Utterly lame, awkward and dull - no?
Surely this has to be Woody's worst film ever! I felt so embarrassed for him watching it. So much of the acting seemed either wooden or desperate, and it was just not very funny!
shareNo!
share
MovieChat Forums > Scoop (2006) Discussion > Utterly lame, awkward and dull - no?
I agree. This is a very poor movie. Woody Allen just keeps making the same movie over and over.
There is always his latest gorgeous young female. It's a plus that at least he has moved from adolescents to 20-somethings.
I like Scarlett Johansson. But as an Orthodox Jewish girl from Brooklyn? No: just dreadful.
I love the symbolism of the movie director having sex with her at the beginning of the movie. Wishful thinking. At age 70 Woody is getting even creepier.
And Woody is just the same old character he has been for 30-plus years now.
And Woody's conceit that New York Jews are inherently cute and funny wore thin long ago.
The ghostly journalist is just ridiculous.
The plot idea isn't bad. But the execution is awful.
Blaine in Seattle
scarlett wasn't good in this movie.. but in overall i think it's a nice movie.
no a blockbuster or masterpiece but good.
it has great lines in it and woody is still has his dry humour.
Woody Allen will always have the same kind of movies,..
remember: "If my film makes one more person miserable, I'll feel I've done my job."
Woody Allen
Uwe Boll... I just want to share something with you: *pisst*...you suck!
I completely concur. Horrible in just about every direction. A wretched waste of 96 minutes.
Am I anywhere near the imaginary cliff?share
i don't watch much woody allen movies (i have my own reasons :). many years later I decided to give one more chance with match point and i liked it. I was expecting more of it because of overrating (thanks to imdb :(. in this movie allen's act was not bright, either, he should stay behind the cameras. after that movie i'll stay away from allen's movies, for a long time.
shareI have seen nearly all of Woody's movies and this is by far the worst. I can't believe previous posters prefer this to, relative masterpieces, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Interiors and the brilliant Deconstructing Harry.
People defending this movie are desperate, 'it's not suppose to be a masterpiece' isn't an argument for a film being as embarrassingly shoody as this. Surely every film maker, no matter how many great movies in their back catalogue, should try to make the best film possible EVERY TIME. The weak acting, shoddy dialogue, predictable story and cringeworthy 'jokes' that make up this pile of steaming horse s hit don't do Allen, the actors, the crew or his loyal audience justice.
If he can't vastly improve on this then he really should give up making movies forever...
This, obviously, is again a matter of taste. I loved it. It made me smile all the way through, and laugh out loud several times - to me, a movie that does this cannot be bad. Somebody mentioned Zelig as a bad movie: I liked that one as well. The moment I finished watching Scoop, I was sure I wanted to see it again.
shareThis is a matter of taste, you guys can't seem accept that maybe this is not the movie for you but other people still like it.
shareYep. Lousy pacing. And the performances were horribly amateurish.
http://byronik.com
Couldn't tell you if it was his worst one, I fell asleep, zzzzzzzzzzzz
sharea radio station host in NZ called it 'terribly *beep* and that is saying something considering she rated movies such as Norbit. I haven't seen it but in looks like one of those movies that yanks love and the rest of the world are like..."what, the"
shareI haven't seen it but in looks like one of those movies that yanks love and the rest of the world are like..."what, the"
Scoop did terribly in the US. It's not one of Woody Allen's best, though it has some funny moments. I personally liked Ian McShane's role and the whole Grim Reaper thing...
Strange generalization you make... you haven't even seen it. Isn't that called "prejudice"? share
I actually really liked this movie. Usually I can't stand Woody Allen films, but this was not only tolerable, but enjoyable.
shareI thought it was enjoyable and Woody was the best part. I bought this movie because I love Woody Allen and I loved him in it.
shareMy mother loved it and practically forced me to watch. My opinion? yea, awkward and dull for sure. I've enjoyed Scarlett in other films, but not here. Too bad my friend stuck it on our movie night list. Hoping we won't get to it.
~*~ This wound is mortal...Aren't we all ~*~
I thought it was pretty good. It's almost a black comedy (it ended too happy to be a "real" black comedy) and black comedies are my least favorite genre, but I could sit through it and I appreciated it. I really dislike Johansson so I thought that her acting was quite wooden, but that had nothing to do with the script. I really did enjoy it for the most part.
Definitely not Allen's worst.
~"Catherine, Jews know two things: suffering, and where to get great Chinese food."
I'm having trouble understanding whether or not Scarlett Johansson was supposed to act like that. I really enjoyed her in Lost in Translation, but this seemed "wooden" as many have put it in this post. She also missed many of her punchlines and for most of the film it seemed very similar to a Princess Diaries sequel. Jackman too seemed out of place, but being a Woody Allen fan I keep forcing myself to believe that it was his intention to have the characters act like they did. As much as I wanted to like this film I couldn't get past its awkwardness.
Allen was hilarious in his role though, nailing his jokes as he always does.
[deleted]
I really enjoyed it. I am a Woody nut, but even so I think you'd have to be a little hard hearted not to find something to enjoy in this movie. Woody was funny and worked well with Scarlett. Plot was a bit silly in places, I'll admit.
share