Stardust Memories | | Cast : | Woody Allen, Charlotte Rampling | | Director : | Woody Allen | | Studio : | Mgm/Ua Studios | | Format : | Black & White, Widescreen | | Released Date : | September 26, 1980 | | DVD Released Date : | September 07, 2004 | | Language : | Unknown (Dubbed), English (Dubbed), Spanish (Subtitled), French (Subtitled), Spanish (Dubbed) | | Audience Rating : | PG (Parental Guidance Suggested) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 01, 2005 | | Summary | WOODY'S SELF PORTRAIT | Content
 | For any Woody fan, this is a must, as it takes you inside his world, especially during the late 70s where he wanted to move away from the "earlier funny films" and show the seriousness of life. This movie is basically Woody's expressing himself to the world and the critics. He started basically as slapstick with Bananas Sleeper, then went into dramatic slapstick, Love and Death and Annie Hall, dramatic comedy with Manhattan, and drama with Interiors.
Because his talent for comedy is so apparent a lot of his fans were disappointed when he made Interiors after the success of Annie Hall. Probably all the pressure of having to make "funny films" by the public and critics alike sparked Stardust Memories, which is a satirical look at Woody' life at that time with a sprinkle of fantasy (Bergman/Felini).
If you are a Woody fan you will like this film. If you are becoming a Woody fan, or considering watching his films to understand what the hype is all about, you may not be ready to watch this film first, until you get a better understanding of him. Instead I would probably recommend his "early funny films" or the two top classics, Manhattan and Annie Hall.
Woody's film in general deal with life and human insights, excluding his early films, which are plain hilarious. Stardust Memories is a self portrait of Woody's life after his more serious films. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 11, 2005 | | Summary | "Memories" of a more candid Woody | Content
| A single scene in "Stardust Memories" makes up for all of the nasty swipes at fans in this movie -- the moment when Marie-Christine Barrault, playing Woody's lover, reacts to his ambivalence. The play of emotions across the great French actress's faces is truly spectacular, and more acting than you get in most entire movies these days. The rest of the film ranges from unpleasant to downright disturbing, as in the scene where Woody pleads with another lover, played by Charlotte Rampling, who displays a horrifyingly skeletal chest underneath a tank top. It's like an anatomy lesson, and neatly stands in for Woody's deeply mixed feelings about mature women as displayed in all his work and, sadly, his life. As a psychological autopsy, this film is of interest only to the hardcore Woody fan. DVD "extras" consist only of the trailer, another sad ripoff from the DVD industry as this film provoked a storm of criticism and comment when it first came out and the actresses features are well worth profiling. |
| Rating | | | Date | April 17, 2005 | | Summary | Excellent Rewatchable Woody. Richer than many of his movies | Content
| `Stardust Memories', written and directed by Woody Allen, is often considered one of his lesser movies. I disagree. While it may not be as entertaining as Annie Hall or as `realistic' as `Crimes and Misdemeanors', it seems, like `Zelig', to stand apart from the style of almost all his other movies. The fact that it is one of his most obviously autobiographical is only part of the story. And, as autobiography, it is much more a narrative of his feelings about his movies, his fans, his intellectualism (or lack of it), his girlfriends, and love and death, just to round out all the big topics about life in general and the life of a celebrity in particular.
In terms of style, it is probably most similar to `Manhattan', in black and white, with lots of goings on with multiple girlfriends, but unlike `Manhattan' there is much, much more going on here. The rough outline of the story is a trip by a very successful comedy movie writer / director to a weekend festival on the shore, held in a theatre in the Starlight hotel. This very thinly disguised Allen alter ego is beset by fans who alternately adore his work and complain that they liked his earlier, funnier movies much better than his later films.
In the snippets of films being screened, we see `homages' to the styles of Fellini (or Bergman?), Gene Kelly, and Alfred Hitchcock (What are the odds that the lead character's name `Sandy Bates' is copied from `Psycho' character, Norman Bates). This is obviously a reflection of the fact that by this time, Allen had parodied Russian novels (`Love and Death'), South American revolutions (`Bananas'), science fiction (`Sleepers'), and Bogart movies (`Play It Again, Sam'). He will go on to parody Shakespeare (`A Midsummer's Night Sex Comedy'), German impressionism (`Shadows and Fog'), and gangster movies (`Bullets over Broadway').
I think it is significant that the female lead in this movie is Charlotte Rampling rather than any of his usual leads such as Diane Keaton or Mia Farrow, as I suspect that in a way, Rampling is literally playing a part based on Keaton or Farrow. If this is so, it does not explain the roles of Marie Christine Barrault, a vaguely Ingrid Bergmanesque European actress with two young children or Jessica Harper's role as the women in a couple of fans with whom Allen's character `Bates'. I must say, at this point, that Rampling can do a lot worse than to be remembered for her role in this movie rather than my other memory of her as the gratingly egocentric girl in `Georgy Girl'. There are scenes in this movie where she is simply luminous. Unfortunately, this doesn't explain the appearance of frequent Allen costar Tony Roberts as literally himself, or a character virtually identical to the actor, Tony Roberts.
While the analogy may be something of a stretch, I think that if there is any film of which this movie is imitating, it is Fellini's `La Dolce Vita'. Like almost all Allen's parody / homages, the parallel between Allen's movie and the paradigm is always pretty loose. Usually, it is only a hint of style and a few basic plot elements. Like Marcello in Fellini's movie, Sandy Bates seems to be detached from events that are strung together in a very episodic manner. There is even a very Felliniesque (or even Shakespearean) melding of images and reality when the ending of the movie elides into the opening scene which turns out to be a clip from Bates latest `serious' movie.
With the exception of `Blazing Saddles' and `Young Frankenstein', I always had a higher regard for Allen's parodies than those by Mel Brooks. Brooks' gags always seemed to be just too easy, with absolutely no regard for logic or continuity. One could probably write a very serious essay comparing Brooks use of the absurd with Allen's techniques. Just compare the queue of heavies (KKK robes, Nazi uniforms, etc) lining up to sign on to the lynch mob in `Blazing Saddles' with the absurdity of Sandy Bates being dead by a fan followed by Bates observing his fans' presenting him with a posthumous award and the whole incident turning out to be a dream.
And, with all this, the movie is still funny!
I have not yet read a book on philosophy in Allen's films, but I would bet that this film will have an important place in that work. Among other things, Allen tackles his relation to intellect. In interviews, he often downplays the intellectual content of his movies and statements such as his famous quote `90% of life is just showing up'. In a sense, Allen is certainly not an `intellectual' filmmaker in the same vein as Fellini, Kurasawa, Wells, or Kubrick, as many of his movies can be seen as relatively easy parodies with a bit more realism and a much lower budget than similar movies by Mel Brooks. And yet, Allen's movies always have greater rewatchability for me than all but the very greatest comedies such as `Blazing Saddles', `Ghostbusters', `Animal House', and `Dr. Strangelove'. I enjoy comedies leading with Billy Crystal or Tom Hanks, but I buy Woody Allen movies.
Highly recommended among the top third of Allen's movies.
|
| Rating | | | Date | March 03, 2005 | | Summary | John Coltrane and ice cream | Content
| This is one of my most favorite movies. This film is meaningful, funny, and beautiful. The dialogue, directing, and great acting make this movie feel very authentic and realistic.
Apparently this movie did not recieve acclaim from people who watch things like Torque, Fast and The Furious, and How Stella Got Her Groove Back. Don't listen to those critics. If you enjoy films that rely on great ideas, writing, and performances, then you should love this movie.
I love Woody Allen films, especially his newer serious ones. If you enjoyed Crimes and Misdemeanors, I highly recommend this movie.
Aaron |
| Rating | | | Date | July 18, 2004 | | Summary | Woody's Best Film. | Content
| As a huge Allen fan I warmly recommend this movie. It's quirky, neurotic, romantic, and generally all of the things that make us love Woody so much in the first place. I know that Ebert trashed the film by saying that it was merely a spin-off of 8 1/2 but I disagree. This movie cannot be dismissed simply by saying its derivative and I think, although it may be blasphemy to say so, that it's a better work than the one by Fellini. Furthermore, Charlotte Rampling is absolutely wonderful in it. |
|
