Scoop

Scoop

Scoop-480P

Scoop

terrible.. I expected a fabulous movie from Woody Allen and Scarlett Johansson after watching the Match Point! It is boring, not interesting.. also, after The Prestige, why did Hugh Jackman act in this meaningless movie??? By the way,Woody Allen talks too much, doesn't make any sense... waste of time...The subject is not different, just an ordinary thing.. a murder. Also, you expect something extraordinary at the end of the film. I said to myself, "OK the beginning is bad.. OK the middle is bad.. OK, so the ending will totally impress me, isn't woody Allen the man who wrote Match Point? So.. Unfortunately i was wrong.

Oh my god! Wood Allen is not funny. I like and can appreciate virtually all types of humor and just listening to him makes me cringe. I actually had to not watch him while he talked so I could get through the movie. Maybe if there was just a tiny bit of him in it it would not have been completely unbearable but he sucks the life out of this movie. Everything he says is totally predictable and there was only one thing I thought was marginally funny. I know it's his shtick but that endless stammering and then.....payoff...the same joke again and again and again! Wow, what a genius! And his fakey dialog and bad acting are catching. Scarlett J was twitchy and unbelievable in every scene with him. Hugh Jackman gave an Academy Award performance in comparison. He was horribly out of place because he could act--until the end at least. He must have just given up by the time it was filmed. What an awful movie.

I was in NY this summer with my girlfriend, my sister and her husband and we were very excited to see that a new Woody Allen movie was out. We had read *nothing* about it before going and we were expecting an excellent movie, especially after "Match Point", one of the best films Mr. Allen's done in a long time. I'd also like to point out that I've seen *ALL* of his films and consider the guy a genius, and the same applies pretty much to the four of us who went to the theater that day. Little did we suspect that we were in for a harrowing experience. I'm not exaggerating. Ten minutes into the movie we were so embarrassed by what we were seeing that we considered leaving the theater. We stayed only out of respect for the director, whom we all love so much. I'm not going to go into all the flaws of this atrocious film; you can read the reviews elsewhere. The main problem is not the plot, which is nothing more than a half-hearted rehash of the excellent "Manhattan murder mystery" and "Match point". It's not that the movie is unfunny and boring, which is also painfully true. The problem is that the directing, and especially THE ACTING are so poor that the experience is as unbearable as hearing a piece of music played by out-of-tune instruments. Really, it would be hard to find worse acting and directing in any z-movie to come out in the last 10 years. It is totally baffling that someone with the comedic timing and genius of Woody Allen could direct this piece of crap. I still cannot understand it GO AND SEE THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!

You like Woody lite? well this tissue movie is Balsa Allen... maybe even Cork Allen as it is a real floater. This film is so flimsy it simply does not exist. Gawd. I sat there for 90 minutes while he did again again again again his whiny blather, patting windowsills and fussing about, the occasional (who me?) retort, ogling Scarlett Johansen, wasting everyone's time and talent (esp Hugh Jackman) and most obnoxiously casing himself center screen. SCOOP is non existent, it is so thin. This is match pointless... I am struggling to fill ten lines here. ........................................ tedious, boring....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. An outrageous vanity project of dull minor out takes from MATCH POINT.

Working the crowd on Charon's ferry of dead souls across the Styx, a cheerful hustler tells his fellow voyagers to the Underworld: "You are all wonderful, and I really mean that; you may be deceased, but don't let that discourage you." Words to live by... or hold dear thereafter. Ian McShane is the "famous English journalist" who will indeed not be discouraged. He may be dead and buried, but his dive from the ferry into the Dark River opens the story, as he is swimming back to the shore of departure, a veritable Blythe Spirit in the drink. No force can hold back a journalist in search of a scoop, especially if it's a big one. How big? He has a certain tip about the identity of the Tarot Card Killer, the serial slayer of London prostitutes, who happen to have short brown hair. So begins Woody Allen's new opus, "Scoop." It is, simply put, a comic delight. If you look beyond simplicity, there are some problems with the film, but on the surface - which is where discussion of summer movies should focus - it's all fun and games. Hearkening back to the good old days of "The Pink Panther" (forget, if you can, the recent awful remake), "Scoop" combines comedy, suspense, and romance, in a lopsided proportion of 80:15:5. The 5% romance figure is obtained from the somewhat unconvincing vertical and horizontal interaction between Scarlett Johansson and Hugh Jackman. The 80% figure for giggles comes from Allen's performance, bits of stand-up interspersed with a story. Johansson is a young American, aspiring to a career in journalism, although more versed in dental hygiene. During her visit to London, she becomes entangled in the dead man's quest for the scoop. Jackman plays the dashing British aristocrat who is the object of both her (strong) suspicion and (mild) affection. There should be a conflict there, but it doesn't quite come through, and Johansson's lackadaisical performance is no help. Unlike his judicious absence from his last, excellent, film, "Match Point," Allen is all over the place in "Scoop," providing all the laughs, and turning a movie into a stand-up routine every time he appears as Splendini the Magician, or in his real identity, as Sid Waterman, an annoying shmuck from Brooklyn. How he ends up pretending to be the Johansson character's father? You must see the film (and, specifically, one its best scenes) to find out. The one-liners are good, the story is OK, but the twain don't quite meet. Enjoy the components separately, and don't ask for such pretentious stuff as structural integrity or believability. Allen the story-teller, who keeps interrupting the story with lengthy shticks, might have met his demise, but don't let that discourage you from enjoying "Scoop."

Woody Allen's second movie set in London. Tha Tarot Card murderer is killing prostitutes in London. Aspiring journalist Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson) gets a tip that he may be Lord Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). She starts to romance him but quickly falls in love. She's helped by stage magician Sid Waterman (Woody Allen) who doesn't like what he sees. I like this better than the over rated "Match Point" from last year. It was shorter and moved much more quickly. The plot is old but I was entertained and it kept me guessing till the very end. It's not really a comedy but a mystery with a few very good comedic lines (all from Allen of course). It's not one of Allen's best but it's far better than his worst. The acting is, for the most part, very good. Allen is bad but he's played this character a million times before and it's gotten tiresome. But Johansson and Jackman are just great--they look fantastic and give two very appealing believable performances. Also Allen (surprisingly) works on their sex appeal--there is a sequence where they're both in the their bathing suits to show off their nice bodies. The only real debit is that Allen still seems unsure on how to shot London. He's not as off as he was on "Match Point" though--maybe he'll just get better as he goes along. Worth seeing. I give it an 8.

I've enjoyed Woody Allen movies in the past and I have quite a penchant for Johansson. This was poor comedy, I couldn't find a worthwhile joke to laugh at in the entire thing. Allen's routine bored the socks off me and the acting was routinely terrible. The script was complete tosh, so the poor actors had nothing to chew on. The rest of the time, Allen was hogging the screen with his stupid routine. London has seldom been used so poorly, with a couple of dreadful backdrops that were so obvious it looked like it was made in the 1950's. What on _earth_ was Allen thinking of, this was _awful_. brendan