Its only agenda should have been comedy, leave all the other stuff at the door.

Rating: 8/10 (30 May 2003)

Woody Allen is a master humourist, few would argue that. His jokes and observations are so well constructed that it would take more skill to mangle them than it would to get the laughs and recognition they were created for. Ironically, for me, Woody Allen actually proves this HIMSELF a couple of times here. Wisecracks that seemed faultless on the page are reduced to being merely very funny by Allen's patented nervous delivery. Some might find that this character makes his humour all the more amusing, but to me, neuroses get old unless they themselves are the target of the funnies.
The material is strong enough to ride these slightly irritating tics - what it wasn't strong enough to do was convince me fully that this was an authoritative take on modern social mores and manners. This is only Allen's perspective, it isn't everybodys - and whilst there's nothing wrong with that if you're only looking to laugh heartily and repeatedly, it does handicap Annie Hall's ambitions to be 'more than just a comedy' somewhat.

The structure contributes partly to this, often feeling as it does more like a string of improvised skits than a cohesive movie. This is just one big Allen standup routine with a basic 'relationship' theme. I see nothing wrong with that as a concept, but should it really have won Best Picture?
I don't understand people who say this film has such a broad scope. Infrequent references to drugs and minor celebrity to illustrate the discomfiture Woody has with the whole issue of 'belonging' aren't enough to qualify it as 'wide-ranging'. Things like this do the opposite in fact, they are insular details that remind us that this is "Woody" we're watching and not some anti-hero that has the same problems we do.
What fools people into thinking there's more going on here than 'just' romantic comedy? Oscars certainly helped (The main ones never having been dished out to so 'vulgar' a genre either before or since) and the idea that this was a 'personal' film from Allen. It's not, I felt as removed from his character - if not his wisdom - by the end as I did before I began watching. Do I care if I enjoyed the experience and was greatly amused? Not a jot. Just don't try to sell it to me as some kind of 'profound meditation'. It's no more that than any other good comedy. Good comedy does that, though, it deceives us into thinking it's opening up new vistas when really it's the audience that does all the spadework by turning the mirror onto society.
Allen's comedy is hilarious enough to be its OWN justification. It doesn't need lumbering with any kind of 'social significance'. We do that all too readily ourselves as an audience - as has been shown.