has no real reason for being...it's ultimately inconsequential. That makes me sad and now I have to watch my other favorites to see if they hold up. I still have hopes for Hannah, Misdemeanors, Purple Rose, & Love & Death. This one isn't in the pantheon anymore.

Woody at his Prime...

[Isaac5855 · 9/10 · 6 December 2005]

One of Woody Allen's best films was the quietly beautiful MANHATTAN, an economic and cleverly mounted comedy drama which stars Woody as a divorced writer (Allen) who is having an affair with a high school student (Mariel Hemingway) but feels the relationship is dead-end and then drifts into a relationship with his best friend's mistress (Diane Keaton). This is classic Woody, filled with snappy dialogue, unexpected plot twists and sparkling performances, especially by Keaton, Hemingway (who was nominated for an Oscar), and Michael Murphy as Woody's best friend...and it's all filmed in glorious black and white. I don't think the city that Woody loves so dearly has ever looked more glorious than it does in this film...this is definitely Woody's valentine to New York and it is a film made with delicacy and grace and, like most of Woody's films, features a beautiful musical score, a loving tribute to the magic of George Gershwin. If you're a Woody-phile, this one is a must.

Cult

[igornveiga · 7/10 · 23 July 2022]

Addressing various themes such as betrayal, friendship, forbidden love, anger, rancor, misogyny, homosexuality among other aspects, at this point the film is really very good, the very original and very unusual dialogues guarantee the work originality and the brand of the director. .

Despite this previous aspect, I felt that the film, despite being short, is a bit boring because it repeats certain dialogues three or five times, which is really boring.

Furthermore, the character played by Woody is perfectly irritating and controversial. Sometimes pretty funny.

What kind of people are these?

[fearless2003 · 2/10 · 19 May 2014]

Isaac, Mary and Yale... all 3 of them go back and forth between romantic partners, unable to decide on anything. They have the maturity of teenagers... Do 40 year olds like this exist? Yes, but it's just an unpleasant experience to watch them on screen. Is that the point? Maybe, but it doesn't make for a good movie.

Just when I think Isaac can't stoop lower, the movie ends with him trying to stop Tracey from going to London and actually getting a life of her own... let's be honest here... this guy is willing to destroy a 17 year old's life to deal with his loneliness.

The movie is self-aware about these issues... but so what? What makes it worth my time to watch immature people acting idiotically for 90 minutes... To let me know that some folks don't grow up?

If I wanted to watch 30-40 year olds behaving like teenagers and switching partners willy nilly, I can watch any American soap opera. Basically that's what this movie amounts to for me. It's dressed up in clever dialogue, but the substance is the same.

Nice cinematography but annoying characters

[kyto · 7 October 2004]

I watched Manhattan recently because i had never seen Woody Allen's films and heard this was one of his best.

I can see why people love this film, it certainly is quite original and a convincing snapshot of a group of friends in New York, but I found Woody's character just too excruciating self-possessed and irritating to enjoy the film overall.

I guess you either love him or hate him, but he reminded me of George Costanza on Seinfeld - i just wanted to shake him and say 'get over yourself!'.

As for the humor, there were a lot of attempted wit there but nothing that made me laugh out loud. I won't be a hurry to see any of his other films.

Cinemascope well used

[naveen_pun · 9/10 · 10 January 2008]

we all are fascinated by the cinema scope(CS) vision and what beautiful image it gives us. it is a debatable weather it resembles our normal vision or not but one things for sure we hardly give importance to things too far left and right of our vision. keeping this in mind its really not advisable to make use of it in each and every film. i have spent so much time writing so much about cinema scope is bcoz after watching several films i finally got to see an extremely good use of this sort of aspect ratio, WOODY has definitely made an important decision and has made the most of it.

the introduction of Manhattan in the early scene, the long walk of two friends after dinner, wide roads of the city, woody's apartment, Murphy's phone conversation, all shout out the brilliant use of CS. woody very smartly squeezes the frame by placing something in the foreground, or keeping the actors in a closer frame as and when required.

overall it gives us an expression of vastness of city and makes a exuberant locale for the characters to play their part. gordon willis' ligting also helps in making the picture look life-like and get the feel of manhattan(check out the use of no light,blackout) well to say the least i have never seen manhattan (with my own eyes) but because of such a detailed work i have a glimpse of it.

good work woody (your films have never failed to fascinate me no matter how many times i may see them)

Not just one of Woody Allen's best films, but a tie with Annie Hall as his masterpiece

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 24 February 2014]

Woody Allen is not for everybody and he is not the most consistent of directors, being hit-and-miss since Husbands and Wives(personal opinion that is). His best work to me spanned from late 70s to early/mid 90s, and Manhattan is a fine example of Allen at his best. Visually it is one of Allen's most technically accomplished and beautiful films, the cinematography is so fluid and Manhattan has to have one of the best depictions of New York on film. George Gershwin's music fits perfectly, whether upbeat, seductive or melancholic. How it meshed with the imagery and cinematography further added to the poignancy. The screenplay is one of the best of any Woody Allen film(personal vote for best is Annie Hall, one of the greatest scripts ever), one of his wittiest, most acerbic- the opening voice-over stands out- yet also perhaps his most emotionally investing. The trademark self-mockery and sharp observations are all here, and you could go as far to say that Manhattan is also one of Allen's most truthful, a lot of what is picked upon is true and come across so bluntly that it's painful which makes it all affecting. The story is paced deliberately but the telling of it is very compelling, with its fair share of hilarious and touching moments. If there was a list of Woody Allen films that merged comedy and drama the most effectively, Manhattan would definitely be on the list and towards the top. The characters are very human and handled gracefully rather than being boorish. They are not likable by all means, but considering Allen's tendency to make fun of things and people and to funny and honest effect it's clear that Allen wasn't intending them to be likable. The performances are top-notch, Allen admittedly works better in the comedic moments but he's still great, it is fun to see Meryl Streep in an early role and Michael Murphy and Anne Byrne are fine in support roles. Mariel Hemingway's vulnerability helps you relate to her without manipulating you to do so, but the best performance comes from Diane Keaton, at home in both comedy and drama she is wonderful throughout. All in all, a Woody Allen masterpiece, and don't let the 17/42-age relationship distract you too much as it is handled much more tastefully than it could easily have done. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Girls mature faster than guys... The growing pains of a man and a woman in the heart of metropolis.

[Howlin Wolf · 10/10 · 11 February 2008]

Woody puts on film how he learned about how callous relationships can be. He did it the hard way.

He sees in his young companion that she is a beautiful 17 year old, when he is 42. It's the vanity of kidding yourself that you can still be physically appealing to such a fresh beauty; plus he got to parade her in front of his friends, as a token of imagined success. If a gorgeous young girl of that age really showed interest in an older man, he's going to think long and hard about not passing up the opportunity, because you don't get those lost years back. It also panders to his lustier instincts, as well.

She probably would be lifeless, unenthusiastic, bored and boring to a middle-aged man who was not undergoing a life-crisis, but her youth was what fooled Ike into sometimes temporarily thinking he had it good in his life. She gave him a sense of relevance about himself as he fancied he could somehow pull off being a mentor and a lover all rolled into one. I think the point was that he deliberately chose a passive youngster that he could impose his tastes onto, because at the end when she starts to assert her independence, he isn't happy about it. The contradiction within those circumstances is that he can only wholly fall for someone who challenges him; that person in this case is the older Diane Keaton character.

Maybe I'm wrong... but I hated Woody's character from almost immediately into this, and the last scenes made it all worthwhile to me and justified my caring about what happens to him, because it's such a turnaround.

All through the movie he is using her and telling her that their relationship will only ever be a rest-stop on the path of her life, so when she finally assimilates that attitude, the hapless man can only tell her that his previous philosophising was hollow. He pretends to base his decisions on what's best for both of them, but really his choices are dictated only to afford himself an easier escape route, in the future. I'm a guy, I've had this done to me by a woman in the past, and to see naivete parlayed as a tactic again, by either sex, was painful. Thus I was gratified to see that the tables are swiftly turned at the resolution, and he is the member of the pair that is now suddenly finding themselves craving reassurance.

It's a note of admittance to end on that will maybe help change his attitude to relationships in the future, and it inspires a kind of hope in the watching audience by suggesting that perhaps we can all learn from our mistakes, no matter how harsh they have to get. If I'm right, it was very brave of Woody to have his character be left so vulnerable in the end by his own narcissism. Granted it's not your typical overblown finish, but it was at least more illuminating to me. Even if I am the only one...

Woody Allen still puzzles over love

[zsigomiklos · 9/10 · 16 July 2007]

I like Woody Allen movies but I have to admit this one was not my favourite. I do not know why but the fact of the 17 years old girl's love made my heart feel bad. I can see that she was supposed to display that there are no confines between two people loving each other even if the difference of age is 25 years. The main problem was that Isaac Davis (Woody Allen) did not believe from the very beginning that their love could come true. He believed in such a firm way which made me loose interest focusing on his and Tracy's (Mariel Hemingway) relationship. But on the other hand, it is a terrific example for love finding people at random.

After the appearance of Mary Wilkie (Diane Keaton) there was a slight turn in the film as it was a kind of predictable that her and Isaac would find each other sooner or later. I think, she delivered a memorable performance and I cannot comprehend why she did not get nominated for an Academy Award.

Anyway, Manhattan is a delightful film with the usual Woody Allen message.

9 OUT OF 10

Manhattan Review

[hourmatt326 · 7/10 · 17 December 2014]

Manhattan is an interesting film by Woody Allen, The story and dialogue between the characters is more serious and believable than in the only other film I saw Annie Hall. The humor also didn't seem forced or written in just to make something funnier, the jokes were naturally funny. I still don't like the fact that Woody Allen casts himself in the lead part when he could easily get someone much better to play the part. The supporting cast is also really good as it usually is in these kinds of Woody Allen films. The style of the film I also enjoyed with the black and white and great use of shadows gives it a old timey feel to it that helps the film in a way. Overall, Manhattan isn't a bad film, I enjoyed it more than I did Annie Hall, but there were still some things I would've liked to see Woody Allen do differently along the lines of the story and cast. That is why Manhattan gets a 7/10.

A study about a troubled man

[lucasespindola-91322 · 8/10 · 13 January 2021]

Let me get this out of the way: I'm a big Woody Allen fan. And this flick is absolutely and utterly his. From the black and white to the ambience and, of course, the dialog, it all screams Woody Allen as loud as it can. As most of his movies, Woody is not simply playing a character, nor simply being himself. It is a mix, a blend between a real man and a made up persona. And, as always, the line is weirdly blurry, making it so, at times, you're watching a documentary. The plot itself is not the central point of the story and, at times, it is hard to understand exactly what it is leading to. No, the focus of the story is the characters. Characters like Isaac, Yale and the city. Specially the city. It is an homage to a now distant past of history, viewed from the lens of a troubled mix of a real and fictional man. It is hard to defend most of Isaac's actions. And it is way harder to get mad at them. It is a movie about imperfection, ego, society, intellectuals and love. And it is great. A great movie to be rewatched as many times as you can.

A disgruntled love letter

[tonosov-51238 · 7/10 · 13 November 2023]

I seriously doubt that this story is going to resonate with anyone more than a movie like Annie Hall. This includes people from Manhattan, too. In the same self-flagellating gesture, Allen yet again sums up that customary (for his circle) romantic relationships are perpetuated by nothing more than foolhardy children, who half of the time don't know what they want and the other half lament not knowing.

Gordon Willis has finally shown him all the ropes, helping him make probably one of the most striking black-and-white pictures of the 1970s. Exceptional blocking and amazing work with shadows and silhouettes. The direction and cinematography probably absolve the movie of the myriad things I have issues with. If Annie Hall was unassuming but effective, then Manhattan is so caught in its menagerie of cuckholds and hypocrites that by the end, Isaac's relenting smile means 10 times less than a peeping shot from a cafe. I also do not enjoy anything about the cast's performance beyond the theme they are play-acting. Not from Hemingway, not from Michael Murphy. Even Keaton feels like she is just imitating her previous character, with less presumptuousness and creativity in the portrayal of the doomed relationship. But I guess people would eat Woody Allen alive if he had animated cutaways and comical flashbacks in this one too.

A generation's portrait

[frarandone · 9/10 · 2 February 2015]

I'm nineteen years old and I've watched this film through the eyes of a girl of the 2015. I can honestly say that I've been very impressed by the detached and ingenious sarcasm with which Allen depicts a generation, his generation.

In Manhattan I've seen first of all the portrait of a generation, the generation of those who lived their forties in Manhattan, the symbol of everything that could be achieved in the 80s. And the portrait depicted is not softened at all, since every single adult in this movie is a neurotic mess. There are adults afraid of cancer, adults that plan to write books they will never end, adults that put their life in the hands of LSD-addicted analysts, adults that talk about orgasms, adults devastated by dull, mediocre men imagined as "gods", adults that waver between homo, bi and heterosexuality, adults that pretend to be intellectuals and try to judge Mozart, Bergman and Scott Fitzgerald, adults whose relationships are stable just as the weather is, adults that act like they believe in the highest values but that in the end need a seventeen-year-old girl to find their balance. And those are the same adults that despise the generation brought up by the TV and the pill.

This show of absurdities is well hosted by Isaac Davis, Woody Allen himself, that unprejudiced as always, hides all these paradoxical situations behind a good amount of irony. If I had to make a comparison with a more recent movie, I would say that what Allen did with his generation has been done by Tony Servillo with the current fifty-year-old Roman VIPs, in his latest work La Grande Bellezza.

Irony, good acting and a good soundtrack always make a movie worth watching. And this movie can boast the best of everything.

Allen is unbelievable!

[JohnHowardReid · 7/10 · 19 May 2017]

My main objection to this film is that I just cannot accept Woody Allen as a desirable lover. I think he's ugly and that the character he portrays is highly unsympathetic. However, this doesn't seem to worry most people who have seen the film and thoroughly enjoyed it. The boys seem to feel that if Woody Allen can make it with the girls, there's hope for them too, and the girls seem to argue that Woody is such a mental giant and such a celebrity it would be an honor to be seen in his company!

Once you accept the romantic scenes as perfectly natural and even desirable, and once you accept the Woody Allen character as the sympathetic hero he obviously wants you to accept him as, then the whole film falls into place and you laugh at all the jokes and you become emotionally involved in all the situations and you identify with the hero in his battles against the other characters and against the city itself.

Identification completed, the Gershwin music, the skilfully framed, large screen, black and white photography, and the playing by all the other members of the cast (particularly Michael Murphy, Diane Keaton, Meryl Streep and Mariel Hemingway) is then meshed by writer/director Allen into a very satisfying and entertaining whole. But I just cannot accept Woody Allen that way. I like him the way he was in "Bananas" and "A Walk with Love and Death" or even "Play It Again Sam" — the perennial fall guy!

Arrogant

[christophe92300 · 4/10 · 18 April 2013]

It seems Woody Allen wanted to denounce the pseudo-intellectualism, yet Manhattan is overly arrogant, like its ultra verbose dialogues, based on almost ridiculous, pedant and excluding accumulations of art references.

The viewer finds himself enduring this long and boring movie, oozing self-sufficiency, which script boils down to a succession of scenes more boring one from another. The different angles don't work, or with difficulty: it is sometimes funny but it is too sporadic, the drama lacks stakes; only the romance aspect manages not too badly, and still, it is far from excellent.

If there was anything to save, it would be the stylish cinematography with some well thought-out shots, but it's just not enough to make Manhattan a good film.