Aside from what may have been my first Woody Allen viewing (I can't decide if I saw Midnight in Paris in theatres before seeing Annie Hall) I am not yet used to Woody Allen movies that don't also star Woody Allen. I was disappointed to realize after watching the first two acts of Bullets Over Broadway that Allen was obviously not to appear in this film. Obviously, as there is about half of his filmography that he doesn't appear in, I'll have to get over the desire to see Allen, physically, in each of his films. Bullets Over Broadway, in many ways, was not the brand of Woody Allen film I was accustomed to. The 1994 film explores the Woody Allen character played in an extraordinary way by John Cusack as a playwright who struggles with the casting decisions necessary to get his play produced. When the mob gets involved in influencing his choices in exchange for the successful production of the play, Cusack's character must navigate through maze most artists grapple with in the balance between creating for themselves and creating for the masses of society. Bullets Over Broadway is a fantastic look at artistic struggle that just wasn't as much of a Woody Allen film as I would have preferred.

Review: I quite enjoyed this movie, even though it does seem to drag in some parts. The actors made the movie interesting and Woody Allen wrote a witty script which was more dramatic than funny. The concept, which is based around a writer producing a play with the pressure from the mob to cast a bad actress, wasn't bad and I have to give credit to the cast, who all put in great performances. The actors who play the gangsters, seem to be in every gangster movie that comes out, but they made movie enjoyable, even though the movie wasn't totally based around them. I have learnt not to have high expectations for movies nowadays so when I see a well made movie, I end up enjoying it even more. This movie is well put together by Allen and he portrayed the period well, even though the storyline is a bit silly in parts. In all, it's a average movie with some good scenes and good performances, but it could have been a better movie if it didn't have the comedy element. Average!Round-Up: This film definitely wouldn't have worked if Woody Allen was in it. He seemed to cut out the silly lines, which I have seen in many of his movies, which is why the film really did work. John Cusack was good as the lead, but it was Dianne Wiest that made me laugh. She was playing a role that was completely out of her comfort zone, but she played it well, especially when she kept on telling John Cusack to Shhhh! Tracy Ullman also played her role well alongside Jim Broadbent, and I enjoyed the whole gangster side to the film. Personally, I was expecting a typical Woody Allen movie about sex and troubled relationships, but this film wasn't that bad and I must admit, I did stay interested throughout. Budget: $20million Worldwide Gross: $13millionI recommend this movie to people who are into there Woody Allen movies about a play writer whose determined to get his play on Broadway with the help from the mob. 6/10

As Woody Allen's MIDNIGHT IN Paris (2011, a 6/10) doesn't impress me much and his latest Italian carol TO ROME WITH LOVE (2012) gets horrifying feedbacks, so I fumble around his earlier oeuvre, thanks to his prolific filmography, thus comes BULLETS OVER Broadway (a 7 Oscar nomination receiver in 1994) courtesy of one simple criterion, more often than not, films in which Woody is not starred are much better than in which he is both the director/writer and the actor.I have only watched a handful of Woody's films, but BULLETS OVER Broadway could easily sit in the top row of any years-best list (for me, it just misses my top 10 film in 1994, which is an ultra-competitive year for films, but Cusack, Wiest, Tilly and Palminteri all crack into my top 10 acting rankings). Wiest and Tilly, obtained two Oscar nominations and Wiest was the final winner, who is divinely lofty and my pick as well, she is simply amazing in her delivering of the repetitive "don't speak" lines and the voice warm-up scenes before the final premier. Meanwhile Tilly is plainly acting herself (being slightly amusing and largely annoying), this is an exact example of the disparagement between a bona fide actress and an one-off sensation (Palminteri's Oscar nomination may also belong to be the latter unfortunately), notwithstanding the fact that most acting laborers will never even procure such an opportunity, for instance John Cusack, who is playing Woody Allen in the film and is reliably superb but regrettably snubbed again (after THE GRIFTERS 1990, a 7/10). Speaking of the film, the script has Woody's distinctive bourgeoisie and artist self-mockery in it and the genre mash-up of gangster comedy and a Broadway playwright trapped in his writer's block works adroitly well, although the shooting shots are not Woody's strong suit and the diamond-in-the-rough deployment is over-simplified (maybe there is just no reason beyond it). But on the whole, the witty conversations will always strike a chord if you are an ordinary man with a highbrow heart, and in the final analysis, Diane Wiest alone is worth the time.

Woody at his best. A movie about artists - not only about writers ( but mostly about them ), but about any artist, who is trapped between his talent and the expectations that other people have about him. A movie about what it takes to make something perfect. I strongly consider John Cusack's ( David ) character and Chazz Palminteri's ( Cheech ) character as different sides of the same person - the bohemian, who sees in art just an excuse for meeting famous people and living like them and the real artist, for whom art and creating are only reasons to live. And the moral? I guess no one can say it better than David's girlfriend - one could not love an artist if he hasn't got enough dignity to be a man in the first place.