Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: I was lucky enough to get a free pass to an advance screening of 'Scoop' last night. Full house at the theatre and when the movie ended there was spontaneous applause. I didn't speak to anyone who disliked 'Scoop' although two teenagers sitting next to me sighed and fidgeted uncomfortably for most of the film. They were the exception though because everyone else including myself really enjoyed themselves.

'Scoop' is a quickly paced murder mystery. A young female journalism student is unwittingly maneuvered by forces beyond her control into trying to catch a serial killer on the loose. Plenty of hijinks ensue as she partners up with a traveling illusionist and falls in love with a frisky and charming young nobleman.

'Scoop' isn't a bad addition to the Woody Allen filmography. It isn't his best work but it is a very enjoyable and light hearted romp. I'd say it fits quite comfortably into being an average Woody Allen film, right in the middle of the pack. If you're a Woody Allen fan you'll probably enjoy yourself. If you're indifferent to his work then 'Scoop' might be enough to get you interested in seeing more. I don't think that anyone who dislikes his style of film-making and acting are going to change their mind. Woody plays the same kind of neurotic character we've grown so accustomed to although it borders dangerously close to forced and over the top in this film. While potentially aggravating for some who might find themselves wishing he'd hurry up and just spit out the words, Woody Allen fans know what to expect.

Very good performances all around in my opinion although I found myself missing Ian McShane who is excellent and not on camera nearly enough. Hugh Jackman is great as the charming nobleman and I think Woody Allen has found a new regular star to work with in Scarlett Johansson. I think that with 'Match Point' this is their second pairing and she's just magic with the material that Woody gives her. Could be the beginning of a beautiful relationship! I'm glad I saw the movie and definitely recommend it. More sophisticated comedy than movies like 'Scary Movie 4' so if your brand of comedy is the latter rather than the former, 'Scoop' probably isn't for you. If, on the other hand, you like a touch of class, sophistication and fun, 'Scoop' is for you. Probably not the Woody Allen film I'd introduce to a newcomer but all others should give it a try.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: I love all his work but this looks like nothing.. sorry.. This looks more like a "David Lynch copycat". I think people like it only because "it's from David Lynch".

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
It must be assumed that those who praised this film ("the greatest filmed opera ever," didn't I read somewhere?) either don't care for opera, don't care for Wagner, or don't care about anything except their desire to appear Cultured. Either as a representation of Wagner's swan-song, or as a movie, this strikes me as an unmitigated disaster, with a leaden reading of the score matched to a tricksy, lugubrious realisation of the text.

It's questionable that people with ideas as to what an opera (or, for that matter, a play, especially one by Shakespeare) is "about" should be allowed anywhere near a theatre or film studio; Syberberg, very fashionably, but without the smallest justification from Wagner's text, decided that Parsifal is "about" bisexual integration, so that the title character, in the latter stages, transmutes into a kind of beatnik babe, though one who continues to sing high tenor -- few if any of the actors in the film are the singers, and we get a double dose of Armin Jordan, the conductor, who is seen as the face (but not heard as the voice) of Amfortas, and also appears monstrously in double exposure as a kind of Batonzilla or Conductor Who Ate Monsalvat during the playing of the Good Friday music -- in which, by the way, the transcendant loveliness of nature is represented by a scattering of shopworn and flaccid crocuses stuck in ill-laid turf, an expedient which baffles me. In the theatre we sometimes have to piece out such imperfections with our thoughts, but I can't think why Syberberg couldn't splice in, for Parsifal and Gurnemanz, mountain pasture as lush as was provided for Julie Andrews in Sound of Music...

The sound is hard to endure, the high voices and the trumpets in particular possessing an aural glare that adds another sort of fatigue to our impatience with the uninspired conducting and paralytic unfolding of the ritual. Someone in another review mentioned the 1951 Bayreuth recording, and Knappertsbusch, though his tempi are often very slow, had what Jordan altogether lacks, a sense of pulse, a feeling for the ebb and flow of the music -- and, after half a century, the orchestral sound in that set, in modern pressings, is still superior to this film.