XPost: rec.arts.movies.past-films, rec.arts.movies.current-films   
   From: jneibaur@wi.rr.com   
      
   in article 22680de.0401131843.6cd2c436@posting.google.com, Calvin Rice at   
   oscwr@netscape.net wrote on 1/13/04 8:43 PM:   
      
   > Anyway, who says Manhattan needs to have depth or substance?  It has   
   > a wonderful look; it's a celebration of life in New York; and its laughs   
   > are enduring and very enjoyable to experience over and over.  To me   
   > that adds up to a great movie.  I've seen it at least ten times.  The   
   > Gershwin music is always lovely to hear too, especially at the biginning   
   > and end.   
      
   I also find it fascinating that Isaac gives up what he has (Tracy) in order   
   to challenge himself by taking on something that was initially unattractive   
   (Mary) and  only discovers that what he had was already what he wanted.   
   I have seen Manhatten at least twenty times over the years.  It is a film   
   that continues to improve upon repeated viewings.  I love it.   
      
   > Annie Hall I just don't get though.  I understand its importance as being   
   > Woody Allen's transition movie, but I rented it a couple of years ago, not   
   > having seen it but once long ago, and was very disappointed.  I was   
   > expecting another Manhattan, but it was only a poor precursor, or so it   
   > seemed to me.   
      
   I think Annie Hall has dated.  It worked wonderfully in its time, and still   
   looked good ten years later, but now, after more than a quarter-century, it   
   appears merely quaint.  It is not at the level of Manhattan, Stardust   
   Memories, Purple Rose of Cairo, or any of Allen's enduring classics.   
      
   JN   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)