Husbands and Wives exemplifies everything that people "don't like" about Allen's work; that its Allen-centric, in that his literary leanings and obvious qualities as a writer for some reason put him in front of the camera half the time, and that the main characters are all over-privileged Manhattan creatives or academics with swanky apartments, that conveniently never seem to do any actual work, just revel in the emotional drama and romantic comedy potential of their personal lives.I don't dislike Allen's films per se, his recent picture Blue Jasmine has an excellent script, by turns witty, brilliant, insightful etc. Everything Allen would ideally like to see in himself every morning in the mirror is here, and other films of his are well known little masterpieces, but Husbands and Wives is badly overrated, and it bothers me a bit that major voices in the US media nodded approvingly when the film opened. (see Rotten Tomatoes.com).The main problem, to put it bluntly, is that 80% of the film is in hand held, head and shoulders footage of the actors, intercut with occasional locked off shots of the cast confessing guilt, contempt and regrets over their mid-life failed marriages. This, in itself, makes the film feel more like a radio play that happens to take place on screen, and although shaky hand held shots can (and do) create a 'there, in the middle of it all' feel for drama, it goes way overboard. The film feels cheap, claustrophobic and repetitive. The other problem is the plot - or lack of. Essentially, this is the story of two couples entering mid life, feeling disappointed with their relationships and going through with break-ups and affairs, and Husbands and Wives is definitely more drama than comedy. In both cases, the husbands leave their partners for younger women, in Allen's case considerably younger, and in the other guys case, just for a young blonde that likes sex. There's not much to add here plotwise, except the situation opens up a lot of space for Allen's observations on relationships and human sexuality in a mature sense that you don't find often elsewhere in Hollywood movies....But did I mention the film feels plot less? It definitely does! Woody Allen's real talents are his skills as a writer and his ability to create great female characters, so during a revelatory and surprisingly funny exchange between Allen and his extramarital crush (a 20 year old literature student, played by Juliette Lewis) the film feels finished, but for some reason drags on for yet more, and more arguments, observations, exchanges etc. Its a badly made movie, without much plot and some big name actors taking a pay cut to work with a writing talent. Is it a great movie? Well, sales aren't an indicator of quality, but its a modestly budgeted movie that only made half its investment back. Other films of his live up to their reputation, this one doesn't.

I am not going to recount the plot. All I will say is that this is his best movie out of all the films I have seen of his. Before I watched the movie, I saw that the movie was rated R. Surprisingly, the film was not as shrill as I thought it would be. There is, of course, sexual content and foul language in the movie. There are no sex scenes, but the language in the film is what ultimately gave the film an R rating.The film works because it has a realistic tone. It may be a drama, but it is not depressing. It is also not as cerebral as many of his other flicks (i.e. Manhattan and Crimes and Misdemeanors). So it obviously is a film that has a less pretentious mood. Combining these three qualities while also balancing the rational and non-rational elements of the relationships in the movie, the film ultimately has a very natural flow to it.The actors are all good in this movie. Woody Allen and Mia Farrow are good. Not surprisingly this is Mia Farrow's last flick; I counted her being in twelve Woody Allen flicks overall. Juliette Lewis is also good and has a role that strikingly seems to match the other types of characters that she portrays in her other films; perhaps she is typecast. Liam Neeson is decent; it is interesting to see him in a Woody Allen movie. After all, it does not seem to be the type of movie he would ordinarily star in. Sydney Pollack and Judy Davis are the actors who steal the show in the final analysis, however. Some/many will disagree, but I hold firm to my humble opinion.For all I know, my deeming of this to be his best movie may become different. My opinion may change if I see another flick of his such as Blue Jasmine or Broadway Danny Rose. It is interesting to note that the highest rated movie of his that I rated is not a comedy. It is rather unpredictable as to whether or not I will give a thumbs-up to one of his dramas or his comedies after watching one of Woody Allen's movies.Concluding note - It generally seems to be the case that Woody Allen's movies are getting better as the years go by. Of course, he may have some lulling periods, but that's to be expected of anyone's work. I highly recommend this movie; it teaches the viewer to be careful about who you marry. Entering into a relationship is obviously not to be taken lightly. Secondly, it also causes one to ask the question, "Will this relationship work?" And that, as one who would watch the movie may agree, is not a question that is easy to answer. Problems latent and seemingly easy to solve may blow up in the couple's face; conversely, problems that seem impossible to solve actually turn out to be more fixable than one would think.8/10

Gabe (Woody Allen) and Judy (Mia Farrow) have invited their good friends Jack (Sydney Pollack) and Sally (Judy Davis) for a small dinner at their quaint Manhattan apartment. Their abode is full of books and knickknacks all pointing to a comfortable urbanite life in the largest city in the world. Then Jack and Sally reveal some surprising news…after years of seemingly happy marriage, the two have agreed to a separation and eventual divorce. After that bomb is dropped the two couples reexamine their relationships with each other, trying to find meaning in romances both current and past while discovering the good, the bad and the ugly in marriage.Woody Allen is mostly known for his comedies. But while Husbands and Wives has some pretty spot on observational humor, the story is largely somber and dramatic. Not dramatic in the sense of a Wednesday afternoon soap opera but a benign drama that with a few spikes of activity focuses mostly on the characters. There is no clever high concept or narrative liberties here like say, The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985); the film is more straight-laced and character driven along the lines of Interiors (1978) and Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989).And what of the characters or rather the actors who flesh them out? Judy Davis, Mia Farrow and Juliette Lewis are the obvious standouts, representing three very different women all of which are looking for the same thing; someone to love and someone to love them back. Davis received an Oscar nomination for her role as a bitter divorcée trying to come to terms with her ex-husband's infidelity and being single again. She's continually frustrated and confused by the yearnings of the heart occasionally even lashing out on her boyfriend Gates (Liam Neeson). She's cynical and wary of attachment yet deep down she knows that her entanglements with Jack aren't over.Mia Farrow is a stark counterpoint to Diane Keaton's brassy personalities of Allen's earlier work. Farrow's intensity lies always below the surface, providing the perked looks and mousiness of a young ingénue with the mind and body language of a veteran in the trials of love. It's a shame that out of the twelve Woody Allen films she has been in (for which Husbands and Wives was most famously her last) she had never received recognition by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for her stellar work.Juliette Lewis who plays one of Gabe's young students from his Literature course, has the appearance and vulnerability of a dewy-eyed devotee. Yet when the amiable Gabe discovers he might be the object of desire here and Lewis's Rain the controller, he recoils. There's a scene where the two are in a cab discussing the latest draft of his book. Unable to take criticism, Gabe calls Rain a 20-year-old twit and says "I'd hate to be your boyfriend, he must go through hell." Rain cavalierly responds "Well, I'm worth it."Those who bemoan Allen's post-Annie Hall (1977) work won't find relief from his more meditative works of the 1980's. While most of the characters are likable they sometimes do unlikeable things, each on their own journey of discovery. I suppose we all do things we regret for love and those with a mature outlook on the subject matter will find a lot to enjoy and a lot to flinch at in Husbands and Wives. I suppose the heart wants what the heart wants.http://www.theyservepopcorninhell.blogspot.com

Gabe (Woody Allen) and Judy (Mia Farrow) live in couple for about 10 years and are friends with Jack (Sidney Pollack) and Sally (Judy Davis), married for twenty years with kids in college. The film opens with an announcement from the Jack-Sally couple, they're splitting up. Whether it's a trial or definitive separation doesn't matter, the news come as a big shock, especially to Judy who is so upset that she steals Jack and Sally's thunder. We're too busy wondering what's with Judy that we don't really listen to Jack and Sally's explanations.The opening scene is one of Allen's most inspired moments. What we have is a couple quietly handling the idea of a separation after 20 years of common life, making tremendous efforts to rationalize it and convincing the entourage that they're happy with that, and another couple, totally confused and distressed about it. The directing contributes to create a dizzying effect, the scene is shot with a hand-held camera going back and forth from a character to another, with so many jumps and cuts it conveys a deliberate feeling of real-life confusion. It's just as if the characters played by Allen and Farrow didn't expect the news, and the cameraman didn't know if he had to go on or stop filming. The chaos almost reaches the level of a Cassavetes' film, except that Cassavetes was a director of raw emotion, while Allen, more cerebral, uses the scene to raise the very questions to which the film will try to provide answers.Jack lived 20 years with a woman extremely cerebral and anguished, and not a detail at all, cold in bed. Rather than an alibi for Jack, it serves to show how sex can cement the harmony within a couple or totally destroy it. After leaving Sally, Jack dates a sexy, beautiful, aerobics instructor. He feels like living again as if he was wasting away with Sally. Of course, he would sooner realize that all the fantasies that filled his marital sex-less nights couldn't live up to the everyday realities. Any older man is capable to seduce the sexiest bimbo but then would he feel confident enough to introduce her to his friends? As for Sally, the life following the breakup oscillated between many attitudes. She's first devoured by jealousy when she learns that Jack sees another woman, positive that it's a colleague of him who's like a younger version of her. Judy is so full of herself that she can't imagine Jack going for a 'cheaper model', and it hurts her because she's a confident woman and her pride can't allow this. Yet at one point, she's not old anymore but experienced, not single but free. She changes her perceptions and it seems to work for a while, to a point even Judy is impressed by her self- confidence. But from Sally's new perspective, Judy is not just impressed; her reaction is closer to jealousy and gives some early hints about the reasons of her reaction in the opening scene. Indeed, Judy and Gabe is a more perplexing couple, they live independently to each other yet passion seems to lack in their relationship. In fact, they argue so frequently that the moments of tenderness are more unusual. It feels like they had no chance to live in harmony as soon as their friends separated, as if Jack and Sally were the third link of their relationship. The separation of an ideal couple could easily mean a threat to a more fragile couple. To give us more insights about the characters, Allen shoots the film in documentary style, punctuating the scenes with interviews from the different protagonists. Gabe had a lust for highly libidinous women or nut-cases, and married Judy because she would reconcile him with a more normal way of life. As for Judy, the separation hit a sensitive nerve, maybe she was wasting great opportunities with Gabe. But these interviews only illustrate what the scenes brilliantly show. In "Husbands and Wives", Woody Allen demonstrates again his incredible talent when it comes to human emotions' writing. Halfway through the movie, we're so familiar with the protagonists that we can immediately guess their true reactions regarding one or another's actions, and not only guess them, but also understand them. And it's this very capacity to inspire our empathy that gives all the credit to a wonderfully written screenplay. Indeed, the movie tackles the difficult subject or relationships within couples, and in a thought-provoking move, the script succeeds in making us wonder whether marital commitment drives or undermines one's quest for happiness. In other words, can this quest not be just personal? That's it, in "Husbands and Wives", we understand any of Gabe, Sally, Judy or Jack, no one is guilty or innocent because no one can actually be blamed of seeking harmony or self-contentment. Made in a difficult personal time for Woody Allen, hi film is thought provoking because it chronicles people's approaches to marital commitment. And while we're committed to live with the same person for the rest of our lives, it's impossible not to think about what our life would be, with another person, or if we were single. Being married for less than a year, the film didn't have the same effect on me as on the first viewing. I understood the characters, I can understand the lust a man can have on a younger, or a sexier, on a more or less sophisticated woman. The food in the neighbor's table always look more appetizing.Still, why do some people stay together even if they know they don't share the same dreams than their companion? Because although we'd feel guilty and weak not to fulfill our personal dreams, guilt and weakness are double-edged swords when they concern the person we loved for a long time. It's up to us to see on which side, those feelings would be more tolerable.