User reviews

This presentation is original and clever; very nicely twisted from the Rashamon perceptions of several disparate pasts. As usual, Woody is very perceptive and a master of dialog, especially in fracturing relationships.

I noted that the "comedy" writer was heavily focused on the tragic elements of his plot line, while the "tragedy" writer saw little humor in his plot line. Actually, the 2 writers did not seem to differ very much at all in their views. It does not appear that Woody finds life very humorous. Rather, he finds humorous elements in mundane and sad events.

More obviously, most of the characters sound just like Woody. The comedy writer might as well have been Woody and Will Ferrell is a Woody stand-in. Several of the others, including the women, had numerous "Woody" moments. It seems like the actors and even the screen are interfering with Woody's attempts to present his art. Unlike other directors who expect the actors to climb into the characters, Woody seems to ask the actors to stand still while he paints them as the characters. Would he prefer to simple do a monologue?

Are Life, Existence, and Everything inherently comic or tragic? Woody Allen has never been shy about staring down big questions, and with "Melinda and Melinda" he takes a crack at nothing less than the human condition itself. Presented with the same set up, two dining Manhattan playwrights take us through their version of events according to their world views. An unexpected guest crashes a dinner party; is it the makings of disaster or farce? More importantly, is there really a difference? The Melinda (Radha Mitchell) of both competing vignettes is a train wreck of a woman, and makes both her entrances at her worst. Both parties contain struggling actors and couples with respective career and marital difficulties. In each, Melinda's arrival is the catalyst for all manner of bottled up tensions to come to a head. As the stories mirror one another, then veer away only to meet up again, Allen underscores the comic nature of tragedy and vice versa. As expected in an Allen film, there's strong work all around, particularly from Will Ferrell as a stand-in for Allen himself.

There's very little to offend about "Melinda and Melinda." As usual, Allen is working with ideas, and has made a film with a baseline quality about it that's gratifying. Yet most of "Melinda and Melinda" is trodden ground for Allen, and has seen better days in his earlier work. It's hard to fault the guy for being so prolific; indeed the real comedy/tragedy is how unappreciated he seems to be in recent years, considering his output. But, as Allen himself might say, comedy, tragedy; it's like anything else.

Is Melinda and Melinda one of Woody Allen's best? To me, no it isn't. Is it one of his worst? Again, no but like a fair amount of Allen's films it seems to be quite a divisive film, and you can see why. Things considered, while not a great film and with some unevenness Melinda and Melinda is a good film but a love-it-or-hate-it one as well. As with almost all Woody Allen films, it's beautifully made- such attractive locations and the cinematography flows from one frame to the other with few problems- and Allen directs very assuredly on the most part if more in the comedy scenes than the dramatic. The music fits with the atmosphere really well and has a nostalgic and catchy quality to it too. The acting is mostly very good, Radha Mitchell shows that she is as easy in comedy as she is in drama, funny and warm-hearted in the comedy scenes and affecting in the dramatic ones. Chloe Sevigny is another one of the reasons that makes the drama more watchable than it is, she looks very natural and plays with emotion, while Amanda Peet is fine too though underused. Will Ferrell was the biggest surprise of Melinda and Melinda, his performance was by far and away one of the best performances of the younger Allen alter-ego characters. Much better than Kenneth Branagh in Celebrity and Jason Biggs in Anything Else, whereas they were pale imitations Ferrell had charm and charisma and made the role his own in a way the other two did not. Not everybody impressed though, Chiwetel Ejiofor is stiff and Johnny Lee Miller is rather one-note in a quite boorish role. I am in agreement with those too that the comedy here is better than the drama. The comedy in Melinda and Melinda was great, very witty and quotable and a lot of it did make me laugh out loud. The scenes with the comedy are bright and breezy and have a light-hearted feel that is most endearing, and the characters while somewhat typically neurotic are relatively easy to engage with and the spirited performances help. The drama is not on the same level(a surprise really because Allen has shown that he can do comedy and quite insightfully and truthfully and those qualities unfortunately didn't come through), some of the dramatic scenes do drag a lot, the dialogue does sound forced and overwrought and the characters are much less likable and interesting than in the comedy story(fairly unusual for Allen, he has been known to have compellingly real characterisation when he takes on drama like in Hannah and Her Sisters and Husbands and Wives). The concept was an ingenious one, one of Allen's cleverest concepts actually, and Allen does make a commendable effort in entwining the two stories together even if it did personally feel a little confusing sometimes and the film does feel like one with two halves. All in all, Melinda and Melinda an uneven film but it is also a good and interesting one and in terms of where it sits within Allen's filmography I'd say somewhere in the middle. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox

It's curious how after having been apart for a good many years, Mia Farrow and Woody Allen seem to surface in this movie, playing the central roles. In casting Rhada Mitchell and Will Farrell, the director gives the Mia character to the young Australian actress who has an uncanny resemblance to the young Ms. Farrow, and his alter ego is played by Mr. Ferrell. The best thing Mr. Allen did in this film was to cast someone else to play the role he always gives to himself.

The idea of "Melinda and Melinda" is not bad. However, the situations, even if they are theatrical, at heart, feel fake. The resolutions of the issues in both aspects of the drama, or the comedy, being discussed by some local intellectuals at Pastis, the restaurant, don't produce a logical conclusion. In fact, both stories playing at the same time, have a way of disorienting the viewer.

The casting doesn't help either. Rhada Mitchell, is out of her league playing Melinda. Will Ferrell as Woody Allen, please! The talented Chloe Sevigny and Chiwetel Ejiofor do what they can, but we just don't believe for a moment about their situation, nor do we care what happens to these bunch of pretentious Manhanittes that are one dimensional at best.

Woody Allen as a stand-up comedian saw the humor in some of life's injustices. Here he suggests infidelity is one of those injustices. At first glance, this "open" attitude seems at odds with the fact that virtually all Woody Allen films have been love stories (even Bananas!); maybe they're really falling-in-love stories. To dramatize this story, he wisely included Rhadha Mitchell, Chloe Sevigny, and Chiwetel Ejiofor, whose performances were as hypnotic as their names (the others, in lesser roles, were also good). What happens is routine; it's just a set-up to evaluate various ways of reacting to infidelity. Some of the dialog is among the best I've heard. How we react to setbacks can be an important part of our lives (not as important as showing up, of course). Woody Allen's philosophy of life isn't rocket science: when possible, have a good time. And bring a friend.

I couldn't wait to see this movie. About half way through the movie, I couldn't wait for it to end. All of the (white) actors were delivering their lines like Woody Allen had just said, "Say it like this..." Then they said their lines on screen like they were trying to imitate Woody Allen. It was so annoying. We all know how Will Ferrell really talks, and he doesn't stumble over his words like Mr. Allen. The comedy portion of this film was just as boring as the tragedy and definitely never funny or even entertaining. I must admit that I have never been a major Woody Allen fan, and this movie definitely has not converted me. I think that his writing was just as bad as his direction. This movie will go down as one of the worst 10 movies I have ever seen.

Four friends are in a bar table discussing perspectives of life. When the story of Melinda is brought to their conversation, two different versions based on the same event are developed by two fellows, showing a comedy and a tragedy. In the end, they conclude that the most important thing is enjoy life.

"Melinda and Melinda" is a reasonable movie, but with a very good performance of Radha Mitchell in the lead role. This theme is not original, and I prefer the magnificent Gwyneth Paltrow's "Sliding Doors", where the lead character lives two parallel lives. Will Ferrell as the alter ego of Woody Allen does not work well. Although not being a bad movie, with entertaining dramatic and comic versions of the same predictable story, it is quite deceptive for a Woody Allen's movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Melinda e Melinda" ("Melinda and Melinda")

I saw "Melinda and Melinda" recently and I think the title that I posted states the feeling that I had from watching it: it's an accomplished and well done film, but it doesn't add much to the work of Woody Allen. I've been a fan of Woddy Allen since my teens and unlike many comments that I've read that states he hasn't done a good film since "Crimes and Misdemeanors", in 1989, I believe that from his latest output the weakest has been "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion". The 90's saw an incredible amount of masterpieces by the master - "Alice", "Husbands and Wives", "Everyone says I love You", "Deconstructing Harry", and even those not mentioned (like "Shadows and Fog", "Bullets over Broadway", "Mighty Aphrodite", "Celebrity", "Sweet and Lowdon"), were all accomplished works that stand in his body of work. "Melinda and Melinda" ends up being a return to all the themes that Woody Allen has focused on his work: the difficulty of relationships, how tragic and comic sides of life can happen simultaneously, but in this case he takes them in two separate lines (at times it feels like watching "September" and "Everyone ..." simultaneously). The film ends up recycling some situations that Allen has previously probed with a lot more meaning, but you can't help smiling and enjoying this film. The actors, particularly Radha Mitchel excel in their roles. This proves that the universe of the director isn't worn out - he's just finding new ways of presenting it, and even though you may feel this one isn't the peak, it shows that the path is leading up to it.

Have you ever had one of those days when life seemed terrible and everything in your world made you miserable?

But then have you had one such day and, in a moment - maybe after a word from a loved one or friend, or a sudden flash of inspiration, or even a physiological stimulus such as a cup of coffee - realised things weren't so miserable after all - maybe even had tears of sorrow turn to tears of laughter? And if those tears keep flowing, aren't they the same tears?

A couple of playwrights, New York intellectuals, are idly discussing the 'life is tragedy or comedy according to your perspective' theme in a Manhattan café. So starts Woody Allen story in Melinda and Melinda. Working from a basic storyline, a girl arriving unannounced at a dinner party, two alternative stories unfold, one comic and one tragic. Both overlap without being identical, in themes, the actress playing the visitor, and sometimes even dialogue.

I started off concentrating hard to make sure I didn't confuse the two interwoven tales, and also concentrating hard to see if a deep philosophical point was going to be made. After half an hour or so I stopped giving too much effort to either and just sat back and enjoyed.

As entertainment, Melinda and Melinda contains so many wonderful ingredients - wit, pathos, hilarity, great acting, suspense, moral intrigue. Visually it's also very pleasing - from the lovingly crafted and vibrant New York interiors of which Allen is so fond, to the eye candy in the form of hunks like Chiwetel Ejiofor (the captivating suitor to one of the Melindas) or the remarkable Chloë Sevigny.

Sevigny, in a supporting role, gives a beautifully nuanced performance. As an actress, she has not relied on her sylph like looks but adamantly stuck to parts in (largely) Independent films that both develop her as an actress and show her commitment and integrity in her profession.

But the main role, that of Melinda(s), is reserved for Radha Mitchell, who has to play both a seriously (and slightly scary) tragic persona, hair and worn features showing her traumatic life, and then moments later the comic Melinda whose madcap gaiety puts a sparkle into proceedings. Both roles are pushed - especially in a scene where each Melinda tries to throw herself from a window. The difference between comedy and tragedy is mostly visible in Melinda.

Woody Allen is a professional filmmaker that consistently churns out movies on a very reasonable budget, some better, some worse, but very rarely is there one that doesn't provide a passable hour and a half of entertainment for the price of admission. There are some people who mostly dislike his work, or are only won over by masterpieces such as Hannah and Her Sisters, or ones that come close, like Deconstructing Harry or Mighty Aphrodite. Melinda and Melinda is probably not in either league, but it is still a very worthwhile accomplishment. It made me laugh, it made me cry, it's a moving film in places and plays with ideas like suspension of belief. And yes, it made me think - but so much so that serious reflection got in the way of pure enjoyment.

There are plenty of flaws - the basic idea never rises above armchair philosophy, there is no great resolution to bring a sense of meaning after the film has finished. The difference between tragedy and comedy for instance, while it might be separated by a hair's breadth in the cosmic scale of things (or within writers' building blocks), is very real for people undergoing real tragedy. Laughter can be justified more easily when it lightens suffering, rather than laughing at it or ignoring it. Cinema has its limits. Interestingly, Allen's cinema has plenty of self-imposed limits that suggest it doesn't take itself too seriously - no expensive special effects, A-List stars only in moderation, no lingering close-ups for actors to practise Oscar-begging expressions; it borrows far more from European than British or American cinema. He seems to get on with the job instead of making it all-important in itself. Even his own philosophising seems not to draw direct attention in his films. "I have an extremely pessimistic outlook and so to me the glass is always empty. Not half empty, but completely empty. My feelings are summed up by the character who says, in effect, that life is basically tragic but there are little islands of comedy in it."

If you have very fixed views about Woody Allen films you will already know whether you want to go and see Melinda and Melinda. For others, you may find that the deft delivery of comedy is worth more than a cursory glance. Allen's prolific output, occasional innovation, and his apparent consistent ability to follow his own agenda rather than that of the big studios mark him as someone to watch both now and by film historians.

Ironically, for someone with such an outlook, he contributes many 'little islands of comedy' to what might be seen as a long-suffering and out of touch industry. I definitely enjoyed this bout of island hopping.

Of course we communicate. Now can we not talk about it anymore? I wanted to start with that because it is the only funny line in the film. If you don't believe me, click on the Memoralble Quotes option at the side of this page. Also, now you have heard the only funny line you do not need to see the film.

If you do see the film, you will find that it is a strange combination of Woody Allen's previous work. It contains two sets of lookalike actors in parallel story lines, just like Deconstructing Harry. It has a framing device of a philosophical discussion in a bar, just like Bullets over Broadway. The subject matter is the relentless marital infidelity, affairs, divorces and re-couplings that are familiar from Manhatten. The Wallace Shawm character sums up the film by saying "…comic or tragic, the most important thing is to enjoy life while you can because we only go round once and when its over, its over,,, and it could end like that" with a snap of his fingers. Well I suppose that is a reasonable summing up of Allen's view of life and, to be fair, many of us would agree with him in this post-God, age of the individual. The line about only going round once is a bit difficult to take though since Allen has clearly been round this particular block quite a few times.

The conceit of this film is that the same story can be told as either a tragedy or a comedy, paraphrasing Marx's remark that "history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce." We see Melinda, played by Radha Mitchell, as the only common character in two similar stories. I hesitate to call the stories tragic and comic because the truth is that they are rather similar, not very tragical and not very funny. I got confused with the lookalike characters until I realised that whenever Melinda had her hair in a mess we were watching the tragedy, when it was tidy we were watching the comedy. That's about the extent of the tragedy, she was having a bad hair day.

May I please have my $13.00 back? I would have rather watched "Hydro- Electric Power Comes to North America". Again. This is a movie with one voice. The same voice, which comes out of every characters mouth regardless of age or gender. To listen to that voice again I would have to charge at least $150 an hour. And I don't take insurance. It was eerie watching Will Ferrell morph into Woody. But I don't think imaginative casting is enough. One should wait until they have a story before they bother making a movie. Unless he's just doing it for the money. And if that's the case why not just reissue an All-Rap version of "What's up Tiger Lily?"

A bunch of guys are discussing philosophy in a bar. Two writers with opposed views on life argue about it: is life tragic or comic? To illustrate their theories, they imagine a story of a woman. The comic writer presents the optimistic, bright tale of Melinda (Radha Mitchell), who just accepts life as it goes by. The tragic writer gives us a destructive, lonesome and troubled Melinda, who deals with depression and suicide. Around the two Melindas we can find a variety of interesting characters: a sincere and kind of shy actor (Will Ferrell) and his ambitious wife (Amanda Peet) in the comic tale; an intellectual woman (Chloe Sevigny) and the gentle pianist (Chiwetel Ejiofor)she falls in love with.

Woody's recent efforts weren't much impressive (yet me and most of critics here liked them), so everyone was a bit skeptical about his next film. Skeptical because it wasn't a proper comedy and because Woody didn't appear in it. Well, after having seen it, I must say this is the best film the man has directed in the last ten years or so (no, I haven't seen Deconstructing Harry). Not only it is wittier, but more transcendental as well. It feels more personal, and its message is clearer and warmer. Woody teaches us a lesson. Let's not get too excited, though. The film itself is not breathtakingly impressive, but it truly delivers, and is overall rewarding. It features plenty of allenisms and classic Woody situations. Precisely one of the correct complaints about the movie is the feeling of déja vu. The film's premise is original (it might even remind of Crimes and Misdemeanors, but believe me: it's pretty different) and very well executed, but the setting and characters all seem a bit familiar.

Nothing wrong with that, though. There's plenty of characters and they're all very well crafted by the director: the protagonist, Melinda, is both believable in its two sides (tragic and comic). Radha Mitchell is excellent in both parts, switching from comedy to drama smoothly. Will Ferrell is great, and I mean great, portraying the allenistic neurotic - he doesn't merely imitate Woody. Ejiofor and Sevigny are also very adequate in their roles. Overall, none of the characters seems forced; they're all believable and honest. I'd like to comment on the cinematography by veteran Vilmos Zsigmond (The Deer Hunter) in his first collaboration with Allen: the photography is by no means revolutionary, but the way the shots were composed was always interesting (a rewatch will help to reinforce this observation).

Woody's direction is masterful as always. I'm fascinated at how he alternates and mixes both stories. The pace and editing are mostly effective, as is the usual jazzy score. The dialogues presented are human and dynamic. This is a throughoutly enjoyable, pleasant exercise on love, infidelity, marriage, life, and so on, which while not being specially mesmerizing nor powerful, is sure enlightening: life is short. We shouldn't see it in a pessimistic way, because that doesn't lead anywhere, nor in an exaggeratedly optimistic way. We just got to accept it and enjoy it, because it can end... like that.

It has been said many times, but Woody Allen is still making the same picture and has been doing so for decades. The films always have the same characters. Always well-to-do newyorkers or at least newyorkers with well-to-do wives. One longs to see some real vulgar class consciousness from that Allen fellow, just for once, but that opportunity will never show up. This director doesn't dare to or thinks he's brave enough just being a "liberal".

But "Miranda and Miranda" is still intelligent, which is another Allen movie habit. Another habit of these movies and a nice one, is the good acting. Allen makes actors better. Good just by herself is of course Chloë Sevigny, who shines through it all, even when she is not on the screen.

If you like Allen films, you won't be disappointed. If you like Sevigny films, you'll be delighted.

I've always been a great fan of Woody Allen and always will be for most of what he did in the past, but only a blind lover could ignore how dull, meaningless, pretentious and most of all horrendously acted this movie is. A vacuous mental masturbation based on inconsistent grounds. And what a disastrous idea to artificially recreate a presumed "actor Allen-clone", that is putting into Will Farrell's mouth and gestures what Allen would have done in Farrell's place had he been 30 years younger. The outcome was obviously ludicrous. And not to speak of the dialogues... what was intended to be philosophical reflections turned into an involuntary mockery of intellectual pondering, unaware of its comic effect. How sad...

One of Woody Allen's old and persistent problems as a director haunts him here - too many characters have his gestures, his timing, his general delivery of lines. It makes me wonder - does he give line readings and act out every part for his actors?

While, as always, he has some of the funniest lines in movies (delivered quite hilariously, especially by Will Ferrel), the story (even within the framework of a make-up story being discussed by a comic writer and a tragic writer) just doesn't sit well in reality. I have the feeling that Woody Allen is so insulated in his New York celebrity that he has lost touch with the majority of people. Instead of being a bi-coastal movie or even a movie made for a Manhattan audience, in Melinda & Melinda, he seems to have produced a picture that is solely for the East side - and the most indulgent east siders at that.

Personally, I'd like to be surrounded by beautiful women, who, crazy and whorish as they may be, are ultimately in love with me. I have nothing against the people in his world - only that it seems to limit him as a film maker.

Finally, and redundantly, I'd much rather see Woody Allen acting out his funniest lines and behaviours rather than giving them to one or more of the characters in his films. Once he's busy being himself, it's easier for other actors to display their own talents.

I wonder why so many actors appear only once in his movies...

I liked watching this movie, it's very funny. It provides for a fitful afternoon full of witty dialogue and interesting sequence. The film is definitely original, all of it could've taken place in a theater. The director's done a good job, characters seem to know what they're doing and in general all of it provides a nice evolving story of about 10 people, who are amazingly easy to follow through the different options they have in choosing their partners. Indeed, all the options are pursued in this movie. I liked the way how fast and well all the characters spoke. The film itself is a quite fast-paced one.

All in all - it's a romantic comedy. That's what is prevailing, although there are very sad moments.

You're either a Woody Allen fan or you aren't. And if you're a Woody Allen fan, you've been disappointed by his last few efforts. Here, he wisely leaves himself out of the acting ensemble (in fact, most of his stock players are absent here, and instead we get the underused and underrated Amanda Peet and the always intriguing Chloe Sevigny), takes an interesting idea (viewing one person's life as a tragedy and as a comedy) and manages to craft his most entertaining film since "Sweet and Lowdown." His dialogue may never be as crisp, witty, and thought-provoking as it was in his heyday, but he still has some clever ideas in him, and "Melinda and Melinda" is his best one in a long while. Here he takes an acting showcase for Radha Mitchell (delightfully light in the comic version, and heartbreakingly heavy in the tragic one) and places it in the center of the typical ensemble piece he has become so accustomed to in his latter days. Will Ferrel is the nicest surprise here. He takes awhile to get used to (like a Robin Williams or a Jim Carey, his larger than life goof ball persona can be distracting in smaller roles), but once you realize he is the character that Woody Allen himself would normally play (you can almost hear a young Woody reciting Will's lines) you'll be treated to a lovely off-kilter performance. In the end, some of the ideas aren't so fully fleshed out, and the comedy isn't as consistently funny as you might like it to be. All in all, however, this is a real treat for Woody Allen fans as long as his recent failures are fresher in your mind than his past masterpieces.

The premise of this Woody Allen film going in sounds extremely captivating: take a story and then try to approach it two separate ways - once as a comedy, then as a tragedy. We begin with a typical Allen setup from older films like Broadway DANNY ROSE where another group of people are having dinner in a restaurant, and two playrights begin to discuss and relate the events we're about to see unfold. This time they're debating amongst themselves whether a life story works best as a "dramatic tragedy" or a "comedy".

When I settled in I expected that we were going to see the same cast of characters, actors, settings and scenes, only that they'd be doing the same basic narrative from two parallel sides (one funny and the other serious), which would have been a bit more intriguing. Instead, neither story reflected its other in any way, except that the central characters are two opposite kinds of girls named Melinda and are played by the same actress (Radha Mitchell). Mitchell is a dysfunctional, depressed, suicidal wreck of a neurotic in the tragic side of the movie, while her comical persona is more bouncy and fun to be around. Ms. Mitchell is actually quite good in conveying both parts.

The supporting players change between both stories ... in the tragedy version, the messed up Melinda with a shattered past crashes at the home of her friend Laurel (Chloe Sevigny) and her husband (Jonny Lee Miller). She causes a strain on their already troubled marriage, as Melinda herself seeks to find a reason to want to live; in the comical version, the more likable Melinda spends her time with a female director and her nebbish husband (Will Farrell), who just happens to fall in love with her. Farrell is basically filling in for Woody here, as he gets all the same nerdy lines and mannerisms you'd expect Allen to do himself, had he been young enough to take on the part. Sometimes the too-tall Farrell's Woody impersonation is effective and there are some occasionally witty lines, but one cannot help feeling it should have been Allen on the screen doing them. MELINDA AND MELINDA is fair enough, but it's still ultimately another familiar essay from Woody Allen on his studies of human relationships. **1/2 out of ****

I thought that this film is right out of the classic Woody Allen mode. His theme of having events determined by others -- in this case, the writers -- was reminiscent of his one-act plays, "God" and "Death," and follows the tracks of the worldview he has always explored in his films. It was very well-written and crafted, an enjoyable night at the flicks.

One thing that struck me is that the character played by Will Ferrell is exactly the part that Woody can no longer play because he's too old. It was not long into the film before I discerned that these are lines that Woody had written for himself, the character he'd always played, but a younger man was delivering them for him. And that only added to the charm of the film for me.

but didn't love it. I loved the concept but some of the actors spoke their lines in a wooden way and sounded like they were in a high school play. I'm convinced no one but Woody should speak his lines. Ferrell is funny in his own right and shouldn't have to try to be Woody allen. I found it very distracting to keep hearing Will Ferrell say lines that sounded exactly like Woody Allen. Why couldn't Woody have written lines that would work for someone besides himself? Ego?

Melinda was the best acted part in the movie, I thought. I also liked the actress who played the pregnant woman (Cassie?). Anyway, I did enjoy the movie and would recommend it. The concept was very original and any chance to see Wallace Shawn again is worthwhile.

For a comedic writer, Woody Allen really lets the paying viewer down with this meager attempt at character development. There are a few entertaining moments, but no more than one would have listening to their dryer tumbling tennis balls.

Will Ferrell wastes his time in this movie which fails to showcase his usually funny delivery. Amanda Peet did well, but again, didn't have the room to move in this otherwise corpse like movie. The movie is so heavy and dull that it cannot be carried but if it were carried, Radha Mitchell did it.

If you enjoy movies that go on and on in one scene and don't really accomplish anything but to show that their writer can write a few lines of snappy dialogue on occasion, then you'll love this movie.

I went to see this film a bit skeptical, because Woody's last movies were not his best ones. In the last ten years, he has made funny, entertaining films; some quite interesting, as "Decontructing Harry" or "Sweet and Lowdown", but generally unimportant. But wit "Melinda and Melinda" he has made one of his most brilliant films. As in "Crimes and Misdemeanors", he mixes two different stories -a dramatic one, and a light comedy-. The result ins quite different; this movie is not as critic as that, but is really enjoyable. He mixes a drama -serious, deep, with well-built characters, and really credible- and a delicious comedy -with really funny quotes, and moments that recover his best of the 80's-, with a lot of talent, because the two stories complete each other, the movie doesn't creak.

Radha Mitchell is wonderful as the two Melindas: suggestive and content in the drama; innocent, tender and funny int he comedy. And Will Farrell, who takes the 'Woody Allen role', is the best choice he has done for that purpose ever- because instead of imitating Allen, he creates a new character, human, pleasant and funny. The script is great; with parallelism and second interpretations- And the movie is really entertaining. I hope it will get the attention it deserves; and I expect Woody Allen to keep this new walk in his career. (9/10).

Two alternating stories about the attempts of Melinda (Radha Mitchell) to straighten out her life.

Was Will Ferrell doing a Woody Allen impression? I think he was. I enjoyed that Allen (who wrote and directed) decided that if he was not going to have himself starring, he would have actors who could imitate his mannerisms and speech (even when not looking anything at all like him).

I do like the concept here of how a story could be told either as a comedy or a tragedy. That is a nice idea, and one that is well-executed. And I also like that Allen keeps to his philosophical themes and makes a point or two about Stravinsky. But the genius of this film was either lacking or went over my head, because it is not among his best work in my mind.

While there remain many Allen films for me to see, I would have to say his best of the post-2000 era is "Match Point". This one is, at best, a distant second.

Woody Allen has lost his ability to write dialogue or characters that are clearly distinguishable from each other. This is the case with "Melinda and Melinda," where all the characters speak with Allen's generic pseudo-sophistication and have problems and points of view that are not relatable to anyone outside of a four block radius of where Allen lives. They also share the same curious condition of being able to afford multi-million dollar Manhattan apartments that appear to have been designed by professional decorators regardless of their financial situation or what they do for a living.

The only character who exists outside of this dull mindset is Will Ferrel as the obligatory Woody Allen surrogate. Although he does not simply come off as merely doing a Woody Allen impression (like Kenneth Branagh in the god-awful "Celebrity"), Ferrel lacks the charm or charisma that the real Woody had when he was playing the part himself in his best movies.

The end result is another in a string of self indulgent bores from a once-great filmmaker who has been trading in on his former reputation for years.