One to miss

Rating: 1/10 (6 August 2006)

Was Mr Allen trying to prove that he can make a great film without smart dialogue, without subplots, without an ensemble class and without any wit or humour? He succeeds in all points apart from 'great'. The plot is starkly linear. Only one character has any depth at all (the main one, Chris). All the others are foils  whilst generally beautifully acted  for Chris to react to. None of the other characters develop or really relate to Chris much.
The film is slow. Whilst it the plot is not predictable, it often pauses clumsily to bang a point home ('Chris is troubled. Look how troubled Chris is here') in a frankly amateurish straight-out-of-drama-school kind of manner. In a film supposedly about 'luck'  the plot seems very forced.
It does have redeeming features. Apart from the lead role (good in places  hard to swallow in others)  the performances were charming. I felt that England was portrayed particularly well, both London and the upper crust, especially considering the director was a New-Yorker. Although totally one dimensional, the plot did go to unexpected places and avoided cliché turns (mostly lets not talk about the ghosts). And the story did raise a few interesting issues, though I am not convinced they were the intended ones.
Overall, I was hugely disappointed. Woody Allen has managed to break any moulds in his film-making, but by doing so made something that looked like a novice's first attempt.
Like some of the other reviewers, I am astonished that anyone found this film to be 'good' in any way whatsoever.