New York was best described by Jerome Salinger in The Catcher in the Rye and Ilf and Petrov in their One-Story America. Twelve masterful directors, who were given 150 thousand dollars for their brother and rewinded a strictly defined footage of the film, tried to do it each in their own way, but equally talented and with great love for the heroes, the city and (especially) the viewer.
There are movies that are interesting not because “what’s going to end there?” or “wow, I’d rather have another meteorite inhale!” but which are interesting in the process. These are not Hollywood crafts, the plot of which has been verified for years and written clearly to correspond to the “diagram of the perfect plot” and viewing which is more like a trip around the city, from one interesting place to another.
The movie "New York, I Love You" is completely different. Watching such films resembles a long-awaited walk through the fragrant forest. When you, exhausted by the city, broke out into nature, and walk through the forest, and enjoy everything: the sounds, the rustle of the forest, the sensation of the touch of foliage, the sun’s rays tearing through the crowns, the aroma of needles, the taste found in the wet grass strawberries.
The film gently caresses the eyes of the viewer with a soft, rough and natural picture, pleases the ear with warm, pleasant sounds and talented melodies, excites mood landscapes, relaxes and tunes into a leisurely, warm, kind manner.
He wants to be watched and watched. I don't want the movie to end. Because nobody cares if there's a big boom at the end. It's a hell of a process.
Novels will not cut your eyes with special effects, hearing with unpleasant sounds, and the soul with tears, hysterics, and problems sucked out of the finger. But they're not primitive! Short stories, very smoothly and in unexpected places connected to each other (for the integrity of the picture), tell about people: simple, sometimes confused, sometimes naive, but in general, good. Despite the greatness of New York, the stories are very intimate, cute and interesting. If they do, it is good, if they are frightened, it is soft. Maybe a lot of attention is paid to sex, but on the other hand – a film about love, and what love without sex?
It turned out that I got to a session in a small room of the cinema. The atmosphere of chamberliness and coziness is the best fit for the movie “New York, I Love You”. The blockbuster void of an ordinary cinema and the smell of popcorn somehow do not fit with such things.
I must say that this film is the second in the series “City of Love”, and the first was “Paris, I Love You”: the same warm, intimate and pleasantly rough.
“New York” is certainly not weaker than its brother and just as subtly creates a peaceful mood for a long time to come.
In general, turn off all sources of anxiety, pull the stitch out of your ass and at the companion, leave the popcorn in the buffet of the cinema - and enjoy a wonderful movie about love!
P. From the final version of the film cut two novels: Andrei Zvyagintsev and Scarlett Johansson. They said it wasn't format. But in the Russian version, they were mounted back. True, with all the credits (for each!), and right in the middle of the movie, that looks pretty weird. The novels are indeed informal, but both pleased with the stunning, almost aesthetic graphics of the picture and the persistence of huge bold pauses.
And people in it wander around the corners, look at the glowing windows of skyscrapers, ride a taxi, meet, sit in restaurants, get entangled in this huge web without end and beginning. Fate brings them together, then divorces them. They find something of their own, then they lose it. They do stupid things. Meanwhile, New York City continues to live its own life. It is very effective in any lighting, and the directors of the almanac fully demonstrated this. But he gravitates over his characters, while Paris (cannot be compared) rather retreats to the background, letting the characters have their say. Paris has generously shaded and complemented human stories — and at the same time, there can be no doubt that it rightfully held a place in everyone’s heart. New York absorbs people, forcing them to submit to the flow. Accidental meetings of heroes from different films do not change this impression. And the love for New York, expressed by some, is different from the love for Paris - the heroes love it for an unimaginable, sharp mix of cultures, traditions, points of view, ways of life. They love it for the chaos in which it is easy to get lost, but in which you can find your own island. That’s what you can say about any metropolis. But I didn’t want to say that about Paris. He seems to be more ... stable in his film. New York appears in an eternal dynamic, in an eternal cycle of vices, joys and passions.
Not all novels, in my opinion, are equal. In many, there was a gravitation towards an unexpected plot twist, and with limited time, this did not work at full strength. There were piquant and even movetonic novels (apogee - the story with a wheelchair), were mysterious (the story with an aged opera diva). By the way, this novel is strikingly aesthetic), there were ordinary people who did not stand out and did not cause much sympathy (of whom the story of the young composer and his virtual girlfriend with a fair share of Dostoevsky seemed the most indistinct). I have nothing against it, but why Dostoevsky?, but they were touching and touching. And for the touching novels that sparkle in this burning mixture, like pearls, this film is definitely worth watching. I counted three: the story of a red-haired girl and a dancer, the story of an elderly artist and a Chinese woman, the cute story of an elderly couple - respectively, by Natalie Portman, Fatih Akin and Joshua Marston. These miniatures are very human, they are sad and still beautiful. The female photographer did not have her own story (perhaps her story did not make it into the film), but she wandered from plot to plot, as if symbolizing the number of probabilities and coincidences in this huge city. But in general, the film about New York is made more rationally and rationally. It has less romance and more routine. Although in the Paris chronicle there were stories about the underside of reality. But — strange thing — now they seem to me more veiled and chaste than the few crude candor of this work.
Famous actors in this almanac did not shine. Bradley Cooper seemed more interesting in the comic sketch at the beginning, and the stuffy romantic story, quite banal, could be played with anyone in the lead role. Orlando Bloom appeared shabby, in a stretched T-shirt and did not cause much sympathy. Natalie Portman is penetrating herself, but with a bald head made a strange impression. Perhaps I liked only Robin Wright in a frivolous plot with a beautiful conclusion and Shia LaBeouf, who played a crippled porter in a mystical drama. It is very correct that each miniature was presented in the credits by name - it is convenient for systematizing impressions. And I also liked the variety of music, and especially strong action produces a vocal fragment in that very mystical plot of Shekhar Kapoor. But still, Paris, I'm going to watch the movie about you someday. New York, our acquaintance was interesting.
My favorite story from this collection of short stories is with Bradley Cooper and Drea de Matteo. Such passion, such tension. They are just amazing: mannered, bright, charismatic. Maybe this story just appeals to me personally. So I liked it and remembered it.
I remember the pretense of Chris Cooper and Robin Wright. I want to reconsider this moment to once again hear their dialogue, and understand it in a new way.
A separate word for Shia LaBeouf. He is trying to become an actor with a capital letter. I think in this role he managed to show his talent.
Such a large-scale cast will make you not pass by this film anyway.
With the same success, you could cross out New York and write “I love you,” but it does not sound so beautiful, but conveys the whole point.
It seems that the stories were thrown by a cooperative of tourers working in different genres, there are perverts and pickpockets and prostitutes in general a full bouquet.
This is a collection of stories sometimes very foldable unrelated, some of them as if to lengthen the timekeeping built into this film. The landscapes of New York turned out to be quite gray and bring sadness and sadness, but there are quite a lot of them, as well as the stories in this film. Here you can see many different cultures and people at the junction of this big city, and indeed, it turned out to be a big apple in which everyone tends like worms.
Towards the end, it all looks more like a still life of a hundred stories that are like fruit thrown in the basket. The film brightens up the atypical nature of all the stories and so I think you will be able to see all this confusion to the end. Aftertaste is ambiguous here and sweetness and bitterness and a lot of calories.
The film does not want to sink only because of the colorful characters filling it, but you know every city can boast of such characters, but the highest goal of any film for me is a message that wants to convey this or that film, here the message is alas for me was not found, just lame in the form of a city.
6 out of 10
I saw it. After all the bile of poster reviews, I am rather pleasantly surprised than disappointed. However, the most acute desire that arose after watching was to revisit Paris Je T'aime (which, in fact, I did).
A brief summary, perhaps, the following: if in "Paris" there are 3-4 unsuccessful novels, then in "New York" - 3-4 successful. And this, however, is more than could be expected after the angry cries of disappointed viewers.
What is most embarrassing is perhaps the lack of ideas. Yeah, that's right. Stress the emptiness and meaninglessness of most novels. Moreover, the lack of morality of the ideological component can be quite successfully compensated for by the emotional component, the beauty of the picture or the atmosphere. And here it was also pretty seasoned with not too elegant vulgarity.
In total, it is worth going for the sake of: a Latino ballerun with a ragged daughter, an old artist who dreams of painting a portrait of a Thai girl from a tea shop, touching old men from the latest novel. These are three stories I would like to review.
Some of the blatantly vulgar stories (for example, about a writer and a representative of the oldest profession or about a boy with a paralyzed girlfriend) captivates with an unexpected and funny ending. So you might like it too - but only for the first time when the finale is a surprise to you. There is no need to rethink it.
This is not “Paris”, where almost every story can be revisited with pleasure, and half – endlessly scrolling in your head, savoring the details. With its variety of themes, directorial decisions, acting... When you watch Paris, the soul lives. The plot with Binoche, the story of a black guitarist, the novella about a young Spanish nanny leaving her own child in a manger. to spend the whole day with a stranger ... in New York, perhaps only the novel about a deceased artist reaches such a level - in my opinion, the best in the cycle.
Only now I realized a funny thing: most of all, I liked the novels in New York, in which... how to put it more precisely... the romantic component either lacks at all (about a dancer with a daughter), or is somewhat illusory (about an artist and old men). Well, I hate American romance, when a man and a woman 10 minutes on the screen puzzled, how they managed to get so high in the bar that they were in bed, and wonder why they did it. Or start a cigarette conversation about sex with a stranger. And the fact that “strangers” are a married couple as a result does not greatly ennoble this clumsy and vulgar dialogue in my eyes.
And their uninhibitedness does not inspire me at all - if they are really like this in life, these Americans - and the desire to visit New York did not arise for a second.
The novels of the Paris cycle are much better suited to my ideas about romance: for example, the story of an Iranian girl and a French student or my favorite plot with Natalie Portman is the novel of a blind boy and an aspiring actress. Although there is not without a spoonful of tar: stories about gays and junkies do not insert, I can not do anything about myself. Nevertheless, I wanted to go to Paris. I feel like it'll be easy for me to breathe there. New York is probably not for me. Sorry, but.
I'm opening a new column. Recently, I realized that because of cinema, I loved New York as a city. The section will be dedicated specifically to New York. Here's the first movie.
In fact, the film is an almanac. But how ineptly presented short films! No logic. Just pour a stream over your head and sort it out the way you want. Not only that, the plots are also strange. Everything, absolutely everything is about sex. You can't love heroes like that. So the story-composition component, in my opinion, is a complete failure.
New York in this film is just a background. He doesn't have any charm. Such actions could be shown anywhere - the result is one. The film is dull, gray, boring. There are good scenes, good actors, but that’s not enough. The film is not emotional. There is no wish to reconsider. I'll just forget him soon.
I am sorry that the new section was opened by a red review. You have to be optimistic and expect more. I'm sure there are movies with New York much better.
2.5 out of 10
In the United States, the fashion for film almanacs as it came - so after a couple of years and left.
As we have come, so it goes on...
The text itself.
This is something unusual, something incomprehensible, something pleasant.
It will not be difficult not to pick up some glorious epithet or characterization to the film in order to fully reflect the influence of the film on the consciousness of the viewer.
It's different. It consists of many stories (about 12, according to the synopsis), which are completely different from each other, but the individual characters are related to each other. Therefore, the attitude to each individual part of this film is different. And for the most part, this is confusion.
When I first heard about the movie New York, I Love You, I immediately began to associate with romance and Valentine’s Day. And somewhere in my heart, I was hoping for romance with countless stars of the first magnitude.
The reality was much harsher and more mysterious.
But this film is good at least in that it is not like everyone else.
In total, there are about 12 subfilms, and only about 5 of them are clear and beautiful. There are a lot of questions, what did the directors of Jewish history with Natalie Portman want to say with their novels or, for example, a short novel with Justin Barta?
What happened to the old star of the hotel scene? Darkness or dreams? Maybe it was a memory. Who was the mysterious stranger with a cigarette outside a restaurant for a sexy blonde? A stranger or a spouse?
I do not consider myself one of the great geniuses and critics of film art, but sometimes it seemed that there was simply no sense in individual film novels. That is, we have related cuts from the lives of ordinary New Yorkers. Everyone has their own worries and problems. Everyone has their own lives. But still there is at least one person who connects everyone in a single chain.
Perhaps there is no point in the film as such. Just stories, just an ordinary New York without Hollywood embellishment with its real (not pavilion) streets and motley audiences.
Personally, as a lover of this great city, it was for the joy of watching every corner of this amazing world, where all the world comes in search of a better life. It was no less a pleasure to find out in the frame of many famous stars. Here, for example, Cooper and Barta together (and this is a few months before the premiere of Bachelor Party). Or Maggie Q's luxurious , a novel about which was really delightful. Or our (not ours anymore)Anton Yelchin in an amazingly beautiful story...
A lot of attention is paid to love, and not only to love the city.
Lots of examples of skates and dating guys and girls to each other, and it’s really beautiful. One gets the feeling that love has flooded this city, where there is a place for Dostoevsky’s volume and Jewish weddings.
The end.
It turned out something peculiar and for me not everything is clear. But this is for me... And what for you will open love New York - only you know! . .
For a long time I could not decide whether this review will be positive or neutral. But after thinking about the film, I came to the conclusion that there are still more positive moments. I would like to point out that this kind of film is for an amateur. It is unusual to see several stories in one film. I haven’t seen Paris, I Love You, so this is the first film I’ve seen in this genre.
Perhaps it is better to note the positive points first.
Most of all, I remember Shia LaBeouf. In general, this novel was the most interesting of all. His performance surprised me in a good way. After watching this novel, there is a feeling of understatement, and everyone can understand this story in their own way. I think this is a good thing.
It was also nice to see Anton Yelchin. I think he has an acting future. But, unfortunately, the novel with his participation did not make a special impression. It is the story itself, not the actors’ play.
Another novel that I liked is with the game Orlando Bloom and Christina Ricci. Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov. It was an interesting story.
And I loved the novel about a woman who was filming on camera on the street. An interesting ending was built around it.
But, unfortunately, the film has disadvantages, for my view.
Yes, the genre of several stories in one film is interesting. But, as it seemed to me, his main disadvantage is that full development was not in all novels. And besides, a lot of directors, a lot of "handwriting." I didn’t have a sense of wholeness, and that didn’t make me completely immersed in the film. But again, this genre is an amateur. Maybe one day I’ll be a fan of this kind of movie.
Another disadvantage of the film, in my opinion, is that several actors literally flashed in the frame. It is not clear why they were needed.
But I want to note that the film conveyed the atmosphere, which is a plus.
It turned out to be a warm, cozy, evening film. But, as I thought, “New York, I love you” should be watched more than once. And a second time more carefully.
Perhaps this is the phrase I would describe the film and my feelings after watching it. I immediately wanted to wander around this city, go to Chinatown, eat a hot dog or just be carried away by a huge crowd on Fifth Avenue.
A very atmospheric film, not to laugh from the heart, not to get motivation or to reflect on the meaning of life, no. Rather, to feel its atmosphere, he will be in New York for an hour. This picture should be viewed under a certain mood. It tells us about love, so different and so similar at the same time. Sometimes, of course, the thought slips through your head: “Kam, Geis, this is impossible in real life,” but you want to believe that you are wrong, and such events are quite real. In short, sometimes you want to dream.
There are films that you can either adore or hate, there is no middle ground. But New York has nothing to do with them. On the contrary, a soft, almost imperceptible precipitation remains after it, which nevertheless charges you with a certain energy for the whole day.
10 out of 10
Released in 2006, the film almanac "Paris, I Love You" fell to many viewers. More than a dozen different novels with different popular actors from different well-known directors found positive responses from the audience. The unusual structure of the painting “Paris, I Love You” led to the fact that the project began to unfold in full, the second such series was the almanac “New York, I Love You”, which tells about various awakenings of love feelings against the background of the “Big Apple”.
It is interesting that among all the directors who took part in the work on the film (eleven people plus Scarlett Johansson and Andrei Zvyagintsev, whose novels were not included in the official release, but for Russia and Ukraine were additionally included), there is not a single native of New York. Of course, many people will say that this is the essence when five-minute videos are shot by a German of Turkish origin, a Japanese or a native of glorious Pakistan, because they will look at the city from their perspective, shoot under an unusual prism, but still, I would like a person who was born in New York to take part, or it looks like a gathering of immigrants. Even the American directors who took part, who are from Detroit, who are from Los Angeles, who are from Miami. After all, a native of the “Big Apple” could suggest something to his colleagues. But the creators decided differently.
Perhaps this is due to the fact that in comparison, Paris clearly wins against New York? Burlesque-filled novels from France smelled like the French capital, were more diverse and expressed love from all sides, in all its manifestations, and not only in the love of one person for another. And New York was an expression of some kind of tragedy, floating sadness, immersion in a world of unrealized dreams. That’s why New York looks a little apathetic. However, some changes were made to the concept of the almanac: some characters echo each other, they do not have common dialogues, but there was a relationship. We tried it – it turned out well, it became a sign of difference from Paris and it is good, this large-scale project was developed. Movies are expected about Rio de Janeiro, Jerusalem and Shanghai. Filmed (although it turned out unsuccessfully) film novels about Moscow, touched Havana, is expected to premiere even about Tbilisi. As they say, we will see.
To tell about each novel is ungrateful, it will only be a description, and this review is the result of the emotions received and subjectively I would like to talk about the emotions received from some sketches that most came to the heart. I remember its unusual novel from Ivan Attal, where the heroine Robin Wright frankly tries to seduce Chris Cooper. Think of her as a priestess of love, but is it that simple? In a few phrases, it turns out, there is a whole abyss of relations, and the actors in the episode showed the hinterlands of the metropolis residents. Another bright association for the film was a sketch from Brett Ratner with Anton Yelchin, Olivia Tirlby and James Caan, where the unexpected finale introduces into a small stupor, but for some reason I want to smile and pat the hero Yelchin on the shoulder. And the "bronze" from me personally receives a novel from Shekhar Kapoor with the honored Julie Christie, John Hurt and the young and ambitious Shia LaBeouf. Here, in a veiled manner, they talk about the ghosts of the past and, as it were, try to convey that one should not regret what happened, this should be rejoiced.
Almanac “New York, I love you” turned out to be weaker than its predecessor-inspirer, but the language does not turn. Quite interesting novels, everyone will find something or someone for themselves, get bored somewhere, and somewhere with great interest look at unexpected love stories in a huge American metropolis. Such almanacs are extraordinary in the world of cinema, have their own unique handwriting, which is created by great directors and big actors.
I understand perfectly well that each story has its own director, its own theme, and only New York unites them. But this apparently (I myself was not there, I do not dare to judge) insanely beautiful city could not combine the stories in the film.
And it's the stories themselves. They're very, very strange. Right to the pain of noir... Only the story about the old people aroused in me a genuine interest and some emotions. I liked them. That's it. Others tried, actors (Cooper, Portman, Bloom) played, but in something holistic and interesting each story did not result. And what to expect from the film itself, if its details are not fully usable. And of course, these same details will not be combined with each other.
In general, I'm not happy... Beautiful actors, wonderful director and a beautiful city. But no, it's not beautiful. Maybe someone will understand him better (judging by the ratings there are), but I will put a pretty low score, not pulling for any actor. It's a shame, even our Christmas trees came out better.
5 out of 10
The previous film of the series “Paris, I Love You” became an unambiguous sensation and a breath of fresh wind in modern cinema, which has become less and less like a form of creative art and more mindless machine for collecting spectator money at the expense of disposable paintings. Hence, it is not surprising that the picture not only returned long-forgotten traditions to this art form, but also became the starting point for the creation of other almanacs with the declarations of love of directors of other cities of our huge planet.
This time, this film focuses on the “big apple” and perhaps one of the most densely populated cities in the United States of America – New York. Unless, except that if the first film about “Paris” told not only different stories and tried to reflect visually the mood and splendor of the city for which he is so loved, then there is no such feeling at all.
Unexpected acquaintances of representatives of different nations and ordinary people who unfold in very lyrical love stories or even comic situations, all this is a reflection of the world that surrounds each of us without any embellishment and whose uniqueness we are not able to appreciate for the everyday worries that overwhelm us every single day.
Hence, the main task of such brilliant directors as Mira Nair, Ivan Attal, Shekhar Kapoor, Natalie Portman and many others allows you to get acquainted with these stories, which we simply do not pay attention to and in combination with a truly stellar cast, imbued with all the beauty, comic, tragedy, sadness and existentiality of all these quite ordinary at first glance, but very deep stories.
Stories in which such magnificent actors as Chris Cooper, Robin Wright, Natalie Portman, Anton Yelchin, Andy Garcia, Ethan Hawk, Christina Ritchie, Orlando Bloom and many, many others literally blossom. They play some of the best roles in their careers. After all, for some 5-10 minutes of screen time, they manage to tell the story and reveal their characters so that they do not leave a shadow of doubt in the splendor of the works and not a drop of lack in their production. Except that, in addition to attracting the public with their big names. So that people would forget to watch exclusively modern representatives of mainstream popcorn, but also deep author's paintings with unusual staging and implementation on the screen.
This film is not as good or as good as Paris. .," but decently holds the bar and format of the entire film almanac. Let’s take a different look at the lives of ordinary people and their amazing stories in the locations of the brick jungle of New York.
New York became the second city in a series of film almanacs about love. Paris, Moscow and Havana were also honored. Several film almanacs are planned about Shanghai, Jerusalem, Berlin, Rio and St. Petersburg. The concept is the same everywhere: each novel is dedicated to this feeling, and the leitmotif connecting all short sketches is the love of the city in which the shooting takes place.
This film almanac consists of 11 novels. The final version did not include the directorial debut of Scarlett Johansson and the sketch of our Andrei Zvyagintsev. But there's still a lot to see. All the stories are completely different. I will not describe each of them because the review will be too long. I will try to tell you briefly what I liked the most. First, the beauty of New York. In the film you can see Chinatown, Fifth Avenue, Brooklyn Bridge, etc. It is a very large and beautiful city.
Second, there is the diversity of directors. Each of them has their own style. I’ll start with Natalie Portman because she surprised me with her directing. Her novella is one of the best. It's about parental love. I really liked Joshua Marston’s short film about a couple of old men. Their dialogue is great. Brett Ratner managed to surprise me with an unexpected turn of events. Allen Hughes liked the male and female perspective on one situation. I really like such techniques in art. Fatih Akin has the saddest episode, and Shekhar Kapoor has the mystical one. It is also worth highlighting the informative short film Shunji Iwai.
Let’s move on to the third plus – the cast. Well, this is a real stellar kaleidoscope. I'm not going to list all the names. Shia LaBeouf will get the palm from me because he surprised me with his performance. Pleased: Robin Wright, Drea de Matteo, Anton Yelchin, Cloris Lichman, Maggie Q and Natalie Portman. I didn't like Ethan Hawk at all. In Attal's short film, he was the weakest link. The rest flashed on the screen too quickly, so did not have time to show themselves bright enough.
Anyway, I'm happy with the movie. In many stories, there was a touch of melancholy. Each novel has touched me in its own way. Some did it better, some did it worse. But no director left me indifferent. I would recommend watching.
Where is a set of scenes torn from the lives of ordinary people. You don't know their background, you don't know their names. You have no idea what will happen to them in a day or two or years. But you see them here and now, their uncomplicated, or vice versa, very complicated stories. You are an outsider, a casual tourist or a regular resident of NY, who caught these people at some point.
Artist, dancer, prostitute, aspiring actress, graduate, pharmacist, taxi driver. An amazingly touching elderly couple or herbalist in a Chinese store. A former singer or a young Jew. A young composer or pickpocket. Choose any one, they are just random passers-by. But each one is important. Everyone has a story that can be told or silenced.
Small, beautiful stories. Some are funny, some are sad, some are touching. But each of them is special and unique. After this film, the main thing is to feel the aftertaste. Think about each story, try to imagine what will happen next. And, of course, this is impossible, because we know too little about these people, their inner world. But that's the beauty.
The cast is great. Nice familiar faces, looking at them is a pleasure. What a location. The views of New York are worthy of a guide. At least now for a postcard.
The movie is beautiful. Beautiful in everything. It has a calm, balanced aesthetic against the background of the Big Apple. A lot of people will say, “I didn’t understand.” To understand something in this film, you have to love this style. I love it, I like it.
And, I just can't help writing. Watchers of Doctor Who are simply obliged to appreciate the bridge and the fountain from the miniature about the dancer and his daughter - the locations are the same as in Angels Take Manhattan.
And on the subject:
Love sells well - fans of "Twilight" and cards with hearts will not let you lie. In 2006, the year of love came to us from the most romantic city on earth, in 2009, New York decided to prove to everyone that it is not only sexually transmitted diseases and Carrie Bradshaw that walk along its streets. But Americans are still a more pragmatic and down-to-earth nation than the windy and amorous French. And love in the United States is more like colorful advertising, and not whistling in the corners of the melody.
If the directors who filmed about Paris somehow tried to convey the feeling, then here we have to observe the circumstances. Love happens on every corner, and it’s no secret. But not every minute you are ready to take it into your heart, and especially when you sit at home on the couch, in thin socks and unwashed head. The director should prepare the viewer for the moment when his soul wakes up, and not just tell a story about Sasha and Masha. In addition, in ten or fifteen minutes, you will not tell a lot.
It is expected that only two or three of the eleven novels are remembered, and they are more likely for their eccentricity than sentimentality. The dialogue between Ethan Hawke and Maggie Q is sparkling, but only a joke; prom in the park is a funny coincidence; reading Dostoevsky by roles is a cute linguistic trinket with the eyes of Christina Ricci. Not love, but the horn of American abundance: directors and actors of all nationalities, unusual plots for every taste, diverse urban landscapes. One thing is bad - in all this kaleidoscope of joys there is no place for silence and thoughtfulness, there is no time to feel that you are finally fascinated.
Towards the end of the novellas become shorter, what happens - faster. Several actors play the role of shuttles, wandering from one story to another, but do not make a single almanac. The film crumbles on postcards and jokes, and without dropping sentimental longing in the heart.
5 out of 10
Successfully launched by the French love virus is walking around the planet. So I got to New York. It is impossible to refrain from comparative analysis. Each city has its own face, each director has its own angle when looking at this face.
The collage genre in this regard is a very successful find. Stories replace one another as in a kaleidoscope, the plot does not have time to get bored. Each has its own genre, its own little story. I like some more, some less. Between the pictures from the series “I love you!” and the pictures inside each film, of course, there is a connection – the actors, the way of presentation, the roll-call of genres of individual plot “patchworks”, but the general feelings of the films I have remained completely different: in Paris the city is a full-fledged actor, in New York – only the background, there are cities somehow very few, there is the main thing – people. Their stories are fuller, more meaningful, they have more completeness. And the city is not just sights, but the atmosphere, spilled in the air and covered with an elusive fleur of its inhabitants. So, “New York, I love you!” I personally liked it more.
As for “Moscow, I love you!”, it looks like canned food in comparison with the two above. I could only mention a couple of novels. Probably, the whole thing is that there is a clear directorial trace of the younger generation of Mikhalkov-Konchalovsky and the Okhlobystins who joined them (something I stopped loving him, Oppsel). But thank you for trying!
It seems to me that if a film evokes a very ambiguous, ambiguous feeling, then it is a success: it forces you to analyze and filter information, choosing what you like and what is unpleasantly surprising. And this is the task of cinema - to convey some facts, thoughts, conjectures and stimulate the brain, making people think about the presented, right?
"New York, I love you" is good with this duality. There is much to choose from, what to compare, what to admire and what to resent. “Paris, I Love You” was a delight to me at the time; it turned out to be very simple, vital, but at the same time beautiful, elegant – French. Did I feel the same way after watching New York? Honestly, no, I watched it smoothly and calmly. But does that mean the movie is bad and Paris is better? That's ridiculous! Many people compare New York to Paris, but they miss a little detail: they are about two different universes. How can one objectively compare the unsurpassed romantic atmosphere of night Paris with the uninhibited (and you will agree, so attractive) brilliance of the night lights of New York? Subjectively, yes, absolutely: I like it more, then less. Someone is drawn by these endless strings of taxis on Fifth Avenue, and someone is asleep and sees himself walking along Chanzelize. The style of American behavior seems to some vulgar, vulgar, their values are extremely strange and base, and someone can not stand the self-loving French, believing that they absolutely in vain consider themselves the center of the Earth. Personally, I belong to the first group, and then to its liberal wing, but this is hardly a reason to accuse anyone of anything. After all, it's not their fault they didn't please me, is it? Subjective assessment depending on one’s own tastes, values, interests, preferences is very important, but it is not a criterion for creating the axioms “this is good”, but “this is bad”.
Therefore, I will not compare and conclude that it is better: everyone will decide these issues for himself. To decide, you have to look. You really need to watch if you are a fan of American cinema and if you are a fan of European cinema, too. Because this film gives a great opportunity to either fall in love with American cinema even more, if you are a fan of it, or finally see its failure compared to European cinema.
Now specifically about the movie. It makes no sense to retell the novellas, so I will just point out what I liked and what I did not like. Maybe it will help someone who has similar tastes to orient themselves. If we talk about positive impressions, then perhaps the most striking for me was the novel about a French singer and an employee of a New York hotel. I already wrote above that the whole film went smoothly for me, so this is the only moment at which I was stirred up, puzzled, very moved. For me, this is the best episode of the whole “New York”, although there are other favorites: a very charming novel about an elderly couple, dear Orlando Bloom and his hellish torment at close acquaintance with Russian literature, and the story about the artist and a Chinese girl, of course, catchy. An extremely negative impression was left by novels about a graduate, a girl of easy behavior and a writer, as well as about a couple who find out the relationship. I don’t have an ardent dislike for Americans, but I do not like their looseness, the open propaganda of obscenities that are placed in movies for or without reason. I don’t know, it’s probably a mentality, a special self-awareness, and in the American box office it went with a bang. I was only disgusted by it. I was surprised to see Carlos Acosta in Portman’s novella. As a ballet dancer, I understand Natalie, but still, why would a world-class star be forced to play extremely strange choreographic material on a tiny stage? It feels like the poor guy was forced to perform at a children's matinee. But in general, this is normal: Americans are not very scrupulous in ballet. This mistake will have to be forgiven.
In general, I can say that it was interesting to look and draw some parallels. I find it difficult to set points: suddenly there will be not enough for a generally good film, or maybe, on the contrary, too much for some annoying opuses? So let's do without estimating the figures, enough has been said.
P.S. Oh, I totally forgot! I watched the English version, because in the review there are no thoughts about the novels of Zvyagintsev and Johansson. But for the sake of interest, I will definitely look at them: I am curious why the producers did not like them so much.