User reviews

I found Mia Farrow's story, and more importantly, her daughter Dylan's account of what happened in this case, to be totally credible and believable. Hard to call it a hatchet job when Mr .Allen declined to be interviewed. Woody Allen belongs behind bars IMO.

"HBO" has once again done it with a near excellent and blunt revealing doc as this looks at and examines the real life drama between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow, as a viewer you are drawn into the drama of "Allen v. Farrow" as the 4 part doc has you asking for questions as to who to believe or not to believe. Clearly you see a family that has been torn apart as Mia had to deal with her filmmaking partner Woody having an affair and later marriage to her daughter Soon-Yi, to complicate matters bad things may have went down between Woody and Mia's adopted 7 year old daughter Dylan. Director Kirby Dick really moves this doc with intimate and real feel by showing vintage old home family movies, clips and drawings of court documents, interviews, and real network news reports as even raw evidence was examined in this very high profile case that involved custody and abuse. Overall watching you feel emotion while looking at a pop culture legend in Allen still you can form your own decision from watching as this is one must see headlining documentary.

Well made documentary and excellently told story. This needs to be seen by all. I have seen the hole series and I found it to be shockingly truthful. It is visually beautiful and well edited, even if it is so heartbreaking. Dick and Ziering build up a strong piece with new never shown material, footage and recorded phone calls, combined with interviews with prosecutors, witnesses and child psychologists. They don't choose the truth, it was out there and they grabbed for i, cause it cannot be ignored anymore. This is a story about a horrible family tragedy, but it is also a story of our culture, and the context we live in, a context that lets powerful men off the hook. It's about lack of justice and what part media plays in it. In the core, how ever, is a little girl who was stolen of her innocence and childhood, who was not heard or believed. This little girl is a grown woman now, and it's time to listen to her.

I see many are saying this documentary is biased and presents only one side. Allen said his "truth" out loud back in the 90's when he attacked with all weapons, based on his money, connections and popularity. Nobody heard Farrow back then. So it is Farrow's turn to tell her story. I'm pleased she talked, so women become aware how dangerous narcissistic men can be.

I grew up with Woody Allen's humor which I appreciate much more than his films, not all of which are comedies. His stand-up stuff and the goofy books he wrote ("Without Feathers" and "Side Effects") along with the Marx Bothers shaped my sense of humor. Allen was a complete original and a comic genius.

I thought he was creepy ever since I saw "Manhattan" when it premiered in 1979 and his character is dating a 17-year-old girl when he's in his mid-40s. Sorry, there is no scenario when that isn't just creepy, not even in a movie-especially not in a movie. File that movie under "Ew." He made an actual movie about having sex with a child. What more evidence does anyone need?

If you needed further evidence to his creepiness, he married his step-daughter, or whatever she was. Dude, if you don't want to sully your reputations, stay away from children.

Then we learn in this documentary that Allen's favorite foreplay is watching his partner play with Lego®.

Rim shot, polite clapping, and I take a bow.

Goodnight, ladies and gentlemen. I'm here six nights a week with a matinee on Saturdays.

"Allen v. Farrow" (2021 release; 4 episodes of about 55 min. each) is a documentary about the alleged sexual abuse by Woody Allen of then 7 yr. old Dylan Farrow, the daughter of Mia Farrow with whom Allen was involved at the time. As Episode 1 opens, we are at "The Plaza Hotel, NY, August 1992", and Allen addresses the frenzied press and flat-out denies the allegations made against him. We then go to "Connecticut" as Dylan Farrow mentions that "there is so much misinformation out there, and it's time that I speak out". Dylan looks back at at photo albums from back in the day when things were seemingly going so well. Then Mia Farrow gives her take on it: "It's my fault, I brought this guy into our family". At this point we are 10 min. into Episode 1.

Couple of comments: this documentary mini-series is directed by well-respected and veteran documentary makers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering ("On the Record", "the Invisible War", etc.). Here they reassess the sexual abuse allegations by Dylan Farrow against Woody Allen. It needs to be stated upfront: this documentary is NOT an objective assessment. Instead it is a part of the Farrow clan's version of what happened: Mia, Dylan, Ronan to be specific; Soon-Yi and Moses refused to collaborate (as did of course Woody Allen). What is striking in Episode 1 is the seemingly unlimited amount of video footage of the Farrow family in the 80s and early 90s (someone comments that Mia apparently was constantly videotaping the kids in those days). Woody Allen's version of the facts comes entirely from either public comments he made, of from the audio version which he himself narrated for his 2020 memoir "Apropos of Nothing"). Episode 1 carries us through early 1992, when Mia finds naked pictures of Soon-Yi taken by Woody Allen, and the remaining episodes look to be even more explosive. Even though this documentary mini-series is one-sided in its approach, I nevertheless will watch the remaining 3 episodes, so that I can make up my own mind, if that is possible.

"Allen v. Farrow" premiered on HBO this weekend, and Episode 1 is now available on HBO On Demand and other streaming services. New episodes air Sunday evenings at 9 pm Eastern. I encourage you to check it and draw your own conclusion.

As someone who was also the victim of child sex abuse by a step-father, I can easily relate to Dylan's story. And I am also one of those who was lucky enough to have a mother who believed me when I told her what had been going on for 4 years right under her nose. Although she immediately took me out of harm's way and divorced the man, he was not prosecuted for the same reason Allen wasn't... they didn't want to traumatize me anymore than I had already been. My memories are as clear today as they were more than 60 years ago as to what happened to me, and I have zero doubt that it is the same for Dylan.

One thing that Allen's supporters seem to ignore is that it takes time to coach a child into a story like this and Dylan's story was revealed very, very shortly after it happened. Hardly enough time for Mia to have convinced her daughter of something that hadn't really happened, I would say.

Anyway, I think the producers allowed Allen to have his say, even though he refused any personal interviews for this story. In my book, that is fair and unbiased reporting. Two thumbs up for this informative and worthwhile film series.

This is a review of the first episode only. Maybe things will change after further episodes.

So far there are some worryingly constructed aspects to this documentary, which are of great concern in terms of credibility and method.

One issue is the seemingly face-value approach to the interview content, especially concerning Dylan and Ronan Farrow. I can't speak to Dylan's memories yet but Ronan's interview poses a problem too, as he recollects Woody's predatory behaviour with absolute conviction, as if it were yesterday, yet he was five years old at the time. Maybe he had an exceptional memory from an early age, but even then, these are distant events, easily coloured by subsequent history. On this subject its worth watching 'Capturing the Friedmans'. An excellent and relevant documentary.

Another issue is the suggestive slow-motion footage of Woody and Dylan in intimate home movie footage underscored by unsettling music. Recontextualised you could easily create a portrait of a great father instead. This is rather irresponsible of the film-makers.

One of the few facts that is stated in the first episode is that Dylan was taken to a therapist before the alleged abuse where she revealed that she had 'a secret'. This secret is not itself revealed, so even in its suggestive context, its meaningless. Perhaps this is setup to be addressed in a later episode, but if not, that is highly speculative film making indeed.

Lastly, so far we are not given any countering opinion or content, there are only a few snippets of Allen's narrated autobiography, and these are not used to counter Mia, Dylan and Ronan's recollections. Only a written statement of denial from Woody is included at the very end.

There are some lovely shots of New York and Mia's house, but the overall glossiness doesn't paper over the apparent partiality to the film makers' approach, and only serves to highlight the lack of factual content. Let's see where this goes...

Regardless of how well presented, researched or documented it's sad to say healthy viewers aren't entertained by this subject matter, as they should never be! Surprised that following the "me too" movement, we don't see more support for this family and their story. In parts as it's presented possibly too soon to rate until all episodes are well digested. Female viewer who's not looking for anything other than truthful recount of full story. Women still have odds against them in 2021 when revealing ugliest behaviors of powerful men. Let's commit to changing the unbalance of power here.

It was obvious that the documentary was completely one-sided and portrayed in a way that could make one think that there is beyond reasonable doubt to believe Dylan and Mia Farrow's story. The saying is there are two sides to every story and then there's the truth. Unfortunately, the documentary only followed one side to the story. The series was quite disturbing but there seemed to be missing pieces to the puzzle that weren't pursued further and a string of Mia Farrow followers that wanted to push a specific narrative that suited their side of the story.

One thing I found particularly peculiar was that Mia Farrow brought up slapping her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi. However, that topic was never pressed further by the interviewers and came off from a viewers perspective as nonchalant. Wouldn't an investigated journalist pursue that topic further by asking other adopted sons and daughters if there was any kind of behavior at home from Mia Farrow and also investigate other siblings point of views.

For a documentary that claimed to take years of research, it didn't want to present the full case and present a different side of the story. It wanted shock value and to further destroy and alienate a famed director.

I found it very well made and Mia farrow and Dylan very convincing as was everyone else who participated In this documentary, you don't have to believe it but you have to see how easy it is to groom young children. I have only watched the 1st episode and has made me think on how disturbing these rich and famous people are. Do I believe it? So far they have given me an inside look into there lives and Mia seems genuine as does her daughter, what reason do they have to lie, ofcourse woody Allen will dispute it,, its wierd how people are quick to call woman liars especially when someone rich and famous like woody is. I am enjoying it but I am also disturbed by it. Every one should watch it it might make us a little more aware of our surroundings.

I've only seen Part 1 of this 3 part series but I kept having flashbacks to Leaving Neverland . And how similar Dylan Farrow's testimony is to the allegation made by Michael Jackson's victims. Both Jackson and Allen have a fanbase that would chose not to believe and accuse the victim. . Both men used the same grooming tactics. The tactics of isolating Dylan from other family member including her mother. . Jackson employed the same methods. Showering extreme affection on one child.. Both Allen and Jackson had private designated areas to take their victims for intimate "alone " time'. And the parents were somewhat aware or made aware of going ons but chose to be complacent. Now many will deny and make excuses for these two men because they were great entertainers . But a rapist doesn't' assault every woman. Dog abusers don't abuse every dog they own. And just because someone give millions to charity and claims to adore all children does not mean he didn't sexually abuse some.

Let me admit right off that some of the criticism I've seen seem valid - since Woody didn't participate there's an air of one-sidedness to it. The fact that Dylan had a therapist at what - age 5? - seems to give credence to the 'icky' feeling you get observing the lifestyle of Woody/Mia. Moreover, the way the series is edited makes you wish they'd condensed it and maybe Dylan was coached. However, if you're sure of who's lying/telling the truth after watching the 4th episode I'd suggest you shouldn't try to get on any juries till you regain your objectivity.

Wow. I didn't think this would move me so much. I followed the news accounts and read the dueling op eds. I didn't expect anything new from this series. I honestly thought I'd watch about ten minutes and then move on. I was glued to the screen for the entire first episode. It's honest, detailed, intimate, and devastating.

What gets you is the truth: you are most hurt by people you love and trust.

There is no doubt, this is a well produced and researched insight into one of the biggest scandals of modern day history. The only two people that really know what happened for sure, is Dylan and Woody. For my own part, given the experience I have had with this subject, and the hurt it has caused those around me, there was nothing of Dylan's story that suggested it was a planted memory, or the result of a manipulative mother.

Hats off to the family for stepping forward and putting this out there. The documentary itself was well done, however, it could have be edited down to 3 episodes without losing anything of its thrust. I felt I had learned nothing more from Episode 4 than what was already presented.

Overall, well worth the watch.

This is a well-edited recount of the early days of a rather perverse plot. It's always been easy to criticize Mia Farrow for just assembling a huge family of children to care for, but that is less of a target here. The slow-burn of Allen's "inappropriate" behavior with selected children is intriguing...and you just want to know more. Why? Because it is downright weird. It's about time someone documented this story and let people make up their own minds. This is a good documentary.

Can one-sided propaganda movies be called 'documentaries'?

Can a propaganda movie be called a 'documentary' if it purposefully excludes highly relevant information and spokepersons, and includes lots of innuendo, plus statements sold to its audience for facts or even 'evidence', and talking heads presented as 'witnesses'?

'Allen v Farrow' should not be listed as a documentary.

It is a propaganda movie, presenting and trying to convince us of Mia's three decades old allegation - one for which she has always shunned our legal system, and has only offered to the media since the day in August 1992 when her videotape was 'leaked' on the desk of a young reporter working for a NY Fox news channel.

That would be Rosanna Scotto, who can be seen & heard in 'Allen v Farrow'. The one young, hardly known reporter about whom Dylan's nanny, Kristi Groteke (not in 'Allen v Farrow'...) wrote in her tell-all book that she was happy to meet Rosanna, and that Rosanna was a visitor to Mia's big party when she celebrated the outcome of the custody trial.

This was the videotape that we only get to see three selected minutes from in Allen v Farrow', while we know from from court reports that the tape ran for 15 minutes, while the 'Allen v Farrow' makers maintain they only saw 11 minutes. There's something smelly here. Herdy, who did the research, never accounted for the missing 4 minutes, nor for her selection of 3 out of 11 minutes.

It is the same videotape about which Mia's own hired expert, Dr Steven Herman, testified that it was undermining Mia's allegation, since she seemed to have coached Dylan while making it, likely putting words in Dylan's mouth.

The same videotape that was investigated in full by.a child abuse expert working for the Manhattan sex crimes unit. He concluded that the child had been asked leading questions, urging her to tell what Mia wanted her to tell. He did not find the tape convincing of the abusive event to have happened, and worried that Mia's obvious 'coaching' made it more difficult for subsequent investigators to find the truth.

The makers of 'Allen v Farrow' presented the video material als new and shockingly convincing, while it was old and the opposite of shockingly convincing. Mia's expert Steven Herman was interviewed for it, but the makers 'forgot' to ask him about his negative opinion about the videotape.

This is just one of the many problems that undermine this propaganda movie's credibility.

'Allen v Farrow' has been presented as the 'definitive nail in the coffin' of Woody Allen. As such, it aims at replacing the verdict given by our legal system. Allen has been fully exonerated from the allegation after two independent legal investigations into the alleged abuse. Both investigations, done by experts in child sexual abuse, concluded in no uncertain terms that the abuse did not happen. 'Allen v Farrow' just wants us to forget that while bypassing due process.

This is a commercial tv production that aims at having a person convicted in a trial-by-media, using manipulation and deception. It wants us to give up values such as equal hearing, the innocence presumption, and due process. It feeds on the MeToo movement and is fueled by 'cancel culture'. It seeks to make money over the public smear of a person by presenting salacious allegations as the outcome of their own 'research - that has never seen any critical scrutiny, let alone legal scrutiny.

I have no hesitation awarding this, ahem, 'documentary' with the least number of 'stars' possible.

By the way, there is a big difference in rating between men and women. A full two points difference is extreme. Besides, half of the votes are cast by people who either award this propaganda movie with a '10' or a '1'. I guess these ratings have little to do with the 'quality' of the movie, and much more with the different political positions of its raters.

Those who say "one sided" need to remember this series is based on the memories and experiences of a child who lives it and continues to live with her past.

Her reality is her reality, it can't be reduced to he said/she said. Mr. Allen is free to make his own documentary about his experience.

That said, the collaborating memories of others is damning for Mr. Allen. The family's home movies, commentaries, and input are pieced together in mosaic that tells the tale of innocence stolen. Well worth watching.

Loved this documentary, all the inside info, HOWEVER, Berrie Berenstan, wife of Anthony Perkins was inaccurately labeled as Mia's sister. No. Anyone who knows anything recognizes Berrie.

One can argue whether or not documentarians should adhere to the truth and whether or not they should have journalistic integrity, but it is clear these days that many documentarians just use them as a platform for themselves to rise.

In this case Woody Allen is thrown under the bus together with any fairness or balance and no attempt were made to find the truth or show both sides. Many important facts and pieces of evidence were left out to make room for the attacks and they didn't just go after the man's integrity but also his career or right to even have one or for his films to be seen.

This amounts to nothing but a smear campaign against Woody Allen and I highly recommend viewers to either shy away or make sure they investigate the truth and the matter a little more.