Talk:Melinda and Melinda

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Melinda and Melinda is a fantastic Woody Allen Movie. By far the greatest of his movies since the 80s, possibly one of his best. Popular review claim that Will Ferrell is the "weak link" and does a "poor job portraying the 'Woody Allen' character." I, on the other hand completely disagree. I believe that Will Ferrell does a fantastic job. He delivers all of his lines with the "Woody Allen Enthusiasm" and even adds some of himself to the character. The result is a lovely comedy. However on the tragic side of the story, the "Woody Allen" character, if you can call him that, Lee, does a horrible job. His acting was very amateurish and less than impressive. But I do have faith in Woody Allen and believe that he wanted Lee to act that way. Radha Mitchell who plays Melinda in both sides of the story does an outstanding job and Chloe Sevigny lights up the screen in the tragic side of the story. The screenplay was near flawless in my opinion. The only real criticism I do have is the tragic side can be a bit boring, however in the end I realized what Woody Allen was creating and thought it wonderful. The narrators were unneccesary, I believed. Or maybe that was just because they all did a horrible job, all except Wallace Shawn-who can pull off anything. The only woman at the table had a total of ten lines, and she couldn't have done worse if they were her first words. Luckily, these four were only in the movie briefly. The other actors dominate the movie and make it an extremely pleasurable experience. The two stories together create a masterpiece, in my opinion. Both, in reality, could stand alone. I would recommend this movie to everyone! Also, seeing it twice is much better as you pick up subtle parallels between the stories. So go and see this movie. Highly Recommended!

Thanks a lot for the personal note, Woody! -71.112.11.220 04:45, 2 November

2005 (UTC)

I agree, even though this is just our pov, and i am removing "whose films are generally considered to have been below par in recent years." phrase from the article, because there certainly is no general consecus on this.

The universally praised performance that wasn't

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Prior to my removal of it, the article previously contained a sentence describing the lead actress's performance as "universally praised". Here are some links to the contrary: Critic: Wesley Morris Source: Boston Globe; Critic: Desson Thomson Source: Washington Post; Critic: Stephen Hunter Source: Washington Post. All these critics are considered "Top Critics" by Rotten Tomatoes - cited in this article.--71.241.239.17 (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic