The tough job of hanging onto a modicum of respect for late-career Woody Allen is about to get even tougher: the director’s latest film "Irrational Man," even by his patchy recent standards, is an embarrassment. And not of the "of riches" kind. Perhaps there is something interesting in the idea of replaying the thriller-ish, moral-quandary qualities of "Match Point" for light comedy (signalled more by the wearisome repetitive use of jazzy cuts from the Ramsey Lewis Trio rather than by any, you know, jokes) but while that appears to be the formal aim, the result neither thrills nor amuses and so generically ends up in the tragically overpopulated category marked "Woody Allen dramedy misfire" instead. Because depressingly, this is a Woody Allen film and no mistake: the tepid murder plot, the college professor/student relationship, the constant references to Kant and Heidegger and Dostoyevsky, the central character struggling to find meaning while women inexplicably fling themselves at him — these are all as familiar to us as the Windsor EF Elongated typeface he invariably sets his credits in. And what new there is in "Irrational Man" is nothing to brag about — there’s an atypical but disheartening slapdash quality to the filmmaking: dodgy edits, awkward staging, atrociously redundant, charmless voice-over.
Abe Lucas, whose name is for some reason almost always stated in full, arrives to take a teaching post at posh, pretty Braylin College, somewhat preceded by his reputation as a hard living, heartbreaking bad-boy philosopher, because those exist. Played by Joaquin Phoenix, Abe Lucas’ nihilist outlook has brought him to the brink of semi-suicidal, alcoholic despair, which we know because he tells us about it frequently in voice-over. Somehow, this troubled aura makes him all the more attractive to perky student Jill (Emma Stone) who, despite having a very handsome, devoted boyfriend whose sole job is to remind her of how devoted he is, finds she wants more from her blossoming friendship with Abe Lucas. Which we know because she tells us about it frequently in voice-over. But Abe Lucas manfully resists Jill’s frequent come-ons, (and there’s the sneaking sense we are supposed to be amazed by his chivalric self-sacrifice in this regard) until, suddenly energized by a newfound zest for life after he discovers, essentially, his inner sociopath, they start boning anyway. This is despite Abe Lucas having already been boning horny, unhappily married science professor Rita, played by Parker Posey, who although being the film’s MVP by a very long mile cannot save her character from the shocking short shrift Allen’s script deals her.
The revelation Abe Lucas has that transforms his life is prompted by an overheard conversation at a diner at which a woman sobs to her friends about a corrupt family court judge who may award custody of her kids to their no-good dad. Despite Abe Lucas having displayed a fatalistic immunity to almost everything else, this woman’s story makes a deep impression, and in deciding to do something dramatic about it, he rediscovers his joie de vivre and starts to feel like "an authentic human being." And Abe Lucas’ plight is in this regard worth giving a shit about because Abe Lucas is such a tortured yet original and brilliant intellectual. Which we know because we’re told about it frequently in voice-over.
"He was so damn interesting" is maybe the second thing Stone’s V.O. breathes at us, and the first sign that things are going to go very, very wrong in "Irrational Man." But in case we miss it, and in all fairness Phoenix is given little opportunity to actually be interesting above morosely quoting 19th century philosophers and playing a spontaneous game of Russian Roulette, she says again a little later, "he’s so damn fascinating and so vulnerable" while dropping awkward comments to her poor doltish boyfriend about how Abe is "so brilliant and so complicated." So while Jill is billed as being a smart, liberated philosophy student and a talented musician, she is also, according to statements like these and dialogue like "I love that you order for me" during a restaurant scene, a moon-eyed, blithering idiot. Stone is a remarkably appealing actress, and does relish the opportunity to find some more complex notes in Jill later on in the film, but on this evidence we have to hope she has, like Scarlett Johansson, done her time as Woody Allen‘s go-to muse and can move on to projects that actually serve her talents and not just her enormous anime eyes.
Still, her character is a model of consistency compared with that of Abe Lucas whose intellectual and moral arc is actually more of a corkscrew, with a final act turn serving to undercut even more the idea that this was ever a thinking man, let alone that there is any sort of through-line to his patchworky philosophy. And this is the biggest crime that "Irrational Man" commits — it’s not funny enough to be a comedy, not well plotted enough to be a thriller, but it’s also not smart enough to be an actual exploration of all or even any of the many philosophies it, and Abe Lucas, espouses. When there’s a major plot point, whereby Jill discovers his potential criminality because of notes scribbled in the margins of "Crime and Punishment," you suddenly realize that this is not Allen investigating the questions of morality and ontology that clearly obsess him, this is simply him checklisting them off, one by one. One of the incriminating scribbles reads "Hannah Arendt… ‘THE BANALITY OF EVIL," but "Irrational Man" proves thoroughly that light comedy can give evil a run for its money in the banality derby.
With something of the feeling that even the stopped clock of Allen’s career has to occasionally show the right time, there’s a tendency to go into each new Allen film desperate to look on the bright side until we’re heralding stuff like "Midnight in Paris" as a "return to form" merely because it’s possible to watch it without wanting to cry. "Blue Jasmine" was at best a flawed film with a striking central performance that came after such a string of duds that everyone rallied around in relief, but even that minor uptick has been followed by the awful "Magic in the Moonlight" and now this thing. As an unyielding, deeply fond fan of many of Allen’s earlier films, some of which have combined homicide and humor to far, far, far greater effect, it gives me no pleasure to ask the question that buzzed through my brain at the end of "Irrational Man": how long are we going to continue to let Woody Allen get away with murder? [D+]
Browse through all our coverage of the 2015 Cannes Film Festival by clicking here.
C\’mon Jessica, let\’s be fair. You should fact check a lot of this review. The timing was well-done in the plot. The philosophical ramblings paint a portrait of the man who is Abe Lucas. We are given reasons to give a damn about him
Jessica … Don\’t watch any more Woody Allen movies. We\’ll all be happier.
We let him molest children for awhile so I don\’t see why we shouldn\’t let him suck until he is dead.
either write a diatribe or a review.
to say your review is bias is an understatement my friend.
i have not seen this movie and would actually really like to but… its like you waited your whole career to write a awful review about woody allen and you spewed it upon every line.
c\’mon… you could do better than that.
i know i know.. "return to form"?
ridiculous right?
so, i\’d like to echo the idea of reviewing a film based not not on the context of a director\’s canon, but rather within the context of ALL films. Woody Allen\’s last 10 films are all worth watching – if not for anything other than their great performances, the sheer beauty of the cinematographer and their lofty storytelling. i often wonder, if Woody Allen never made a film and \’irrational man\’ were a first film by a young director, how would it be critically received? Get over the fact that much of Allen\’s subject matter is similar! If the Clapton strayed too far from the blues, it wouldn\’t seem right. If Neil Young strayed too far from roots, it wouldn\’t seem right. If Tarantino strayed from violence, if Spielberg strayed from nostalgia … you get my point. Get over your own personal opinion on Allen\’s work and review the film as a film should be reviewed ON IT\’S OWN INDIVIDUAL MERIT
It\’s really interesting to see how threatened Woody Allen fans are by a dissenting opinion about his work (and all the pedophile accusations). It\’s like Joe Paterno and Penn State. They don\’t want to have to admit they\’ve been worshipping a man who could be such scum, so they vociferously defend even his work that\’s substandard. He\’s been hit or miss for a long time now, his best days are in the past, and the only reason Sony keeps funding him is because he keeps his budgets low, so they have little at risk. It\’s not like he\’s making $80 million block busters. As long as he keeps his cost/benefit ratio low, and the court continues to look the other way, he can go on like this unabated, but movie goers don\’t have to buy tickets.
It gives you no pleasure to ask how long will we let Woody Allen get away with murder? I don\’t believe you, Jessica.
It\’s refreshing to read a Woody Allen review as honest as this. The point being – long time fans of his have more or less become full time apologists, promising ourselves that he\’ll come good or pleading the case for his mediocrity (Blue Jasmine, Midnight In Paris) when we know it\’s well below his high tide line. Fans of Match Point and Vicki Christina Barcelona are proof – as films they may not be as bad as Whatever Works, Hollywood Ending, To Rome With Love or Magic In The Moonlight, but still, just ever so slightly better than terrible films and slightly less awful than mediocre films in his canon.
Had Irrational Man and Sweet & Lowdown traded places, there\’s a good chance the review would be stellar and we\’d all be breathing a collective sigh of relief.
But 15 years on from Sweet & Lowdown and Small Time Crooks, I\’m not the only one left bereft of anything particularly good or great to say about the once brilliant Woody Allen these days.
He\’s 80 in December and I\’d like to think he\’s one more masterpiece sitting within his pile of typing. I just wish he\’d find it.
Just as dispiriting as this absurdity of a review is its inclusion over at Rotten Tomatoes. What a joke.
Here\’s an idea: how about getting all that bile drained before you review another Woody Allen film?
I really disliked Magic in the Moonlight, I felt embarassed for the cast. THere really isn\’t much late Woody that I\’m to fond of. Cate Blanchett breathed life into Blue Jasmine, but there still were some things about that film that made me really question on what planet the Woodman is currently residing. What I\’ve read about this film sounds depressingly like the same repetitive schtick he\’s been banging away on for decades, with less and less effectiveness. It\’s getting old folks, and so is Woody – too bad.
Allen\’s latter films are so bad, they\’re a new genre: the affectless performances, The New Yorker voice-overs, the half-hearted plots, the dated and banal music. Old age, apparent ignorance of or indifference to the modern world makes, a few million dollars and movie stars makes for some very odd movies.
Sally Hawkins !!!
Just once I\’d like to read a review that had an open dialogue with the filmmaker, rather than yet another bitter and condescending piece with every film critic cliche such as using French phrases like "joie de vivre" or projecting what you want the female lead to be based on personal issues.
Also, it\’s amusing you cited ScarJo as someone who "can move on to projects that actually serve her talents and not just her enormous anime eyes" considering that her next project is GHOST IN THE SHELL.
Clearly some millennial chick who buys into the "Woody balled a baby" canard. The way young kids have bought into this is really depressing. Please, go enjoy a Joe Swanberg joint.
Josh, I would say you\’re an imperceptive dimwit for not realizing you\’re watching a delusional, pretentious, theatrical character that suffers through panic attacks and is on a cocktail of alcohol and Xanax being portrayed as such.
Oh, never mind. It didn\’t show up at first.
Lol. The writer deleted my post saying film criticism isn\’t what it used to be.
The tough job of hanging onto a modicum of respect for the Playlist reviews just…wait, I never had any respect for the Playlist reviews. Carry on
"The tough job of hanging onto a modicum of respect for late-career Woody Allen is about to get even tougher. The director\’s latest film "Irrational Man," even by his patchy recent standards, is an embarrassment." As others have pointed out, this is absurd. In the last ten years, Allen has made, to my mind, four great films that rank along his best. He also has a few that are forgettable but still breezy, light watches.
Match Point is a fantastic, adult, sexy murder thriller. Vicky Christina Barcelona is a wise, sexy tale about a three-way love affair. Midnight In Paris is a comedy involving time travel, comedy, and nostalgia. And Blue Jasmine explores the psyche of a woman through two very different periods of her life.
I think that\’s a pretty eclectic group of titles there. These titles look refreshingly alive, as well, when you think about the fact that Allen produced them all in his 70\’s.
It\’s too perfect that he\’s cast Kristen Stewart in his next film. I will be surprised if he doesn\’t fire her after the first week, though. Unless she\’s playing the young girl who has an affair with the older man. She might be able to play that with some conviction.
Finally, an honest review! I\’m not surprised that Woody\’s fanboys are still trying to find him excuses though.
I must be the only person who loved Blue Jasmine despite absolutely hating Blanchett\’s affected, phony performance. But this does sound like utter drivel. Hated Magic in the Moonlight as well. Woody: time to retire (and take Ridley Scott with you).
Yeah, this review is a little too over-the-top in its condemnation to be very convincing to me. Admittedly I\’m a big Allen fan, but I can certainly see where people are coming from with their criticism of his recent output. Still, many other outlets have posted moderately to very positive reviews, so I doubt it\’s an unmitigated disaster.
I suggest you get all that bile drained before you attempt to review another Woody Allen film.
Agree with Faulkner.
Film criticism isn\’t what it used to be unfortunately. Not that this writer is one of the top critics, but still.
Allen certainly has its duds, which have become more frequent in his late career, but this review comes out as a very harsh reassessment of his late work.
The major trades have very positive reviews for this film (Variety, THR, Indiewire, Screendaily) so I wouldn\’t cross this one out just yet.
Midnight in Paris is his worst film of the past 10 years, just bourgeois flattery and pseudo-romantic pandering. Match Point is an amazing, savage film.
idea: how about reviewing a film within the context of the film and dramaturgy alone and not let bias seep in every other sentence? not saying this film is worthwhile, but i am definitely saying this review isn\’t.
I\’d argue Blue Jasmine was superior to Midnight in Paris. That\’s mostly because it\’s the Cate Blanchett show but Sally Field and the rest of the supporting cast do wonders. I loved that film – one of my favorites of 2013. But Allen is terribly uneven with every other film as of late.
Thank you, you\’ve addressed every major feeling I have about his films over the past 15 years. Too bad this sucks, but I\’m not surprised – especially after watching that trailer.
i\’d take your review a little more seriously if you had the capacity to appreciate match point, vicky cristina barcelona, whatever works, midnight in paris and blue jasmine… but you obviously dont…