… I hate Woody Allen movies, so the fact that I went to see his latest film is a testament to how much I love Rome. I will see any movie with “Rome” in the title even it means sitting through two hours of Allen’s whiny, nebbish, neurotic schtick. I loved everything about this movie, except Woody Allen and weird social commentary on the popularity of celebrities. I mean, I got his point, but it was so outlandish it ruined the feel of the film for me. I wanted more of Rome and the way the city influenced the characters, not a unbelievably ridiculous subplot about a middle class Italian clerk who wakes up one morning hounded by paparazzi because he’s famous for being famous. Save that weirdness for a love letter to Los Angeles, maybe.
The gist; it’s a typical Allen film fashioned after his multiple love letters to New York City, London, Barcelona, and Paris except this time the multiple story lines don’t intersect. All the usual suspects make an appearance, the country bumpkins coming to new city, the love triangle with the tempting vixen, the tourist on vacation who falls in love with a local, blah blah blah. It’s filmed in Rome. That’s all I cared about.
In short, the only thing that took the sting off wasting $10 and two hours was Alec Baldwin. For the Rome sick that might be tempted to see this film, rent La Dolce Vita instead.
Related Links: Another review agreeing this movie totally sucks, ‘To Rome with Love’ Worse than Being Trapped on a Tour Bus with Ugly Americans.