曼哈顿

喜剧片美国1979

主演:黛安·基顿  梅丽尔·斯特里普  伍迪·艾伦  迈克尔·墨菲  玛瑞儿·海明威  

导演:伍迪·艾伦

播放地址

 剧照

曼哈顿 剧照 NO.1曼哈顿 剧照 NO.2曼哈顿 剧照 NO.3曼哈顿 剧照 NO.4曼哈顿 剧照 NO.5曼哈顿 剧照 NO.6曼哈顿 剧照 NO.13曼哈顿 剧照 NO.14曼哈顿 剧照 NO.15曼哈顿 剧照 NO.16曼哈顿 剧照 NO.17曼哈顿 剧照 NO.18曼哈顿 剧照 NO.19曼哈顿 剧照 NO.20
更新时间:2024-04-11 16:22

详细剧情

40岁的艾萨克·戴维斯(伍迪·艾伦 Woody Allen 饰)在写作上不算成功,在感情上更是一团糟。一方面,为了另一个女人而离开他的前妻吉尔(梅丽尔·斯特里普 Meryl Streep 饰)打算出版一本有关他们私密婚姻生活的书,另一方面,17岁的女孩翠西(玛瑞儿·海明 威 Mariel Hemingway 饰)对于这段他并不打算认真经营的感情投入了越来越多的热情。在这个节骨眼上,好友耶尔(迈克尔·莫菲Michael Murphy饰)的情人玛丽(黛安·基顿 Diane Keaton 饰)闯入了戴维斯的视线,风趣的谈吐,投机的话题,一切的一切都为两人的感情擦出了火花。3个男人,3个女人,在曼哈顿这个繁华又孤单的城市,这群成年人究竟该用何种方式来道德并公正的解决他们的感情问题呢?   本片荣获1980年英国电影学院最佳影片奖。

 长篇影评

 1 ) 关于布尔乔亚巨婴式爱情的一种解读(不代表所有)

相较于本片,或许午夜巴塞罗那和午夜巴黎这两部片子更广为人知;事实上在笔者心中,曼哈顿可以算作是这三部城市系列中的第一部分。伍迪艾伦的电影长于长篇单口式对白与浪漫主义镜头语言和音乐语言,但借助于这些浪漫主义符号又往往表达的是对一种群体族群,一种阶层的刻薄讽刺。几乎所有的电影都可以用上面这句话来切入或者解读。但是这种讽刺有时并不是那么刺骨反而吹面不寒,同伍迪艾伦对于自导自演的倾向也许原因是类似的,用导演自己的话解释:“我永远不会加入由我这样的人组成的聚会。”,电影是导演对于自己的批判以及对于整个小布尔乔亚型知识分子的批判,所以一方面像蝙蝠一样厌恶自己,一方面又沉沦于这种题材,除了少数几部无出其右。说回电影本身,同午夜巴黎里明显的讽刺“掉书袋”以及午夜巴塞罗那里“叶公好龙”然后真香的闹剧式神经质爱情讽刺不同,本片通过对于一个大龄渣男爱情的再现幽微的表达了对鼻涕虫式学院派知识分子的鄙夷与同情(笑)。另外一个有意思的地方是本片中17岁少女身上所展现出的倒错,本身由于年轻“无知”被男主以及他的同伴们玩物化(原谅笔者可能过于主观),但对于至少是大家对于感情的公知有着比巨婴型男主远更成熟的看法。这位尚未成年的小女友依然保存着对爱情的美好向往,而不是将其看作摆脱苦闷生活的游戏。不懂生活的规则,可能会失去很多乐趣;但天真的人对世界有一种直觉的理解,这是费里尼告诉我们的真理。当然作为W.A吹本片并不止这一个看点,角色的复杂性也并非几句话可以表达清楚。读者还是自行观赏微妙。最打动笔者之处是WA在电话亭中心碎的停滞片段,也许打动我的也能打动你。

 2 ) 曼哈顿中的操守问题

伍迪艾伦1979年的电影曼哈顿快到结尾 他自己演的叫色艾萨克斥责朋友耶鲁 你太放任自己了 你没有发现么 这就是问题所在 你的全部问题 什么事你都能找着借口 你对自己就不诚实

艾萨克不只是说 耶鲁为了干不那么有道理的事情 找些理由向他搪塞 他也是再说也录得自我欺骗 当然可以认为艾萨克是更泛泛的指摘人的自我欺骗和自圆其说 保持操守 或者说坚持个人原则 就要求我们既按一定的规则行事 也按这个规则思考 如果我们在不断找借口中太过纵容自己 就失去了可靠的行为指导 操守是曼哈顿的主题

我们应当把操守与坚持 执拗清楚的区分开 通常认为后两者近乎操守 有操守是褒义的形容 虽然坚持是操守的成分 但仅有坚持并不足以得到操守所具备的褒义 有很多不含道德色彩的坚持 比如在居室装修上坚持一种审美观 况且人还会有道德上不正当的坚持 比如专一的 不放过一个有太人的纳粹 性格缺陷也可以表现为一种坚持 比如影片安妮霍尔里艾伦扮演的角色艾维尔 他的爱情婚姻总是黄掉 通常说的忠于自我或许也是操守的成分 但仅仅如此又太过主观 不具任何价值 徒然的自恋者是典型的忠于自我 但这不成其为道义上的善

一段颇有造物恩宠的段子
耶鲁 好 我不是圣人 行了吧
艾萨克 可是你也太放任自己了 你没发现吗 这就是问题所在 你的全部问题 什么是你能找着借口 你对自己就不诚实 你说过你要写本书 可是到最后你宁可买辆保时捷 你知道吗 你现在对艾米丽不老实 跟我也耍花招 下次 你就该在参议院委员会前公出一串名字 出卖了你的朋友
耶鲁 你太自以为是了 咱们都是人 都有七情六欲 你以为你是上帝呐 艾萨克 我做人有标准
耶鲁 得了 你那样是不行的 太准求完美了
艾萨克 想想以后的人会怎么说我们呢 天哪 我们总有一天和他们一样 他过去美春也是个造物恩宠 没准儿也跳着舞 打着网球 想尽一切 到时候我希望人们能念我的好

艾萨克显然认为买保时捷是耶鲁缺法操守的象征 而不是证据 艾萨克的说法事项确保后人能年他的好 也去可以认为这是暗指操守或德行的唯一价值 在于后人对他有个好印象 艾萨克可能不那么认为 他认为讲道德价值是不能从主流观点里探知的 后来在电影里 艾萨克列举了若干特定的事物 没有操守就无法协调理智与情感 这样的不和谐造成内心冲突 带来没完没了的不满足 让人不能坚持做正确的有价值的事 少了德行 只能得到肤浅而短暂的欢愉

 3 ) 豌豆

七八十年代是伍迪创作力最惊人的时段,所有讽刺和笑料皆恰中要害,区别于后期的隔靴搔痒。他的母题很固定,小布尔乔亚的烦恼,学院派知识分子的心理问题,是豌豆公主床下的豆子,衍化出现代城市的病症。不少人反感它的矫饰和忸怩作态,诟病其格局太过精致,失于朴鲁。确实,都市情人本就朝三暮四,加之文化人的多虑,连自己的心性都看不清,如何简洁深沉?但这些情绪构成了一段景致,甚至一座城市,是真诚的。男男女女在一段段话唠声里走来走去,声色犬马,天空上方浮现出小老头的脸,“我看着你们…因为,你们的德性我再了解不过了…”,他们神经质,看了十几年心理医生,永远不成熟,懦弱又鲁莽,自大却彷徨,囿于情感但不舍脱身。他们对现实不满,却不屑从政。他们有各式各样的怪癖,也许尝试自杀但并未成功过,他们谈及电影戏剧头头是道,对于“性爱”有一百种看法,遇到问题就搬出弗洛伊德…你说他为啥拍的这么好?“因为我就是你们…”。没有那颗豆子会怎么样?那么我们荒诞生活的源头就没了。“如果有可能,我不舍得拿掉它…你要知道,生活的可爱,甚至意义,不就在于这些瞎折腾吗。”

 4 ) 从伍迪艾伦看文青群体

对伍迪艾伦总是处于一种既不十分喜欢,偶尔有点讨厌,有时却不得不佩服的态度:一方面,他的才华展现的形式总是显得过于卖弄、刻意、甚至有些小家子气,他囊中羞涩地从自己的智力博物馆中抖落一大堆名字与符号,像句子中一个精巧却突兀的比喻,刻意地彰显知识分子的审慎品味,即便这些文化的符号不必如此频繁地被提及;另一方面,伍迪艾伦清醒地认知自己的小资情调或小聪明,并将它们以自我解构的方式、以戏谑又自嘲的口吻轻描淡写地说出来——他在面对自己时既坦然又羞怯(正如他的荧幕形象或晚期电影的主人公),他不吝推销出一个丑角似的自我形象,在这副公之于众的面具上涂涂画画,在背后,一副总是对生活愤世嫉俗或agressive的面孔定对生活报以敝帚自珍般的赤诚。

《曼哈顿》中借吉尔的文字描绘的艾萨克(或说伍迪)可谓一针见血:

“他会突然间控制不住他自己,表现出自由派犹太人的妄想、大男子主义、自以为是的愤世嫉俗和虚无主义者的绝望情绪。他总是抱怨生活,却拿不出任何解决方法;他渴望成为艺术家,却逡巡不前于所必须付出的代价。在他最最私下的时刻,他会谈起对死亡的恐惧,他将它抬高到悲剧的高度,而实际上,这只是他自恋的表现。”——这一矛盾的形象像是《荒原狼》或是地下室人的当代变格版,兴许只有故作轻松的自嘲方式才能达到自我解嘲。伍迪的观察是带有知识分子阶层色彩的清醒,同时他的每个角色都是他自己:话痨、神经兮兮、敏感、紧张。这样高度相似的人物形象想必一定带有作者本身的影子,只有足够自恋又足够自卑的人才能不厌其烦地在自己的所有作品中安放自己的切面。

从《安妮霍尔》到《曼哈顿》,Woody Allen的的自我形象经拼贴、缝补、变色龙化后,却是描绘着知识分子阶层或俗称”文艺青年“的群体共性与最终幻想——他的个性中流淌着整个群体的共性。高审美或品味、素养又或是精神追求与贫瘠的创造能力不相匹配,愚钝、清醒、自知是很痛苦的 。那些向别处抛出去的辛辣话会跑回来戳中痛脚,尖锐的刀刃最终会反过来戳破自己。不难看出为何我们这群自视甚高的人,自认为洞察世事、格格不入,不肯与庸庸碌碌为伍,总是借助知识面的信息差有意无意地泄露出一点优越,张口就能衔来塞尚、泽尔达·菲茨杰拉德、伯格曼与博纳科夫,将艺术作为彰显自己的养料,殊不知自己匍匐于前人的胸腔以窃取共鸣、剖挖开他人的洞察来假装自己睁开了双眼,总归是咀嚼他人咀嚼过的东西,然而始终不敢也不肯承认自己只是一个徒有格调的庸人。

拿《曼哈顿》来看,伍迪艾伦几乎塑造了一座文艺群体的理想福地——关系与关系的交互被城市的在场性而见证,“空间”与“地点”即为一个三缄其口的主角。城市(空间、地点)一定程度上是故事与人物的喻体,不然《广岛之恋》何谓“广岛是你的名字,我的名字是内维尔”、安东尼奥尼何必在《奇遇》的孤岛中探究脆弱的现代性——叙事是非发生在这些空间、这些地点不可的,它们是隐身的第三人。《曼哈顿》陈列出现代艺术馆、书店、知识分子们的居室,书籍随处可见地散落在角落、街口的商铺总是洁净又工整;为电影novelization,为弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫写书评,这样的纽约知识阶层生活,即使落入中产阶级混乱、暧昧的私人关系或被批判至“永恒的空虚生活”的论调中,它仍旧是一个浪漫的生活的最终形态。《曼哈顿》以纯熟又漂亮的镜头,在空镜于空镜之间画出了那个流放自我的乌托邦。

爱慕文学与艺术的人大抵可以分成两类,天才,或自恃格调的庸人。前者诸如伯格曼或费里尼,那类但闻其名便仰之弥高的大师;伍迪艾伦将他自己或作品当后者来写,写他自己的小品味与小聪明,写些困顿于这个身份的剖析与自省,这使得他更贴近于这两者中间的角色——一个评论者的角色。

 5 ) Manhattan

    看伍迪的电影,里面总是充满着台词,让你来不及看。但是只要你认真看了,你会发现伍迪是多么天才的一个导演,并且他经常打破传统的叙事结构,自己跳出来来一段讲解,一会是剧中人,一会是第三人,这在《安妮.霍尔》里表现尤其明显。
    在《曼哈顿》一片中,台词里充斥着大量的信息:克尔凯郭尔、伯格曼、安定、消极感受力、忠诚藏......可以说有的人可能看着一头雾水,有的人却总是会心。这就好比古时唐诗里的典故,藏的越深,读着越难,而碰到个会解的则会从诗里得到莫大的享受,这诗也就备受推崇。所以古人文人墨客之间多有应酬,而伍迪的片子也正是如此,他不是拍给所有人看的,那些自以为受过良好教育的小资产阶级尤其爱看,他迎合了一个空虚、膨胀、想要向外兜售的头脑。

 6 ) 伍迪艾伦给纽约的情书

          “He adored New York City.” (Manhattan)Of course. Why else would Woody Allen title his film Manhattan? He makes it clear from the very beginning that this film is dedicated to the city. Seeing Midtown in black and white unfolding to the rhythm of “Rhapsody in Blue”, the audience romanticizes the city together with Allen and eagerly awaits what he has to say about the city. And then through the hustle bustle of daily street scenes of Manhattan, we hear it, “a metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture”(Manhattan).
          Before we proceed, we shall ask ourselves, what is the “contemporary culture” that Allen is referring to? The film was released in 1979 and the “Manhattan” he refers to is the one in the 70s. New York City in the 1970s was “dirty, dangerous and destitute”(Tannenbaum). Crimes were rampant around the city and Times Square was filled with hookers and drug dealers. The economic chaos and political upheaval brought by the war and Watergate rendered the city powerless in the face of crisis. It is not surprising that Allen was heartbroken, seeing his beloved city turning into a nest of crimes and drugs. While Manhattan is not Taxi Driver, which exposes the crimes of New York unreservedly and praises actions against them, that doesn’t mean Allen shies away from all the trouble the city and the society is in. He turns it, instead, into a celebration of New York and the people living in it. Allen, born in Brooklyn, has spent his entire life living in the city, knowing all the bits and pieces about it. Certainly it is far from perfection, but neither is anything else. Nonetheless Allen knows that New York is a great city, and the reason is written all over Manhattan, from the stunning 59th Street Bridge at dawn to the enchanting and dark Planetarium in the American Museum of Natural History.
          The film centers on four people living in Manhattan, Isaac (played by Allen himself), Mary, Yale and Tracy. These characters embody the spirit of the city. All of them are highly educated and possess rich cultural knowledge. Cultural debates take place among them throughout the film. The most heated debate happens when Isaac meets Mary at an art fair, where Mary criticizes the photography Isaac likes as derivative and witless and praises the steel cube Isaac dislikes as textual and “has a marvelous kind of negative capability”, which is clearly a reference to John Keats. These polished critiques of art clearly reflects their knowledge and insight in art. Thanks to the city’s inexhaustible amount of cultural institutions, numerous scenes in the film take place in museums, art galleries and special art exhibits, which allows these debates to happen. These characters themselves also work in television, book editing and universities. They are supposed to represent the intellect of this city that is famous for its huge international media conglomerates, Broadway and several of the greatest museums in the world, among others. Allen himself obviously takes pride in the status of New York as one of world’s greatest cultural capitals. When Mary later says that she is from Philadelphia, believes in God and does not want to have this conversation, Isaac is confused by what Mary means by that. But we know for sure that Allen himself isn’t. From these characters, we can see how the status of New York as a cultural capital affects the way they live and shape them as who they are.
          However, apart from their glamorous appearance and fanciful cultural glossary, what is truly intriguing about those characters is the problems they each have, just as in the case of New York City. A lot of their problems have to do with their relationships and emotions. For Isaac, the fact that he is involved with a teenage girl, Tracy, bothers him greatly. Upon knowing that Tracy goes to a high school, Mary wittingly remarks that “somewhere Nabakov is smiling”, referring to the devastating relationship between Lolita and Humbert in the novel Lolita. If anything, the feelings Humbert has for Lolita, a girl much younger than his age, ruins his life almost completely. After Lolita disappears all of a sudden one day, Humbert goes on a frantic search for her that lasts years. When he finally finds her at the end, he goes on a killing spree of her abductor that ends in a disaster. Though not nearly the case of Lolita, the relationship between Isaac and Tracy is equally troublesome because of the age gap. The difference here is that Isaac keeps things under control because he knows that he might wind up in a similar situation as Humbert if he lets things go freewheeling. But at the end, feelings still get the upper hand. Yet the struggle of Isaac is the battle between his ideal and his morality. The same thing can be said about Mary, who is involved in an extra-marital relationship with Yale. She constantly repeats that she is from Philadelphia and her parents are married for 43 years and “nobody cheats at all”. This indicates her repulsion towards the nature of her relationship with Yale because she knows that “this is going nowhere” and she’s merely wasting her time. She knows that she is “young, highly intelligent and got everything going for [her]” yet she is “wasting herself on a married man”. This happens to the best of us. Regardless of how much knowledge one has or how well-to-do one is, it seems inevitable that we at some point struggle to find the right places for ourselves. This is especially true for New Yorkers in the 1970s who all of a sudden find themselves in the middle of an ailing city. Allen’s film, clearly dedicated to this city and all the problems it has, rings a bell among audiences.
          Is there anyway that these problems can be solved? Allen certainly explores some of the possibilities in this film. He has an earnest appreciation for great minds, which he constantly shows in various films. Notably, Interior is written in the style of Ingmar Bergman and Stardust Memories is a remake of Federico Fellini’s 8 1/2. There are also several references to Bergman and Fellini in Manhattan itself, showing their tremendous influence on Woody Allen. When Mary includes Ingmar Bergman in her “Academy of the Overrated”, Isaac rebuts with “Bergman? Bergman is the only genius in cinema today.” Later on, after meeting Mary’s friends at MoMA, Isaac remarks that “it’s an interesting group of people, your friends. It’s like the cast of a Fellini movie”. Apart from the apparent influence, is Allen suggesting that we should rely on them to solve our own problems? Mary doubts so, harshly criticizing that “it is the dignifying of one's own psychological and sexual hangups by attaching them to these grandiose philosophical issues”. It suggests that appreciation for the great minds is merely a hypocritical dignification of one’s own problems, but not the solution to them. In the case of Manhattan, we can see that the abundance of culture institutions and marvelous exhibits still cannot save Times Square from becoming the haven for prostitutes. Maybe art merely provides us a way to recognize or discern the problems, but fails to actually prevent them from happening.
       Allen then goes on to explore other possibilities, again through Mary’s voice. At this point we can see that while Isaac clearly represents Allen himself, Mary can be considered the “other” in his mind that constantly doubts the “self” and proposes alternative ideas. In this case, in an intimate setting at the planetarium, their heads appear as silhouettes in front of a huge bright image of Saturn. The dark images of heads seem to suggest the insignificance of their appearance at this point and the importance of their ideas instead. Mary suddenly asks Isaac fondly how many satellites of Saturn he knows, and Isaac frankly admits that he doesn’t know any. As Mary boasts that she “got a million facts on [her] fingertips”, Isaac defends himself calmly with “nothing worth knowing can be understood with the mind. Everything really valuable has to enter you through a different opening”. “Where would we be without rational thought?”, asks Mary in disbelief, to which Isaac quickly responds with “You rely too much on your brain. And the brain is the most overrated organ.” What we have here is a debate between rationality and emotionality, which has certain connections with the previous discussion regarding the great minds but is one step further. Mary, critical of the importance of great minds, relies on her own instead and emphasizes on rational thought, while Isaac suggests that rational thought cannot get us anywhere. The “different opening” Isaac talks about here must be emotions, unrelated to mind and rationality, yet makes up a huge part of our lives. Isaac, thus, may appreciate the great minds precisely for their emotional capabilities, the way they stir up feelings inside us that we might not have before. But aren’t feelings the cause of all the problems in the film to begin with? Mary describes her extra-marital relationship with Yale as “a no-win situation” and the only thing that keeps them from getting out of that dreadful situation is their feelings for each other. However, when Yale rationalizes everything and finally decides to break up with her, he becomes “depressed and confused”. It seems that rational thought cannot really help them out here, and feelings only make it worse. It has come a full circle since we started.
          Isn’t it just like New York City in the 1970s? As the fiscal crisis loomed over the city, there was really little people could do. The police couldn’t do anything about the soaring crime rates since they needed money and thus were corrupted themselves. Anyone fond of rebuilding the city’s ailing infrastructure couldn’t change the situation because people have lost their faith and started leaving, which meant that bricks and broken walls of those demolished buildings in the Bronx just lay there without redevelopment. Even the federal government refused the city’s grant for bailout. Any form of rationality wouldn’t work because nobody had the strength to take actions anymore. Emotions didn’t help either as everyone was left in a hopeless and frustrated state. So what was it, as Allen may ask, that could change the fate of the city and the Isaacs and Marys living in it?
          In 1977, Ed Koch was elected the new mayor and he might have an answer to this. He did a marvelous job pulling the city out of its nadir and the most important factor for his success might be the active restoration of hope. At one of his most iconic attempts, he spent hours riding subways and asking passengers “How am I doing?”. In order to restore hope, he used his limited funds to refurbish city streets and subways. He also made a considerable effort clearing the city’s iconic parks such as Washington Square Park and Central Park from drug dealers and broken glasses. Though not the most financially profitable conducts, these acts essentially changed people’s attitude toward the city. People once again started having hopes for the city to come back to its glory. And that’s a starting point for any significant changes since you need to believe in them first. “Nothing’s perfect,” says Yale’s wife Emily calmly after acknowledging Yale’s affair with Mary. She is supposed to be the most agonized character in the film since she is the only one being cheated, while the others are just confused about their inappropriate relationships. Yet she seems to be the calmest and most understanding one. Because she, of all people, knows what a difference it makes if you just admit that nothing is perfect and prepare to make compromises along the way. She tolerates Yale’s affair with Mary and thus she still has her marriage unbroken. Just as how the Koch administration was willing to give up some financial profits in order to reconstruct the public faith in the city. If you are willing to take a look at anywhere in the city now, especially in the Bronx, you know these compromises in the name of hope and faith paid off tremendously.
           And fortunately, that is exactly what this film is trying to do, to give us hope. Just as Tracy’s final words before leaving for London, “you gotta have a little faith in people”, followed by some astounding images of Manhattan along with “Rhapsody of Blue”, as we are once again impressed by the beauty of the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building and the 59th Street Bridge. We can almost hear Allen whispering to our ears, “you gotta have a little faith in the city too.” Tracy cannot stay with Isaac and has to leave him for the time being, just as the city disappointed its people and was in disarray back then. But that doesn’t mean changes won’t happen. “Six months isn’t that long,” says Tracy. And we know she will be back eventually. As for the city, a decade is nowhere near the end of the world. It’s exactly because of people like Woody Allen and his Manhattan that we realize how difficult it is to be free of trouble and how little that matters when we have the right attitude, and a little faith.

 短评

曼哈顿告诉我们,装逼是没有好下场的。

8分钟前
  • Minjie
  • 还行

修复放映。小资、言情、风趣、琐碎的纽约,絮絮叨叨的对白就像一出关于城市的交响乐曲,从头流淌至尾。七八十年代真的是伍迪·艾伦创作的高峰期啊,感觉之后拍的所有电影都只是衍生和变体。

13分钟前
  • 同志亦凡人中文站
  • 力荐

他们把各种艺术挂在嘴边,用塞尚,纳博科夫,博格曼填补他们苍白的话语。他们不懂爱,脆弱又胆小,无法计划未来。在车流拥挤的夜色中,有一种令人烦躁的亲切感,不论他们多么孤独,能否找到真爱,都不会影响曼哈顿的美。

14分钟前
  • 九尾黑猫
  • 推荐

黛安基顿好迷人。

18分钟前
  • Touma
  • 推荐

“曼哈顿悖论”:凡是能看懂的这部片子的、笑得前仰后合不能自已的,有着相同恐惧和快乐的,无时无刻不在玩弄文字和女人的,都是最无可救药的酸臭知识分子,都是最有文化修养的斯文败类(“愤世嫉俗”)。当然,above all,他们都是贫蛋。

22分钟前
  • 圆圆(二次圆)
  • 力荐

4K修复版重看@phenomena 在所有人剑拔弩张的滔滔不绝中,只有年轻女孩看上去是超脱的,因她还没有遭受生活孤独乏味的迎头痛击,她有大把的青春,绝对的自信,尚未学会像成年人那样用苍白的言语掩盖内心的不安全感。这样的她又怎么会懂得,六个月的时间有多漫长呢?

26分钟前
  • Lycidas
  • 推荐

伍迪艾伦的电影看得不多,目前最喜欢的还是赛末点。太文艺民工就受不了。昨晚看的时候被法国片似的喋喋不休搞得昏昏欲睡。但到最后一个场景时一下子清醒。纯靠情节,而不是情色镜头劲爆音乐把我唤醒,足以证明这是部好片。平淡生活无法言喻的错过和苦楚,提醒我时刻珍惜现在的美好。我想你啦~

28分钟前
  • 光年‖影视歌三栖民工
  • 推荐

“不是每个人都会变,你应该对人更有信心一些”

29分钟前
  • 影志
  • 推荐

我默默很不要脸的觉得如果我是直男肯定是Woody Allen的类型,不停被跟我剑拔弩张的强势成熟女性吸引,不停被伤害像小狗一样“内化伤痛成一个肿瘤”,不停把年轻单纯自然的少女当成最舒适的“过去”和最完美的“归宿”。Woody Allen用自己的真实生活证明了他才是“作者电影”最准确的定义。

34分钟前
  • 牛腩羊耳朵
  • 力荐

#SIFF#重看;果然黛安基顿是老头最佳搭档,看俩人用各种高深名词和艺术大家斗嘴,真是其乐无穷;前妻对他的评论也可视作其所有作品的总结,犀利精准;老头一辈子都在拍他自己,这一封写给曼哈顿的情书,在黑白光影映衬下,特别迷人。

35分钟前
  • 欢乐分裂
  • 推荐

——You have to have a little faith in people.那一刻,话痨伍迪·艾伦终于安静了。

37分钟前
  • 逍遥兽
  • 还行

[A-]伍迪的博爱又专一、滥情又纯真、乐观又悲情的爱情悖论理论集大成者

38分钟前
  • 帕拉
  • 推荐

从这部戏里17岁女生的温柔到后来Mia Farrow当道再到韩裔养女横空出世的嬗变过程,正显示着child-woman于直男知识分子界所具有的所向披靡之魅力——在这个美丽复杂的城市,在这个自恋、虚伪、脆弱、忧伤的小男人心里,最至高无上的永远是未成年少女的纯真和娇憨(我可没提肉体)

40分钟前
  • Connie
  • 力荐

Wills的攝影好。這個片子沒有Annie Hall的地位高可能是因為Woody Allen用這樣認真刻意的構圖和他的風格和在一起,就顯得有些匠氣。

43分钟前
  • 17950
  • 力荐

“生活在曼哈顿的人们,他们庸人自扰,时时制造出那些毫无必要的、神经兮兮的问题。因为这样,他们就不用去面对这世上更加棘手的生死攸关的大问题了。” 不是我更偏爱黑白,而是它确实完胜《Annie Hall》。从霍尔对一个人的哀悼上升到曼哈顿对一座城的抚慰,越混乱越迷人。

44分钟前
  • Obtson
  • 力荐

这部电影所展示的困境,是我现在以及将来都要面对、并试图超越的。影片充满着箴言警句,对人和人的关系(尤其是知识阶级、艺术从业者)有着深刻的表现,他们懦弱、善变、对未来没有信心、沉溺于自己的内心和幻想。没有能力关心更大的世界,而在自己触碰的有限范围内制造麻烦。纽约的繁忙、混乱与美。

47分钟前
  • xīn
  • 力荐

不是每个人都会变。。。你应该对人更有信心一些。。。十七岁的姑娘如是说,虚弱的中年人尴尬地无奈地迷惘地笑了

48分钟前
  • 推荐

越来越习惯和喜欢这老家伙儿的碎碎念了。

50分钟前
  • 如花就是小妖
  • 推荐

成为话痨的人要么过于自信要么缺少安全感,成功的话痨一定兼而有之,既让你哭笑不得,又让你觉得理所应当。你可能并不热爱他,但每次听他讲完故事,尽管你真的很想找茬,但总是没胆指着他说:“喂,你够了。”

55分钟前
  • 57
  • 推荐

曼哈顿,这座城市蒸腾着你们的焦躁,狂作,空谈和欲望,幻化成毫无生气的霓虹森林,牢不可摧的海市蜃楼。

60分钟前
  • 木卫二
  • 推荐

返回首页返回顶部

Copyright © 2023 All Rights Reserved