Can someone explain to me why this is so praised? or anything by woody allen for that matter

can someone explain to me why this is so praised? or anything by woody allen for that matter

The quality.

Jews like talking.

That's literally the only "praise-worthy" thing about Allen as a director, his dialogue and story directions, both of which are strictly speaking secondary qualities of cinema at best.

Manhatten is probably his best movie, it's pretty much a subtle comedy and a love letter to his favorite city.

If you don't enjoy this, you won't ever appreciate his other films. Back to your capeshit.

This film is pretty overrated, as it's one of the couple that normies see. Allen is a modern master though, one of the greatest post-war American directors. The writing is poignant, funny, direction inspired, amazing music. Clear artistic vision. Fuses standup comedy w Bergman/Fellini etc.

Manhattan is literally a pedo movie, though.

I didn't find the dialogue interesting until the last 20 minutes of it. It's just normies having affairs and thirsty for relationships
>Back to your capeshit
well I've only ever watched this and whatever works by him and it seems like pretty much the same motivation and general theme. same thing of old man dating young woman though.
I don't know it was really uninteresting, felt like good ol' hollywood masturbating over itself.

>hollywood masturbating over itself

He's more of a niche auteur, operating on his own terms than "Hollywood." You did happen to see two of his films with very similar themes, there are other themes and subjects throughout his work. The recent Blue Jasmine, Midnight in Paris, and Cafe Society for instance, which re all very good. The older, funnier ones, the 80s genre films, etc.

I'm very fond of Radio Days myself.

Yeah its very funny and comfy. That period was amazing. Hannah and Her Sisters and Crimes and Misdemeanors are two of his best to come from it.

once you see where Woody gets his inspiration his movies make sense

sometimes his "ideas" take years before he can really get his hands on them

Allen is pretty much New Hollywood film-making distilled.

because most critics and people within hollywood are jews so they deeply related to woody allens character

Not just him, but most Hollywood people get their inspiration from the same source.

>a love letter to his favorite city
dude that's brilliant. mind if I steal your original thought for future discussions?

the movie literally starts with him saying how he loves manhattan

bossman
I don't know wagrarn
but this can't run
this can't run

>he's never watched the film
like I said, back to your c-tier superhero films.
or whichever you prefer

>all the plebs that cannot relate to this because they're not living the /lit/ life

Now look here, pal. I know that they post this nifty little "/s" on a certain website that you perhaps frequent. I didn't think I would need to include it. Clearly, I was mistaken.

A lot of people question Woody Allen's reputation of being a hack.
He is a hack, in the sense that he always does the same shit in all his flicks.
Annie Hall was the first Woody Allen movie I watched, and I loved it. It was creative, inovative in many ways, funny and different than the usual comedy.
Then I went on to watch Manhattan. It was the same thing, but in B&W: neurotic intelectual jewish struggling artist living in New York has romantic issues.
Not only the premisse was uninventive, the execution wasn't all that great, and the whole plot about a 42yo dating a 17yo like that was the most normal thing in the world was ridiculous, and made me want to puke (of course, pedos will try to defend this). But what made me cringe the most is the dialogue he tried to push, as natural conversation, but was nothing but a bunch of wannabe cult gibberish.
It made sense to me that the people who loved Woody Allen act like such uptight poseur cunts, because they wanted to be just like him, that pretentious faggot.
It baffled me to find out this was considered one of his masterpieces, as it seemed like a poor rehash. Then I went on to watch other of his stuff, just to find out it's the same shit over and over again.
Same romantic plots with his neurotic auteur alter ego, same self deprecating jokes, same ridiculously pretentious dialogue.
I'm with Orson Welles - who criticized Allen's "comical persona" - on this one. Welles was an intellectual, but for the sake of knowledge and reflexion, not to make himself look smart in silly flicks.
He didn't loosely refferenced Swedish directors or german philosophy, for no particular reason. Even more so, he made films with a good understanding of human nature, instead of just "wow, Freudian theories about upbringing are true and relationships are hard".
Plus, he was a complete artist, not only working as a writer, but also was a fantastic director and a competent actor.
Sorry about the rant, but I'm pretty pissed off.

>taking discussion here very seriously must mean I'm from "that" site
nice projection

both sites are shitholes used for peer approval and selective bias.

This board discusses and pays to watch capeshit and post-Lucas Star Wars films unironically.

What do you expect of the Idiocracy generation?

A blatantly sarcastic shitpost went right over both of your heads. Fact of the matter.

I could go on, I guess, but you'd first have to tell me whether you're redditors or just normal autistic fellows.

our guy.

The power of cunny.

kys

Kill yourself

KILL YOURSELF YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT MEMESTER REEEEEEEESLJKS:LFKSJLFW FKLJWELFKJW:ELFKJWEFJ

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I've only seen a handful of his films, Annie Hall, Crimes & Misdemeanors, that shitty one set in Rome with Ellen Page and Jessie Eisenberg, Midnight in Paris, and I think one or two other ones. I don't really get his popularity, Crimes & Misdemeanors was great, but none of the other ones terribly impressed me, and some, like the Rome one, were just awful.

Back to bed Orson.

mwaaahhhh