Shadows and Fog, one of Woody Allen's best films, is a successful experiment in combining Kafka-like surrealism (Orson Welles' The Trial seems like a clear influence,) typical Allen neurotic comedy, and film noir. The film overcomes its influences to make a profound statement about the human predicament in a way that is not at all pretentious. Allen stars as Max Kleinman (Max = big, Kleinman = small person,) a skittish coward who is drafted by local vigilantes in a plan to catch a murderer (Lang's M is also a clear influence,) but ends up wandering around in a literal and existential fog complaining, "I can't find out my role in the plan." The excellent black and white photography is just right for the mood. The movie gains extra interest from a number of star cameos, including Madonna, Lily Tomlin, John Malkovich, and Jody Foster. I saw it on the adequate MGM Home Entertainment DVD; if there is a better Blu-Ray available, it would be worth looking for.

This so-called comedy is a rethinking of Woody Allen's own short play 'Death' (published in his 1976 collection 'Without Feathers'), transplanted to a weird, Kafka-like Middle European setting and mercilessly padded (at the expense of the humor) to allow room for several high profile guest stars, most of them in roles too small to be noticed. The effect is not unlike a student film parody of a Woody Allen comedy, following a hapless nebbish (who could only have been played by Allen himself) pressed into service by urban vigilantes hunting a shadowy killer. The familiar one-liners and stale meditations on God, sex, and death are all camouflaged behind some beautiful (if hokey) black and white photography, with transparent references to more than one film school idol: Bergman, Murnau, Fellini, and so forth. What's left is the novelty of seeing Kathy Bates playing a prostitute alongside Lilly Tomlin and Jodie Foster, and John Malkovich cast as a circus clown opposite Madonna. It wasn't meant this way, but the casting is the funniest thing about the movie.

A warning before I begin: So far, in my quest to see all Woody Allen films, I have only seen the following: Annie Hall, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Manhattan, Vicky Christina Barcelona, Whatever Works, and Hannah and Her Sisters. I felt that I should have stated that before I went any further. While I enjoyed this film, it was not my favorite that I have seen of his. There were some great moments, but it did not feel like an instant Allen classic. The plot is very simple, yet very complex at the same time. Woody's character has been woken up in the middle of the night and is told that he is a part of a plan which he knows nothing about. The viewers do not know anything more than he does, and so we constantly learn with him. From what we do know: there is a killer on the loose, the killer only attacks when there is fog on the island, and there is currently fog on the island. Woody is then thrown into the adventure, completely unsure of what will happen next. It is very much a circus film, in which anything can happen. Not all films are able to maintain that spontaneity, yet—in this film—it works. The supporting cast is wonderful. There are a ridiculous amount of cameos. Because of the spontaneity described above, however, I did not feel that WA was trying to "star up" his film in the hopes that more people would go see it. Madonna as a curly-haired adulterer? Kathy Bates, Jodie Foster, and Lily Tomlin as hookers? Mia Farrow as the wife of a sword swallower? Whatever. It works. There were, however, some elements which did not fit as easily together. The tone changed several times throughout the film. Because of the fact that the film was about a killer on the loose, it would have made more sense for the paranoia and fear aspect to travel throughout the entire course. Instead, it seemed that there were interruptions of philosophical moments. While this great in films like Crimes and Misdemeanors, they felt like Woody Allen was reading philosophy books during the writing of the script and became temporarily distracted. I was hoping for the moments in which characters question reality to fit more with the plot. They did not, and the film suffered because of it. Mind you, the rest of the film was created in a fashion where these small slips were forgivable. This film was not a mess in any way and is still better than much of the material that is being released today. In the film, we are introduced (or have we already been introduced) to what WA has said is his personal belief: that we are destroyed by the absence of illusions in life. To those who have not read that much on WA, this may be a very great concept. For those who have heard it before, however, it feels a little...ordinary. Though what do I know?

Another mid-career Allen film unfairly dismissed both by critics and (I must admit) myself at the time of it's release. Sometimes with great filmmakers, we get spoiled and anything flawed or less than pure genius gets maligned for being weaker than that filmmaker's very best work instead of being appreciated for being miles ahead of most of the films that get made.I was shocked at how much better I liked this on a recent re-viewing almost 20 years after seeing it in the theater. Yes, the super-star cameos still seem a bit distracting and self-serving, but nowhere near as much as in 1992. Yes, some plot elements work better than others, the ending is kind of clunky, etc. But this is still a great-looking, visually dense film, that manages to tread (most of the time) a very difficult tightrope of being funny and playful, while still exploring disturbing themes of paranoia, guilt, crowd mentality, religion, etc. Certainly not a great film, but a brave one more worthy of being enjoyed for it's strengths than attacked for its admitted shortcomings.