Owen Wilson plays a frustrated writer about to marry the fetching Rachel McAdam, when the magic of Paris enters his life. Wilson is whisked back in time to the Paris of the 1920s where he meets Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Zelda, Gertrude Stein, Cole Porter, and a dozen other writers and artists. Wilson returns to contemporary Paris, but is frustrated by life in the 21st Century so each night he returns to the Paris of the past. Like Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Midnight in Paris explores the creative process and the choices that shape our lives. Owen Wilson surprises in convincing us this fantasy could really be happening. Rachel McAdam isn’t given much to do. The rest of the cast is solid. I enjoyed Midnight in Paris and you probably would, too. GRADE: B+
Carla Bruni was gorgeous.
The appealing Rachel McAdams was turned into a blonde shrew with hellish parents. I thought it would have been stronger overall had his choice been less clear cut (WARNING: SPOILER ALERT!) – she even cheated on him with Mr. Pedantic (Michael Sheen) (END SPOILER) – but otherwise (as you know) I enjoyed it.
I thought Adrien Brody was a hoot as Dali! (as he always referred to himself) and most of the other historical characters were as one would expect. It really must have been an amazing time to be in the most beautiful city in the world.
I had to explain the NO EXIT joke to Diane after the movie, Jeff.
And that’s another thing: why do so many good looking women wrongly think they will look better blonde? I can’t understand it.
Signed,
Much Prefers Redheads and Brunettes anyway
Well, I need no convincing, Jeff. I married a redhead. Maybe it’s the myth that blondes have more fun.
I did enjoy it to a point. But boy why did Inez have to be such a pill. He is incapable of presenting characters that aren’t painted in the boldest strokes. Why would this guy spend a minute with Inez and her parents? Loved the scenes of Paris and the historical figures though.
Rachel McAdams/Inez has some charms that are irresistible to some men, Patti. And guys will put up with despicable parents-in-law (or anything) if the prize is worth it.
He has ALWAYS been incapable of subtlety. He has ALWAYS had trouble with women characters, and I’ve never understood why he’s given such credit (perhaps because his prizes and obstacles get a little dialogue, before they are shown to be fools for rejecting Allen or subordinately brilliant for seeing his utter charm). Alice, my buddy, went, and she used to like Allen, and she hated this, largely for the presentation of the McAdams character, but she wasn’t much engaged by the rest. But I’ll believe it’s his best film in years.
I liked VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA a lot, too, Todd. Woody Allen sort of understands certain types of women. But, to switch metaphors, his pallet only has a few colors.
This is one I want to see. Woody Allen doing time travel? I’m in.
Woody Allen surprised me with his method of time travel, Beth. Loopy, but it convinced me.
Your rview had no mention of Woody Allen. Yeah, there’s a guy who looks a lot like him in the picture, but since I don’t know who Own Wilson is, I figured it must be him. I thought I might see this one. Then, in Beth’s comment I find out Allen is in it. Nope, won’t see it. He hasn’t made or acted in a decent film since Bananas.
I’m a fan of PLAY IT AGAIN, SAM, MANHATTAN, and ANNIE HALL, Rick. Woody doesn’t appear in MIDNIGHT IN PARIS.
Rick, Woody isn’t in it – jsut wrote and directed. Of course, Owen Wilson does do the obligatory Woodyish acting in the lead role.
Beth, I think you’ll like it.
George, if you haven’t seen it you should put The Lucky Ones in your queue too. I think it was McAdams’s best role so far.
I put THE LUCKY ONES in my NetFlix queue, Jeff. I’m a big fan of Rachel McAdams.
The movie is a love letter to Paris. And if you have a thing for Paris in the 1920s (as I do), you’ll find yourself silently exclaiming things like “Oh, my God! That’s Alice B. Toklas!” as if you were time-traveling yourself. I really enjoyed it: charming and light.
One thing that bothered me a bit: the Rachel McAdams character, Inez, is cursed with a mostly unattractive wardrobe. A loosely belted, gauzey tunic seems to me to be wildly out of place in Paris. But I think it may have been a means of demonstrating something that the audience (and Owen Wilson’s character) might find likable about her—that she’s a casual, California sort of gal.
Woody Allen movies are so much better when he’s not on screen!
I agree with you on McAdams/Inez’s wardrobe, Tina. And I don’t normally notice fashion much. In one scene, McAdams looks like she’s wearing a bed-shirt with a belt. Of course, McAdams is horrified by the thought of living in Paris. Or walking in the rain.
Tina, Jackie said the same about her wardrobe. What was the deal with all the loose belts?
Maybe Rachel McAdams’ loose belts were symbolic of her loose morals, Jeff.
PATTI & TODD: In his films (and in life?) Woody Allen has never been able to understand women who prefer healthy, uncomplicated men to tortured neurotic geniuses. This puts his female characters somewhat into the same mold, but at his best he mines some humor from it. I’m just glad that at his age he’s started hiring surrogates to play the Woody Allen part.
Owen Wilson plays a credible Woody surrogate, Dan.
Dan, he clearly likes women he can hope to control.
Rachel McAdams’s career so far is one of mostly good films and consistently, in my experience, good performances…pity she got sucked into this. I like THE LUCKY ONES, and like SLINGS AND ARROWS’ first season (and her return) even more…rather a pity, too, about THE TIME TRAVELER’S WIFE, but she managed to elevate both WEDDING CRASHERS and RED EYE…despite someone’s very odd makeup choices for her, particularly in WC (ahem) (almost kabuki). Much more distracting than bleaching the hair. I see I’ve seen about half her lsited work in IMDb.
I’ve consistently liked Rachel McAdams’ performances, Todd. Like you, I’ve seen about half her work.