Action / Comedy / Crime / Fantasy / Mystery

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 41%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 55%
IMDb Rating 6.7 10 78788


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
June 30, 2016 at 01:58 PM



Scarlett Johansson as Sondra Pransky
Hugh Jackman as Peter Lyman
Woody Allen as Sid Waterman
Ian McShane as Joe Strombel
696.85 MB
English 2.0
23.976 fps
1 hr 36 min
P/S 6 / 22

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Granger 5 / 10

Wish I'da thought to make popcorn

There are three reasons to watch this movie: 1. If you think anything by Woody Allen is absolutely hilarious 2. If you think Scarlett Johanssen is really cute (because she is a lot of that) 3. If you're a Hugh Jackman fan... although you may be disappointed at the very two-dimensional character he's given to portray.

Just realize going in this is a Woody Allen comedy (focus on Woody Allen) and not a romance comedy as portrayed in the ads. Character depth isn't in the recipe.

On the other hand, if you don't like Woody Allen dominating a film, can only handle so much of Johansson being micro-directed, or are a Hugh Jackman fan, you may find this flick less than satisfying. While there are a few semi-humorous lines in this as well as a couple of well-acted moments, for me Scoop was a bit of a letdown (considering I was hoping for a solid Johansson / Jackman romance comedy).

I am going to avoid relating the name of the film to cat litter commercials because that would be crass and irrelevant. However it would be fair to say that while the movie claims to star Johansson and Jackman, the prevalence of Allen in almost every scene of the movie (it surprises me he didn't pop up in the bedroom scenes) definitely gives a different flavor to the film than expected. This is typical Woody Allen humor but with considerably less wit than displayed in his earlier film. Unfortunately it drags Scarlett and Hugh along for the ride in a not-all-that-interesting tale that quickly becomes semi-narrative in scope. I felt as if I were watching an ongoing Allen commentary on everything that was going on in the show.

It was our family movie night. My sister politely excused herself about halfway through and told me go ahead and finish watching it and let her know if the rest is worth watching. I didn't blame her. I later emailed her that between the two of us hers was the wiser decision.

Allen fans may disagree with this review (especially when I read the glowing reviews about what an uproarious comedy this is), but I didn't go into this with the understanding I was watching a Woody Allen movie with two co-stars. I went in expecting a romantic-comedy and found little of either. There are apparently a lot of people who agree, as this barely squeaks out a 6.5 rating as of this review.

I'll include no spoilers, no discussion of (plot?)... just a caution: if you like Woody Allen you might enjoy this movie. If viewers enjoy predictable, light-fluff plot lines, this makes a pretty decent rainy Saturday flick. Far worse films have been made-- and this does have the benefits of Johannson and Jackman to provide eye candy throughout-- its true saving grace and the reason I gave it 5 stars rather than a yawner 4.

Perhaps the actors would agree-- this was not their best platform, and is nowhere near the best work of Woody Allen. Beware the reviews with gushing stars in their eyes. If you're an Allen fan and love the movie, I'm happy for you. Other folks may find this to be a cutesy flick centered around Woody Allen's performance. And I say that with the deepest sincerity. You're all amazing people, a credit to your race. Seriously, you've been wonderful. (That schlock got tiring pretty early.)

Reviewed by Geoffrey DeLeons 7 / 10

Mind If I Horn-In?


I found this one of the better, recent Woody Allen movies. While there are some small lacks-of-development in the script, I found it funny, and believable enough to keep me watching and make me interested.

I suppose the one aspect of this film that I came away with is the funny lines that Allen cracks. (I thought his defense for eating bread was hilarious).

My main objection with the film was that it did not explore why Sondra Pransky agreed to spend alone-time with someone she thought was a serial killer of women. This certainly did increase the tension of the film, however, and at every moment, we expected her to be assaulted by Jackman's character, or at least she and/or Allen's character to be discovered.

The fact that she had asked him, casually, about his knowledge of tarot cards should and would have tipped him off that she was "onto" him. The next thing we know, she is in his cellar. Opting to be alone with him after that point was sheer madness on her part. This potentially-fatal error did not seem consistent with her character: That of someone both bright and sober.

Waterman's ruse is revealed, at one point, and this antiquities room scene was an excellent opportunity for him to show some spontaneous ingenuity in his "explanation" of his behavior, but he dis-appoints by resorting to the shtick that he repeats several times in the film, while meeting new people.

I found offensive the line, "You are a credit to your race". Is this an allusion to gentiles? I hope not. Why was it uttered five different times in the film?

One would think that with all Allen has been through in the last 20 years, that he would have achieved some sobriety and deep thought. While many of his lines in Scoop are funny, it is basically the same old Woody, and the lines could have been inserted into any of his movies. Nevertheless, the plot works, and the acting is good.

Something that I think could have been developed is the relationship, or at least the emotional connection, between Pransky and Lyman. When did true feelings develop in her.., and why? The 14th century lute?

One other thing that I would have done differently is to have the spirit of Strombel offer somewhat more information on just why he thinks the lord's son is the murderer. There is bare-little to go on, and we would doubt the soundness of Sondra's and Sid's "investigation", if it were not for the obviously-shady, ambitious and cold nature of Peter Lyman.

This movie is one that has an inherent fluidity-of-perception, and I think this was intentional: There are different ways to view the events, and I can appreciate that. The last Woody Allen film that I liked was Deconstructing Harry, and I thought Scoop is the best since then: If it had explored some fear and dread on the part of Pransky, colliding with unrestrained passion (or lust for money), a stronger dynamic and film could have been presented.

The character Sid Waterman needed some development, too: Where does he live, and what makes him the person he is today? Pransky needed to be able to get him to calm down long enough to say something real.

I may sound overly-harsh about this film, but as I said, I enjoyed it. The one thing I have always admired about Woody Allen (besides some of his humor) is the fact that he has always found it important to reveal, or even magnify, his weaknesses. By doing this, he informs, enlightens and reminds us about the nature of our humanity.

Reviewed by jjrous 3 / 10

Humor was obvious and childish

The plotting was clever and effective, but the lame attempts at humor should put to rest--finally--Allen's reputation as a comic master.

The joke about Rubens painting/Reuben sandwiches was inexcusably childish, and one could see it coming a mile away.

Allen seems to have a base of fans who are ready to love anything he does, and this has made him lazy.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment