Scoop Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1280x688 | 4477.93 MiB | 720p | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
The perfect man. The perfect story. The perfect murder.
A young journalist student, Sondra Pransky, travels from America to England to interview a famous actor. After the not-so-complete interview her friend and she go to a magic show. When selected to take part in one of the acts Sondra is contacted by a recently deceased famous journalist who is determined to give her his last scoop. He tells her that the son of Lord Lyman, Peter Lyman, is the tarot card killer. Dragging along Sid Waterman, a kooky magician, Sondra attempts to discover who Peter Lyman really is and if he is a killer. What she doesn't realize is that while she is trying to protect the country of England her heart might be what is really in jeopardy.
| Hugh Jackman | Peter Lyman |
| Scarlett Johansson | Sondra Pransky |
| Geoff Bell | Strombel's Co-Worker #2 |
| Christopher Fulford | Strombel's Co-Worker #3 |
| Nigel Lindsay | Strombel's Co-Worker #4 |
| Ian McShane | Joe Strombel |
| Fenella Woolgar | Jane Cook |
| Doreen Mantle | Joe's Co-Passenger #1 |
| David Schneider | Joe's Co-Passenger #2 |
| Meera Syal | Joe's Co-Passenger #3 |
| Kevin McNally | Mike Tinsley |
| Robyn Kerr | TinsleyÂ’s Fan #1 |
| Richard Stirling | Tinsley's Fan #2 |
| Jim Dunk | Funeral Speaker |
| Romola Garai | Vivian |
| Woody Allen |
6.80 out of 10 (9866 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Painful to sit through
posted on 28 Aug 2009I don't know; the film would have enough going for it. It has an intriguing plot, an almost great cast, and Woody Allen is directing and writing this so it *must* be a masterpiece albeit not as wonderful as his earlier works.It fell flat, unfortunately. The main problem is Scarlett Johansson. I felt that her character could have been better played by a better actress. I felt that Scarlett has not really mastered the ability to captivate audiences without having to create hype for herself. You could really tell she was acting; she was not really into the character at all. She stars alongside Woody Allen, Hugh Jackman, among others, and quite frankly they overshadow her performance. I thought it's especially important to point her out because by watching her, I felt that I was watching a horribly campy young female version of Woody. She does NOT have the charisma or charm to play this type of character. In my opinion, it was definitely her fellow cast members that saved this sinking ship of a movie.The story itself is not completely original, and will remind Woody fans of earlier works. Various concepts and ideals remain similar. I suggest skipping this film; not worth it at all.
crappy - stupid - waste of time
posted on 28 Aug 2009if you like the old rambling and not funny old koger that is woody Allen then you might like this movie. if however you do not and you prefer movies with good acting and clever humor then avoid this dumb stupid movie. what a complete waste of $5 at blockbuster - not even worth the dirty chewed gum that my shoe collected on the way out of the store. this movie really isn't even worth writing a review because i will never recover the lost time from writing this. but being a good citizen and overall a pro-human activist I'm wasting the time to save you time. my hope and dream is that you will read this and heed my warning to avoid this utterly, hopelessly, stupid stupid movie. Woody Allen's jokes are just not funny, and i want to punch him in his stupid saggy face every time he just rambles and stutters his every word (which is all the time). and poor Scarlett, a true victim of bad direction. it really feels like woody spoon fed her her every line. "here, uhh uhh, yy-yyou know, i i i i th-th-th-think you you you sh-sh sh should say this cause i mean you know, i mean twelve birds and a canary and i mean well dear j-just i mean ... I'm an idiot!" you get the point. woody Allen sucks and so does this movie.
Couldn't believe my eyes
posted on 26 Aug 2009I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Despite having similarities to others (what doesn't today). I found the story line to be very enjoyable and humorous. What I didn't like and couldn't believe no one else had written about was complete the lack of a competent crew Woody must have had with him to allow such an amateurish error to occur when it came to framing the scenes. Didn't you all see the boom microphone? Well, if you missed it you must be blind. In nearly every up-close dialogue shot there was a microphone of some kind hanging down into the top frame of the picture. Sometimes it was a shadow and sometimes it was the huge caterpillar microphone (used outdoors presumably). Woody Allen needs to call up George Lucas and have him digitally remove the mics before the DVD release. How is it possible they didn't catch this in the Dailies. How embarrassing. Poor Woody.
Woody Allen should never be in another movie
posted on 24 Aug 2009Oh my god! Wood Allen is not funny. I like and can appreciate virtually all types of humor and just listening to him makes me cringe. I actually had to not watch him while he talked so I could get through the movie. Maybe if there was just a tiny bit of him in it it would not have been completely unbearable but he sucks the life out of this movie. Everything he says is totally predictable and there was only one thing I thought was marginally funny. I know it's his shtick but that endless stammering and then.....payoff...the same joke again and again and again! Wow, what a genius! And his fakey dialog and bad acting are catching. Scarlett J was twitchy and unbelievable in every scene with him. Hugh Jackman gave an Academy Award performance in comparison. He was horribly out of place because he could act--until the end at least. He must have just given up by the time it was filmed. What an awful movie.
OK but lacks spark, wit, mystery and fun in the required quantities
posted on 29 Jul 2009Sondra Pransky is an American journalism student who is keen but perhaps not all that able. In London to interview a famous actor, Sondra goes along to a magic show with her British friends and finds herself part of a vanishing act. In the box she is confronted by the spirit of recently deceased journalist Joe Strombel who has escaped the underworld temporarily to give her the scoop that aristocrat Peter Lyman is an infamous serial killer. After some fact checking (on Google) Sondra returns to the magic show and convinces magician Sid Waterman to let her go into the box again. Joe appears again and gives her more info and Sondra drags Sid into her investigation of the enigmatic and handsome Peter Lyman, only to find her heart conflicting with her head.Recently I was fortunate enough to see an advance screening of Woody Allen's latest film (Vicky Christina Barcelona) and it made me remember how much I liked the guy and encouraged me to see some of his more recent films that I had skipped or had never made it to the UK. Scoop was one of these and it is pretty much self-explanatory as to why I missed it because it is simply not that good a film. For fans of Allen it all appears to be here in line with his recent work in its English setting, it themes of class and also elements of his less recent stuff in regards the wit and the mystery aspect of it. The plot engages reasonably well but somehow it lacks any sort of spark or life to it and in this regard it is quite the polar opposite of the recent VCB, which sizzled across the screen.OK in fairness they are different films but Scoop has clear targets but doesn't really hit them. The wit in the dialogue is OK if you like Allen doing his usual stuff but for the majority of viewers it will seem old and tired, with too few laughs to pick it up. The mystery is OK but moves a bit too slowly and doesn't have the sort of fizz and "fun danger" that I wanted it to have, while the romance side doesn't really work that well. I'm not saying that the film is bad, because it is not – it is just "OK", and I say that as someone who generally likes Woody Allen films. Considering it is barely 90 minutes long, the film feels quite slow, like it has heavy feet in some ways. The cast don't help much. Allen himself is fine but after seeing this act so many times, it does need to do something good to still impress and, sadly, his material is not that funny. Johansson is not a great actress and she has demonstrated this several times. When she gets the part that suits her then she is good but here she cannot carry off this character without hamming and just appearing silly. Jackman doesn't have much to do other than appear dashing, handsome, charming and be cut like a freaking steak – all of these things he can do and does do. McShane shows up along with many other faces that will be recognised by British viewers but nobody really impresses because they don't have the material to impress with.Scoop is OK, that's about as much as I can say on it. While it is reasonably engaging and amusing, it is never that good or that funny and it does rather drag its feet at times. Fans of Allen will get something from it but those already not sure why people like his films will find little here to change their minds.
Underrated
posted on 23 Jul 2009Even third rate Allen is a few notches funnier than the best dreck Hollywood offers, and all Allen films get better with successive viewings. This tale- a bit over an hour and a half, uses several key themes in the Allen canon- sex, deceit, lies, murder, and magic, and also has much in common with 1993's underrated Manhattan Murder Mystery, his terrific 1984 film, Broadway Danny Rose- perhaps his best straight comedy, and some of 1989's Oedipus Wrecks- from the New York Stories trilogy film Allen did with Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola. Johansson plays Sondra Pransky, a college student in England who is studying journalism. She is selected out of the audience by the Great Splendini (Allen), whose real name is Sid Waterman. What works well is that Johansson is a very good comedienne, and much more believable in this role than her role as the bitchy siren in Match Point. Unlike many other Woody persona stand-ins of the last twenty years, she handles his humor without aping the Woody persona (see John Cusack in Bullets Over Broadway, Kenneth Branagh in Celebrity, or Will Ferrell in Melinda And Melinda), and may be the best Allen comedienne after Diane Keaton…. So, when you read negative reviews of this film, which might compare it to some of his decidedly lighter weight comedies like Small Time Crooks (which was still funnier than a Wayans family film), do not believe it. Scoop is a good movie- a very good movie, and in her second pairing with Allen, Scarlett Johansson proves that while she may never be the sex symbol/screen siren type in the Angelina Jolie/Halle Berry/Catherine Zeta-Jones mold, she can do comedy the way none of them can. And, since few have ever done comedy equal to or better than Allen, I predict an Oscar for her in the very near future- and, for a change, she may be the rare starlet who'll deserve such kudos.As for Allen? Now with his Woody persona killed, one can only hope that the behind the scenes Allen will concentrate more on screenplays in the Match Point vein, and produce a few latter-day gems to bookend such Golden Era fare as Stardust Memories, Radio Days, and Crimes And Misdemeanors. And if Johansson is in a few, so much the better, for an Annie Hall for a younger generation could never be considered a bad thing.
About London and Woody Allen and Scarlett...
posted on 19 Jul 2009I have discovered two things. The first one is pretty interesting and evident and it is that Woody Allen is falling in love with the city of London, because he's done two inspired films there; the second one is understandable and obvious: Woody Allen has fallen in love with Scarlett Johansson...And who hasn't? These two facts lead two "Scoop", the second movie of the inspired Allen London works, which has Scarlett Johansson as the leading lady."Scoop" went clearly unnoticed (as in unappreciated) in the United States, surely because Allen premiered it too soon after the brilliant "Match Point" and the public wasn't able to digest it. I'm not saying that "Scoop" is another masterpiece, but if people had paid more attention, the results would have been cherished. After all, it is Allen's best crime/comedy work in years; his best comedy since "Hollywood Ending" ("Anything Else" was not good) and the best mix since "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion".It's also a blessing to have the man himself back in the cast, after he's given the responsibility to play his self-written roles to young actors like Jason Biggs and to interesting choices like Will Ferrell. If Woody Allen writes a film, the best actor to play the kind of masculine parts he creates is Woody Allen. Those exaggeratedly manic, hyperactive and demonstrative men we know by heart. This time he has chosen a magician called Sidney who every time he uses a member of the audience to perform a trick, gives the same speech: "I want you to know that, with all due respect, I think you're a beautiful person and I love you…I say it from the bottom of my heart and I mean it".The lucky lady that one day gets to be onstage with Sydney is Sondra (Johansson), an aspiring journalist who, in the middle of the magic trick, meets a dead recognized reporter (Ian McShane) that tells her the scoop: "Peter Lyman is the Tarot killer the police is looking for". Soon, both magician and girl are in the middle of a strategy to meet Lyman, the son of an English Lord. Hugh Jackman plays this character with all the manners and vocabulary of a respected English gentleman who, of course, doesn't seem a killer at all.Events unfold with the usual Allen style and a similar line of technical work that what we saw in "Match Point". Again, the director looks for shots that explore the places the characters meet, moving the camera from one side to another; and the look of London isn't a lot different of the one he presented in his last picture. With a beautiful cinematography by Remi Adefarasin, Allen made the right call when choosing the British again for the job.However, he's made a little change in the music choice. Leaving the Opera aside, he's selected classical music that's been correctly edited to generate the necessary dramatic impact on the most striking scenes. Luckily, his work with actors is intact and if he's fallen for Scarlett Johansson he's fallen for good; because he gets the best out of her. But watching the old Allen doing his thing at this age and doing it with style is no more than priceless.
Good Woody Allen? Definitely!
posted on 15 Jul 2009Great Woody Allen? No. Good Woody Allen? Definitely. I found myself, along with the audience in attendance, laughing hard and often at some of the best Woody Allen lines we've heard in a while. The aging Allen created an appropriate role for himself as Scarlett Johansson's "father" ... well, sort of. Some have said Johansson plays "a young Dianne Keaton." I beg to differ. She plays Woody's dialogue, which, in his comedies, always has a very similar feel...like, well, a Woody Allen comedy. That's fine for us Woody appreciators. She certainly did Woody's dialogue far better than the young cast of his last comedy, Melinda/Melinda. Some may find Woody's humor tiresome, but for those of us who love it when it's done right, we look forward to the next.
An Interesting Scoop
posted on 09 Jul 2009What would you be willing to do for a great news scoop? A late top-journalist Joe Strombel (Ian McShane) appears to a starting, young journalist student Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson) from beyond the grave and tells a big scoop concerning a Tarot-card killer who is murdering prostitutes in London. Sondra begins to investigate the murders with a help of a magician The Great Splendini aka Sid Waterman (Woody Allen). Strombel tells Sondra that a rich heritor Peter Lyman (charismatic Hugh Jackman) is the killer who murders women like Jack the Ripper himself. Can the charming Peter Lyman be a ruthless killer? Woody Allen has once again directed a marvelous and entertaining light comedy with a competent cast. Allen's neurotic humor flourishes and the grand-master himself makes a hilarious performance as a better-days exceeded magician. Allen is one of the screenplay and film-makers who can get away with "Scoop" kind of, unrealistic story. That is simply that way because Allen has created his own world and left a mark in film-industry. "Scoop" isn't the sharpest of his comedies but it is enjoyable and establishes to give some huge laughs.Scarlett Johansson and Hugh Jackman team up again after Christopher Nolan's magical "The Prestige". "Scoop" has it some magical surroundings, too. It is delightful to see that Scarlett Johansson possesses also a comedienne talent.A worth for watch!
As painful as a high school play
posted on 07 Jul 2009After having been continuously chastised by friends for not liking Woody Allen movies, I felt obliged to give the man another chance. Being a huge Dostoyevsky-fan, I first turned to "Match Point" and was not impressed (4/10). I was then assured that "Scoop" was a complete eye-opener and would definitely and finally convert me to Allenism, so I gave it a try.Now, I am not very picky when it comes to comedies, and there is very little that does NOT make me laugh. However, this movie did not even make me smile. Instead I am left with a massive headache from the horribly wooden acting (no pun intended) in this failed attempted at humour. How could anyone possibly manage to direct such an incredible cast into the ground? Admittedly, both Scarlet Johansen and Hugh Jackman have had moments of not-so-glorious acting in their careers, but this latest performance is plain embarrassing, as is the constant nervous over-acting by Woody Allen. Short appearances by such English heavy-weight actors as Ian McShane or Kevin McNally add a small amount of flavour (hence 2/10 stars, instead of only 1), but otherwise this remains largely a scoop of manure.If you are a fan of Woody Allen movies, you will probably enjoy this. It seems that most fans do. Anyone who has to role their eyes and moan in pain when hearing Allen rant on about the different shades of red or deliver such pseudo-witty lines as "I never grow fat because my anxiety acts as a form of aerobics", then you will be as annoyed as I was. Grab a mystery comedy by the Coen brothers or any of the recent popular romantic comedies ("Hitch", "Wedding Crashers", "Shopgirl", "Garden State"... must I go on?) instead of wasting your evening. For me, this was clearly the last Woody Allen film I will ever watch.
light entertainment during a depressing moment in history
posted on 13 Jun 2009I agree with many of the more thoughtful and knowledgeable comments re: Woody Allen redux. However, given our depressing world situation these days, this movie was a pick-me-up.It's fresh,humorous, great scenery, great looking actors and funny Woody--great role for himself this time. My advice, don't expect much and you will be well entertained.Regarding Woody Allen in general, it is surprising that with such talent , there are big holes in the plots. SPOILER discussion to follow:There are dangling clues of sorts--clues to people's characters that never get followed up (Peter Lyman's mother was unfaithful, and had short brown hair; Betty G had blond hair that he made her dye brown--and Sondra has blond hair, etc.). And then there are developments in some of his plots, such as this one, that simply contradict part of the original plot. Going back to the original scoop--given to Joe at the beginning of the movie, Peter Lyman is supposed to have poisoned the secretary. But it turns out that she is dead before P.L. commits his murder (Betty G). Etc. Wonder why no one catches these inconsistencies before the movie gets made?
Poop Scoop
posted on 13 Jun 2009This film is not as bad as Match Point, Woody Allen's previous project using BBC finance. It is just ordinarily terrible, the kind of lazily plotted murder mystery that you find on UK television any Sunday evening. Allen is clearly besotted with Scarlett Johansson even to the fetishistic extent of making her wear ugly spectacles. Unfortunately she cannot act. Lines that might just have been funny if spoken by Diane Keaton or Mia Farrow are completely misjudged. Despite Allen's obvious obsession with Johansson, there is a lack of chemistry between the two characters on screen. In this film we do not even get the usual brilliant one-liners to make up for the corny plot. What can one make of lines such as "Excitement in my life is like dinner without heartburn" or "It brings to mind Trollope – not the author, this was a girl I knew". Are these supposed to be jokes? The only scene I liked was on Charon's boat crossing the River Styx to the afterlife. Journalist Joe Strombel, played by a wasted Ian McShane, jumps ship in order to exploit his scoop.Just as in Match Point, the plot is full of holes and continually exposes Allen's ignorance of all things British. I can only imagine he surrounds himself with sycophants when he is shooting a film since nobody seems to have the courage to point out his errors to him.
Scoop(2006)... the one where Woody Allen plays a magician...
posted on 07 Jun 2009or so his filmography, well of least 30 films should read. Scoop isn't an achievement like last year's Match Point, although it isn't in the same genre as it was either. Scoop is more or less, the product of the most simplistic Ramond Chandler novel or Alfred Hitchcock premise. Hard to really say what the point of this movie was, except to be more or less a nice summer break. Refreshing, funny and light-hearted, with a melancholy twist that ends on a sweeter note, I think. Scoop really should of been called, "London Murder Mystery", because it's basically "Manhattan Murder Mystery" without it's depth and unpredictability. Basically swap Johanson for Keaton, trade Alan Alda for Ian McShane and minus Angelica Huston from the equation. Or maybe it was just the irritableness I had from the heat wave in my town, the fact that it was a 9:50 P.M. show, or the dreariness of being in a nearly empty theater where those who were there barely even showed evidence of life even in the funniest of the film's situations. As a Woody Allen fan, an 8 is pushing this one, considering that's it's the weakest of the movies I have seen of his so far. But, hey, it beats the damned kindergarten humor of "Cars" and I'm sure it's better than the hollow noise of "Click", "You, Me & Dupree" or "Little Man". If you never turn you're back on Woody Allen, appreciated "Manhattan Murder Mystery" and "Mighty Aphrodite", like dark humor, than give it a shot. But if you want this year's best so far, I'd grab a ticket for "A Scanner Darkly". Anyway, take half of "Match Point's" unpredictability and drama, and add Woody Allen. Fair trade? You decide, it's you're money, not mine. 8/10. *** out of ****
Should be called Snoop instead.
posted on 07 Jun 2009Tell me if you heard this joke.A dead man's ghost wakes us on a boat on the river Styx. He then tries to bribe the ferryman, which results in nothing.Haven't heard that one, eh ? Well thats probably because it's not a joke but rather the plot of a Woody Allen movie. To elaborate, a recently deceased well-known reporter (Ian McShane) is given an amazing "scoop" about a serial killer from another dead person, while on the boat crossing the river Styx. He then chooses to appear in the middle of a magic box magic trick, to a former dental hygienist turned college journalist (Scarlett Johansson). And the magic act is Splendini's (Woody Allen's magical alter ego).This is a very, very light fare. Don't expect, nor should you look for, more than there is. I have had problems with most of Woody's later pieces. Lets just say his best material didn't leave the disco era. I did like Match Point (though I thought it was a bit long), but I believe that my enjoyment of it was due more to the nontraditional Woody' material and lack of the the director's presence in front of the camera. So the question everyone dances around is : is Woody still funny? I say not really. Why is that? Is it because his advancing age just make his "shtick" not funny or that it reminds us of our septuagenarian relatives (with all their nutty quirks)? Maybe it's because his cute neurosis became full fledge syndromes after 30 + years. It could also be that instead of trying to figure out a mystery, we end up accomplices in a game of lets find out what's in this drawer (aka, snooping). Hugh Jackman is barely used and the movie could have saved money if they just used a cardboard cutout of the actor. Scarlett Johansson is major eye candy, because I found her neophyte character portrayal to be lacking. She is the only reason this movie gets any rating past a yawn. So I say skip it, indulge your Woody wants in Annie Hall, Bananas, Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex... or Sleeper.
Scoop....I wanted a lot more
posted on 01 Jun 2009I was quite disappointed with this movie. It was just too weird. I know that Woody Allen have a very interesting way to write and direct his movies and I usually don't mind it but this movie just didn't satisfy me at all. So much of it was just ridiculous. There is a ship full of dead people talking as if it was real life but the grim reaper on the front of the boat was suppose to tell us it was a "death ship" more or less. And even weirder, a man was able to come into the world of the living a few times just to tell Johanson that Jackman's character is a killer, one last "scoop" as he says. I don't even know why Jackman would take this role. Maybe he really likes Scarlett or Allen, but still, why? I understand Scarlett because she had already worked with Allen on Match Point, but Hugh, I'll never know.I couldn't get into the characters either. Not that the acting was bad, there just wasn't any great dialogue for them to work with. The only good thing was that Hugh is a very attractive man so it wasn't too bad watching him.THe plot was stupid and I really hated the ending. If you are in the mood for a Woody Allen film rent Match Point, it's a serious movie, but much better. Unless you don't mind watching a movie for 1 hour and 30 minutes for a few funny lines.
A bit of a mess
posted on 30 May 2009My wife and I went to see 'Scoop' today, largely because of the positive reviews here at IMDb. However, we were both disappointed.The actors were great and there were many funny, unexpected lines. But, most of the plot is just plain silly.I was looking forward to some interesting scenes of London, but there were almost none. There's a line about the English country side, but we hardly see that at all. It looks to have been shot mostly in a studio. I realize that Woody Allen doesn't make widescreen epics, but this film in particular fits very well on a small TV screen.The most annoying parts were scenes with Scarlett Johansson and Woody Allen. Although both characters are likable, and the two of them appear in most of the scenes of the film, I often wondered whether the writer (Allen) had forgotten while writing some scenes, which character held which point of view.
Good, not classic, but good...
posted on 30 May 2009I breathed a sigh of relief when I found on watching this film that it was A. Funny and B. Fresh. Two things poor Mr. Allen has not been since "Deconstructing Harry". It reminded me very much of "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion" with its story involving the occult and magic. After the dire, and I mean dire, "Match Point" its great to see Allen back in his usual 'schtick' territory. He may not be on the form he once was, I sadly doubt he will ever reach that point again, he may yet have another masterpiece up his sleeve yet. That is however if he returns home. These England films have a sort of "Woody Abroad" feel to them that's not all bad but it makes me think he is now re-charged to return home and make a brilliant film back in NY. The cast is better than the dreaded "Match Point" with Johansson looking gorgeous and acting like no other girl of her age probably could. Allen is on fine form yet on cruise control as an old magician who gets caught up in the farce. Jackman is on good form but I feel hasn't got much to do, it really is Allen and Johanssons film. Allen has "Cassandra's Dream" coming next year. I hope its as good, if better than this and I also hope he makes it and Englash Trilogy and returns home!A good film, easy watching.
If it were not for Woody Allen's character, I would have given this a better grade.
posted on 26 May 2009Mr. Allen should stick to writing & directing & STOP acting or develop a better character for himself.Here he portrays a third rate magician in children oriented shows. He also pretends to be Scarlet Johanssen's father so she can trap Hugh Jackman who may be a serial killer.This type role has been played much better by such actors as Bob Hope & Victor Moore.Woody Allen should stick to writing & directing which he is good at & leave acting alone. His Last film MATCH POINT was real good,he did not act in it.Scarlet's role was written especially for her by Woody Allen after MATCH POINT. She is OK, but really did not need those glasses. Hugh Jackman was good as he usually is. Ian McShame is a delight as a ghost..Nice location cinematography.Ratings **1/2 (out of 4) 74 points (out of 100) IMDb 6 (out of 10NOTE: It still may have the same star rating, BUT it would have had a passing IMDb of a 7, if Woody was not so obnoxious in his role.
A Midsummer London Murder Sex Mystery or "Love Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry":
posted on 22 May 2009I saw "Scoop" last weekend and I liked it but I am a Woody's addict, I need to get my fix and I'd be fine until he releases the next movie. I love him, I love his work but my love is not blind. I see that his new film is not original, it is not even secondary. He seems to read and re-read Theodore Dreiser's "An American Tragedy" lately and he uses the certain scenes and plot devices of the novel in his London period consistently and constantly. He uses the familiar elements of at least three his own earlier movies (but as he said himself - "if you have to steal, steal from the best") - I will not reveal them - there is a murder mystery after all :). Allen's rather sizable presence in the movie as the magician Sidney Waterman who reluctantly agrees to help an American journalism student Sondra Pransky (Scarlet Johansson) to investigate a big story involving a young and attractive aristocrat Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman) who may or may not be a notorious serial killer known as "Tarot Card Serial Killer" could be seen as blessing or the failure. For those of us who love Woody not only behind the camera but in front of it, it is certainly the former. I personally was happy to see Allen playing once again the same role he's be doing so well for many years. I loved his one-liners, his physical comedy which is still good even if he looks his age and does not hide it. My love does not stop me from noticing the holes in plot so big that Woody's cute little "Smart" could've easily fell in one of them or from admitting that getting crucial information pertaining to investigation from a ghost is not the most elegant plot device but as I mentioned in the summary, "love means never having to say you're sorry". I am not sorry that I've seen "Scoop" in the theater with Allen's fans that laughed and had fun all along. For these who are not as hard core admirer as I am - wait for it on DVD.7/10
Simply well written, directed and acted...
posted on 28 Aug 2009Simply well written, directed and acted... Woody's best of the 2000's if not his best since the 80's!! Hugh Jackman was the perfect pick for his roll. Scarlett Johansson's banter with Woody proves how well rounded an actress she has become.It's refreshing to not being in a romance on screen with the leading lady. He plays the perfect bumbling magician.There have been a few reviews maligning this movie. Don't let them stop you from seeing the wonderfully done film. People in the crowd I saw this with were laughing so loud at some lines i missed the next line. If you like Woody Allen films of the 70's, you'll regret missing this one.I suggest you go to watch this film with an open mind, if you do, you might walk out smiling.