I recently watched Manhattan and just now finished Deconstructing Harry

I recently watched Manhattan and just now finished Deconstructing Harry.
The similarities are ridiculous, are the rest of his movies much different?
If I watch another one and he's a writer with multiple wives/girlfriends he cheats on while having a son, I'm going to lose my fucking mind.

Then don't watch his movies you fucking faggot.

Is that an admission that the others aren't much different?

One of the biggest hacks in Hollywood you might as well stare at the wall

He's a bad director and a bad comedian who's popular because he's pandering exactly to the kind of people who review movies. Reality is he's shit

He was alright in Antz

Most of his movies are similar and cover similar themes. The Curse of the Jade Scorpion is the one that deviates the most.

I had similar feelings after watching first Annie Hall then Manhattan.

Have not got back to him.

I feel 99% of people could get by with Annie Hall and ignore the rest.

Exactly this. Intellectual rich kid faggot critics from the seventies liked his fantasy fulfilling movies for fallied normies with money that went to an Ivi Leage college.
Then others started repeating their bullshit like the empty possing faggots without judgement they are.

So Annie Hall is very similar you would say? Because I've yet to see that, but have it downloaded.

Newsflash:
Most artists write/paint/film/sculpt material that is of personal interest and relatable to them. Allen is an intellectual. He's into psychoanalysis. He likes jazz music. He admires Igmar Bergman and Groucho Marx. He's an adulterer. He's attracted to teenage girls. He's perpetually horny. He's into sports. He adores New York City. All of these things show up in his films repeatedly because he has the luxury of making films that are deeply interesting to himself.
Complaining about this is like going to a Michael Bay flick and wondering aloud why there are so many explosions.

>I like X
>I'm going to make everything I make about X and nothing else
>I'm creative :^)

He uses jokes and explores things from them but he does it in a new and inventive way. The inventiveness is in how he used it not the philosophy itself.

That war and peace parody is GOAT.

That's some great mental gymnastics. 9.5/10

Sleeper is pretty good.

I've only watched annie hall and manhattan, because I know all of his other films will be the same masturbatory "lmao love and life is so hard for us neurotic intellectuals am i right? but we can still enjoy the beauty of the little things :)))". Still, I enjoyed some parts of them, while others made me want to jump off a cliff, he's generally obnoxious and I'm not watching anymore of his films unless I have to

Love and Death
How? Noone calls him a philosopher. They call him a filmmaker.

Many of his movies are very similar, but Annie Hall is the formula perfected. Hannah and Her Sisters is also great, and so are Love and Death (one of his funniest) and Crimes and Misdemeanors (one of his darkest).

>How? Noone calls him a philosopher. They call him a filmmaker.
Never said they do. He's a film maker, but a shitty one. Incredibly overrated.

how do you rate this one/

>Degas that uncreative inartistic fuck painted ANOTHER goddamn ballet dancer fucking REEEEEEEEEEEEE

Well your main complaint with him seems to be that he uses the same philosophical ides and humor in his movies even though every artist has a style.

>same philosophical ides and humor
No, it really isn't. There's a difference between a style and creative stagnation. Using basically the same characters with the same story lines and settings isn't something that be considered philosophical ideas.

>Annie Hall
>Manhattan Murder Mystery
>Match Point
>Scoop

That's all you need from Woody Allen

All of his films where he acts are shit. The ones where he only directs are usually good.

>creative stagnation
Speaking of which, Monet is widely regarded as a talentless hack because the cunt just wouldn't stop painting water lilies. What a fag that guy was.

I love how you always deflect to painters. One medium isn't comparable to another. But fine, let's use your limited comparison for a second here. Imagine a painter paints the golden gate bridge. His next piece? the golden gate bridge, same angle. He does this for several of his next pieces. He might paint one at night, or use different colours, but same angle, same bridge.
Yes, I'm pretty sure this would be considered absolute garbage.
>oh but he likes that bridge
>he likes that angle
This is how you sound like jumping through mental hoops

>always
twice. and I mentioned sculpt, film, and writing above. I'd also throw in music. Nobody calls Sabbath hacks for just making metal music, nor Rush for sticking with progressive rock. Their music has similar sounds and themes but isn't the same.

As for your example
>same bridge
okay
>same angle
nope.
that would be like saying Allen's films use the same exact shots and dialogue.

There's only so many comparisons you can make to similarities artists have in their work when discussing different mediums. Just because I brought up angle from painting, doesn't mean I'm criticizing his shots in movies. But I can't exactly bring up dialogue when comparing art to film, now can I? Why is why I said one medium isn't comparable to another. But you seem obsessed about doing just that. Self admittedly stating you bring up music and writing. It's a retarded argument to have. Might as well throw in a food analogy while you're at it for all the logic it makes.

Just get a fucking room already jesus fuck

>people discuss film on a film board
>you sperg out this hard