Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) User Reviews (204)

Maybe the arc of the universe does not bend towards justice

[AlsExGal · 9/10 · 6 October 2020]

This film seizes on something that would fascinate any ordinary person. The idea of knocking off someone by contract. And not just anybody, but a mentally unstable mistress who is demanding that ophthalmologist Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau) leave his wife and come to her or else she will expose the affair to his friends and family anyways, along with certain financial discrepancies that occurred in his business. Judah is well thought of in the community, and in lots of ways an everyman who we can identify with. Judah is depicted as going through the same stages of conscience that any ordinary person in this situation might do. In noirs or stark gangster pictures, it's a common occurrence and no one frets about it : but here is a "regular" type guy actually goes through with the crime in all of its stages, no I can't; well, maybe; caves in; guilt --- going through the same things that I or you might go through. After all, for me at least, doing something like that is out of the question. And yet Woody makes us identify with doing just that in a real-world, not a romanticized one. His ability to take an idea like that and make is so alive is just one of his many gifts. And that's only a part of the movie, which mainly deals with the unfairness and lack of justice of the universe.

One of Landau's patients is a very moral rabbi who is going blind - there is nothing that will stop it - and worse, he will be blind by the time his daughter gets married, so he won't even get to see that event. So part of Landau's inner torment is why would he get to keep his profession, his reputation, and his family at the expense of somebody else's life when a moral man like his patient and friend the rabbi has such an unjust fate?

This was one of if not the the best of Woody's films. How does it end? Let's just say Woody Allen would have been very frustrated by the old production code.

Two discrete plots in one excellent movie

[Red-125 · 8/10 · 5 August 2011]

Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) was written and directed by Woody Allen. The film stars Allen as a documentary filmmaker, who makes documentaries that no one would want to see.

The structure of the film is unusual. It's really two movies with a fragile link that connects them.

In one plot, Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau) is a prominent ophthalmologist and philanthropist. He's married to Miriam (Claire Bloom), but he's had an affair with Dolores, played by Anjelica Huston. Any movie that contains these three great actors will be a pleasure to watch.

The second plot concerns Cliff Stern (Woody) who's married to Wendy (Joanna Gleason) but is in love with Halley (Mia Farrow).

The link between the two plots is that Wendy's brother Ben (Sam Waterston) has a degenerative eye disease. Ben is being treated for this disease by Judah. Because Ben is a rabbi, Judah confides in him about the love triangle in which he finds himself.

Allen is a brilliant writer and director, and his strengths are in getting dialog right and carefully portraying the milieu in which his characters live and work. Granted, "the Woody Allen part" is predictable and hard to watch. (He's still writing that part, although he's too old now to play it. Just watch "Midnight in Paris" and you'll see the same character in a script written over 20 years after "Crimes and Misdemeanors.")

This is a film I enjoyed and recommend. In my opinion, almost everything Woody Allen directs is worth seeing. "Crimes and Misdemeanors" is one of Allen's best, and is definitely worth seeking out. (We saw the film on DVD, and it worked well on the small screen. If it's not showing in revival, rent or buy the DVD,)

What if "Instant Karma" won't actually get you?

[dindi-se · 9/10 · 23 February 2016]

Imagine if everything you were ever taught about moral, ethics and karma turns out not to be true? « You get what you give », « Good things come to good people », « Instant karma is gonna get you! ». We hear and often repeat these phrases, try to live well with ourselves and with others, be good citizens, do good. Many of us believe that this is not only the good way to go about life, but also expect to be rewarded because of our good behavior, to get what we want, to grow in life, have a great job, meet a nice partner, live well, prosper.

This is, however, a Woody Allen story, and it may as well be his masterpiece. The story can be roughly divided in two, and centers on the lives of two very different men. One is Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau), a married and successful ophthalmologist who suddenly starts facing problems with his lover (in a good performance by Anjelica Huston). The other man is the idealist and broke moviemaker Cliff Stern (played by Allen himself), facing family problems, a broken marriage and a work crisis. The stark difference between these two men turn the movie into a would-be duel between idealism and superficiality.

Themes like our roles in society, religion, morals, existentialism, the final judgment and philosophy are thoroughly discussed in the movie, both directly in conversation but also reflectively through the actions of the different characters, without ever compromising the development of the story, nor the viewer's interest in it. Balanced in the comic paranoia of Allen's writing and acting, the story finds a meeting point between drama, irreverence and meaningful topics. Pertinent reflections and dialogues drive characters to often funny, often heavy situations, and many times both.

« Crimes and Misdemeanors » represented a return of Woody Allen to comedy, after flirting with more psychologically driven stories, clearly influenced by Ingmar Bergman, as shown in previous works like « Another Woman » and « September ». Still, comedy here exists and at the same time does not, as the deeper reflections proposed by the movie can push the viewer into a different direction.

Rosenthal's tale shows a man initially consumed by anguish over the decisions he needs to take. Whatever path he chooses will certainly leave a long-lasting and deep scar in his life. Humor is absent here, and Sven Nyqvist's cinematography (the same that often worked with Bergman) is dark and somber, reflecting the state of mind of the central character. Cliff's journey, however, is lighter and more comical, a typical portrait of Allen's characters played by himself. The different stories balance each other out perfectly: they offer the light after the darkness, the calm after the storm.

Finally, and only towards the end of the movie, the two men meet and talk about the crimes and sins of real life, and what can their real consequences be. The encounter of these two seemingly so different characters, but who then suddenly realize that perhaps what they were always taught about life and morals could be wrong, could be considered an anagnorisis of Aristotle, a final realization, a critical discovery of things as they show themselves to be, not as we had constructed them in our imaginary. Are we indeed the sum of our choices?

Great tragicomedy. One of Allen's finest films.

[EThompsonUMD · 10/10 · 21 April 2005]

Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) offers perhaps the most complex study of the relationship between film and reality in all of Woody Allen's work, not excepting the lighter treatment of the theme in The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985). In Crimes and Misdemeanors, film and reality interact on multiple levels ranging from the commercial to the philosophical. They also interact through a blend of genres that includes the noir crime drama, romantic comedy, social satire, and the documentary. Along the way the film enthusiast is treated to a dazzling variety of interwoven film clips from Hollywood genre films, darkly humorous newsreel footage of a blustering Mussolini, and arresting talking head interviews with fictional philosopher Louis Levy (played by Martin S. Bergmann, the renowned clinical psychologist and author of The Anatomy of Loving). Allen uses these film-within-film conceits to dramatize a central Dostoevskian (and 20th century) theme: the consequences of a god- absent universe.

A crucial film/reality intersection occurs in the final sequence, a first meeting between the central characters of the paralleled "crime" and "misdemeanor" plots: Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau), a highly successful late middle-aged ophthalmologist and Cliff Stern (Woody Allen), an obscure documentary filmmaker whose one claim to fame is an "Honorable Mention" at the Cincinnati Film Festival. Aware that Cliff is a director of sorts, Judah pitches him a murder mystery plot based on recent experiences in his "real life." Ironically, Cliff rejects Judah's plot as too implausible, shapeless, and amoral to work as a movie even though it is a large part of the movie that Woody Allen as director has just presented, a twist familiar to viewers of Robert Altman's The Player (as well as to readers of Borges, Nabokov, and a slew of lesser post-modern fiction writers).

The meeting between Judah and Cliff takes place at a wedding celebration for the daughter of Ben (Sam Watterston), a rabbi who is Judah's long-time friend and Cliff's brother-in-law. Previously, the only link between the two plots comes from Ben's repeated visits to Judah's office for monitoring of a progressive eye-disease. In an early scene in the doctor's darkened examination room, Ben listens to Judah's confession of marital infidelity, financial indiscretion, and fears of exposure from his unstable mistress, Dolores (Angelica Huston), who refuses to be dumped after a several year relationship. What Judah does not confess is the means he uses to resolve his dilemma: the murder of Dolores by a hit man hired by Judah's underworld-connected businessman brother, Jack. For a time, like Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov, Judah suffers agonies of guilt for initiating the taking of a human life, but eventually he "awakens as if from a dream" to find that rather than being punished he continues to prosper, a perverse irony that seems to belie his religious father's conviction that "the eyes of God are always watching us" and that "whether in the Old Testament or Shakespeare – 'murder will out.'"

The Woody Allen character, Cliff, is an unsung and largely uncompensated maker of intellectual documentaries. An obsessive film buff, he prefers to spend most afternoons at the movies with his niece and most evenings in his low-budget cutting room rather than face the reality of his unhappy marriage and nowhere career. Alan Alda plays Cliff's other brother-in-law and nemesis, Lester, a thoroughly obnoxious but prominent writer and producer of TV sitcoms. The antagonism between these two characters is sharpened when Lester, as a favor to his sister, hires Cliff to shoot a TV documentary about Lester himself for a "Creative Minds" PBS-style series. The show's Associate Producer, Halley (Mia Farrow), becomes the object of a courtship rivalry between Cliff and Lester. Since Cliff is married and Lester is an obvious philanderer, this romantic triangle forms the "misdemeanor" segment of the film's plot - adultery and licentiousness having long been stricken from the contemporary urban world's list of cardinal sins.

Cliff's work on the Lester documentary allows Allen to satirize the TV-centered culture that lionizes a figure like Lester but offers scant recognition or reward to the subject of his documentary work-in-progress, Professor Levy (or, by extension, to Cliff himself). Although he has some moments, Lester is an easily deflated buffoon - a self-satisfied font of reductive and repeated bombast ("if it bends it's funny; if it breaks it's not funny.") Unfortunately, he can only be deflated in art. In "real life" Lester not only has the power to keep filling the airwaves with pap, but to fire Cliff and - most depressingly - to seduce and marry his dream girl, Halley. If Judah finds the absence of moral order comforting, Cliff is totally nonplussed by reality's harsh artlessness, but then, as Judah advises him: "If you want a happy ending, you should go see a Hollywood movie."

Despite its plot resolution, Crimes and Misdemeanors is rescued from utter nihilism by its ritual comic ending and by its final shot of the now completely blind Ben dancing happily with his daughter. Despite the literal place of darkness he has entered, the rabbi embodies the affirmative element in Professor Levy's vision, eloquently expressed in these words: "Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly, human happiness does not seem to be included in the design of creation. It is only we, with our capacity to love that give meaning to the indifferent universe. And yet, most human beings seem to have the ability to keep trying and even try to find joy from simple things, like their family, their work, and from the hope that future generations might understand more." Alas, the uplifting imagery of the film's ending is counterbalanced, though not thoroughly undercut, by the recollection of Professor Levy's personal response to "the indifferent universe": he exits it via self-defenestration, leaving only a suicide note that reads "I've gone out the window."

Crimes and Misdemeanors is as close to pure tragicomedy as Woody Allen gets anywhere in his work, and it is one of his most essential and finest films.

Brilliant, probably Woody's best and most focused

[schnofel · 10/10 · 12 October 2004]

"Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989) was the masterful culmination of Woody Allen's dramatic period in the 80's, in which he made brilliant movies like "Hannah and Her Sisters", "Another Woman" or "September". In these movies he tried his best to play with Ingmar Bergman's narrative and aesthetic preoccupations, which are incidentally also Allen's. He has also always been successful at incorporating wit and comedy into the dramatic arc. In "Crimes and Misdemeanors" he confronts two philosophies of life with each other. And once the two story lines are set into motion, almost every scene plays off the theme of the movie.

We meet Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau), a successful and beloved doctor. Coming home with his family from a gala, he finds a letter from his mistress Dolores (Angelica Huston); addressed to his wife. Judah meets Dolores in her apartment, where she explains her deep dissatisfaction with the current situation. She wants Judah on her own, whereas he feels that this affair is getting out of hand and wants to end it. Consecutively Dolores begins to threaten him with uncovering a fund theft he was involved in and with admitting their affair to his wife. Judah cannot see out of this predicament and calls up his Mafioso brother (Jerry Orbach) to help him getting rid of her.

Cliff Stern (Woody Allen) on the other hand is a struggling documentary filmmaker, married to a woman who stopped having sex with him a year ago and who would rather see him work than not. So Cliff goes against his principles and takes the job kindly given to him by his wife's brother Lester (Alan Alda), a millionaire TV producer. Cliff has to follow Lester around New York to document his visions for a TV program. On the job he meets Halley Reed (Mia Farrow), an associate producer, who gets interested in his work of passion, a documentary about a Jewish philosopher. At the same time Cliff begins to take interest in Halley.

Cliff is portrayed by Allen as a humble, wise and cynical man, who never managed to connect his aspirations to the demands of the real world. He has nothing to offer except his love and knowledge. This enables him to be a mentor to his young niece, but does not profit him in his relationship with Halley. The little girl also works as a stand-in for Cliff's conversations with his conscience. This device is made clearer in Rosenthal's segments, where he confides himself to a rabbi.

So we have a dual storyline, where one section is morally repugnant and the other one is idealistic. The rabbi tells Rosenthal that their conversations are always about two views of life. One believes in a harsh world, empty of values and with a pitiless moral structure, while the other sees meaning and forgiveness and a higher power. Rosenthal has heard similar things before, since he was raised very religiously. "The eyes of God are on us always", advised his father. And when it came to the question of God's existence he would add: "In case of doubt I will always choose God over truth." But Judah cannot let God interfere when he plans to kill his lover. He feels guilt, alright, but people get used to circumstances. We deny and try to forget.

When in Cliff's segment the Jewish professor commits suicide, it comes as a shock. Suddenly a philosophical system has been taken away. Isn't that one of the things we fear the most? To realize that our beliefs are incomplete and wrong. This understanding only tightens as the movie progresses. The rabbi is going blind, morality has lost. In the end the film is a sobering account of how immorality, deceit and its more harmless companions prevail.

I feel Allen had to let the downbeat ending happen, to express a fear of his. In the 90's he would often return to lighter themes. This expresses his curiosity in all aspects of existence. Light and darkness coexist. Tonally "Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not a dark movie. Allen repeatedly breaks up an emotional scene with a punch-line. But Allen is always consistent in his tone, whatever subjects or periods he chooses. He is a tough worker, who has made 33 movies since 1969, which amounts to roughly one movie a year. "Crimes and Misdemeanors" is the clearest in its vision and among his very best.

A film that explores the human soul.

[Dastari · 10/10 · 22 May 1999]

When I registered with the IMDb, one of the survey questions asked what my favorite film was. I listed Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors. I don't know if this is always true, but for the most part I feel fairly confident regarding my choice. Allen's story here works, like most well written literature, on many levels. It is funny (Woody's lessons), symbolic (the Rabbi going blind), ironic (the good suffer and the evil go unpunished), deep (faith and suicide), and is a film that leaves you with something to identify with and learn from. Even Hally Reed's (Mia Farrow) surprising revelation at the end of the film, which I won't reveal of course, shows us a bit about the dangers of prejudging others. Woody shows us that we shouldn't judge on the surface, but must look deeper into the individual value of people. Do we trust Hally, or do we stick to what we see as the truth about Lester (Alan Alda)? This is a lesson that Woody's character, Cliff, doesn't even fully grasp at the end of the film, but Allen gives us the insight, even though what Hally reveals about Lester goes against what we've seen of him.

Crimes and Misdemeanors is certainly not for all tastes. It's not exactly a film that people would watch for pure escapism. This is a film to be treasured, revisited and held up with some of the greatest films of all time. Not for how it looks or sounds, but for what it says. This is a film aimed at both the heart and the mind and succeeds in capturing both.

"Human happiness does not seem to be included in the design of creation... If you want a happy ending, you should go see a Hollywood movie."

[Galina_movie_fan · 10/10 · 20 November 2006]

"Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989)- is Woody Allen's masterpiece and my favorite film. It is urban and sophisticated, subtle and cruel. It is darker than dark and self-ironic. It is profound and touchingly poignant. It is deadly serious and in the same time it is incredibly funny. Its humor is razor sharp and sparkling and the best and funniest Woody's one-liners and comic performances belong here. As always in his best films, Allen had created a clever and elegant film out of his own weaknesses and insecurities and it shines. How much was Allen able to meditate on life, death, God, religion, morality, crimes and the responsibility, love and lust, happiness and the price one pays for it, and among those eternal subjects - how much fun it is to skip work or school and to sneak to the movies.

It is universal. It has the references to many Artists and cultures - Chekhov, Dostoyevsky, and Bergman among the others but it is so undeniably and uniquely Allen. It could not have been made by any other director.

It is the movie Allen will be remembered for.

Masterpiece

[ametaphysicalshark · 29 April 2008]

Most would say "Annie Hall", some would say "Manhattan", those who prefer Allen's early career might even mention "Sleeper". Few would call "Crimes and Misdemeanors" Woody Allen's best film as writer/director, but the more I watch it, the more I realize that it's not only my favorite, but in many ways the film Allen was working towards for the entirety of his career as a writer prior to this.

In "Crimes and Misdemeanors" Allen revisits a recurring theme in many of his films, adultery. It would be a simplistic and narrow-minded view of this film to say that it was simply about adultery because it is really far more complex than that, and essentially a film about all varieties of human nature and relationships, and one could even argue- the relationship between reality and film as explored through the lens of genre- romantic comedy, Film-Noir, and documentary, and what parts of this film are- satire.

"Crimes and Misdemeanors" is one of Allen's best scripts. Any screenplay attempting to accomplish as much as this one does could easily fall apart, and Allen has had less convincing attempts than this one with similar ambitions, but everything works beautifully here. This film practically defines the 'tragicomedy' sub-genre, with neither overpowering the other and much of the humor is dark humor originating in tragedy, something that is acknowledged by Allen through the character of Lester (played to perfection by Alan Alda), who comments that comedy is nothing more than "tragedy plus time". He also mentions that comedy has to have an ending, and that's one of the best things about this movie- Allen allows dramatic scenes to succeed at being dramatic and emotional, then throws a hilarious punchline at you, which has an effect that is both entertaining and somewhat unsettling. This is an expertly-written movie.

"Crimes and Misdemeanors" is the culmination of a decade of consistently brilliant, evocative, original, and fascinating films from Woody Allen, whose 80's output I would personally consider to be his best. His 70's work is far more popular, but his 80's work contains some of the most unique and memorable films ever made: "Stardust Memories", "Zelig", "The Purple Rose of Cairo", and "Hannah and Her Sisters", as well as numerous overlooked and generally forgotten films that can only be called excellent, such as: "A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy", "Broadway Danny Rose", "Radio Days", "September", and "Another Woman". On top of all these memorable films is "Crimes and Misdemeanors", which is simply my favorite Woody Allen film and almost certainly his best and most focused effort.

10/10

Movie in relation to Kant and Mill

[adyn12 · 7/10 · 5 June 2013]

Crimes and Misdemeanors is a film about two men who are unhappy in their marriages and the different choices they make to change their situation. Judah is a rich, successful orthopedic doctor who began having an affair two years previous with a woman named Delores; it was not because he had a bad marriage, he was merely bored and wanted some hot new "tail." Clifford is a nerdy, struggling filmmaker whose marriage has been on a steady decline for the past year; he begins work on a new project and meets his co-worker Nancy, who he immediately begins to fall for despite still being marred.

Judah's lover Delores starts to become very emotionally unstable and begins to threaten and blackmail Judah because he won't tell his wife about his mistress. She makes attempts to contact the wife herself and starts calling his house all the time. Judah realizes what an ass he's been and how he's jeopardized his whole life and career by having this affair; he goes to his brother Jack for advise, and he suggests Judah have Delores murdered. Initially Judah is appalled by this notion and refuses the thought altogether; however, after some time of having Delores get bolder and more desperate, Judah seriously considers it and finally decides to go through with the murder.

Meanwhile, Clifford continues courting his co-worker and begins to believe he is in love with her. He eventually tells her and ends up having a few sexual discrepancies. Not long after he tells Nancy his feelings for her, she tells Clifford that she has taken a job in Paris and will be gone for a few months. Clifford is shattered but decides to wait for her and get a divorce in the meantime. Around six months or so later Clifford sees Nancy at a party on the arm of a man he despises, and overhears that they got married while in Paris. He is devastated and is now single, miserable, and poor.

The film ends with Judah and Clifford talking at the party, and Judah is telling Clifford how his life has totally turned around and he is incredibly happy now. He ends up with his wife in a better relationship than they had before and is still a successful doctor. Clifford mulls over the idea of murder and if he had killed the man before, Nancy would never have married him. Ultimately we see that Judah did the wrong thing and ended up happier than before, while Clifford made the better choices and ended up miserable and alone for the rest of his life.

According to Mill and the Utilitarian viewpoint, Judah's choice to murder his mistress was the correct moral decision. Utilitarian's believe that the final consequences are all that matter, and that the moral decision brings about the happiness of the most people involved. They do not care that Delores had her life snuffed out for no real good reason, or that she was completely innocent of anything that would deserve such a harsh punishment. But by her death many other people remained happy; Judah was able to sweep his discrepancies under the rug, so to speak, and return to his old life as if nothing happened. He gained a deeper appreciation for his wife and family and thus was happier, by Delores' death the family remained in the dark about Judah's affair and they were all happy. None of his clients found out about his shady money transactions, and everyone in his life either remained as happy as before, or became happier.

Kant would have said that Judah was immoral because of the categorical imperative, which states that one should not act in such a way that they would not want others to act and thus be a universal law. If Judah believed in the categorical imperative, then by killing Delores he would essentially be saying that it would be okay if someone killed him for being a nuisance or for unethically messing around with his clients' money. I believe it is pretty obvious that Judah would not have wanted this at all since he couldn't even bare the thought that he would have to suffer the consequences for his wrong actions; not to mention having to pay for them with his own life.

Clifford's case is a little more difficult for me; I believe Mill and Kant would have said that Clifford was being moral by not following through with his murderous thoughts. Clifford divorced his wife and she met someone new, so she was happier; his lover Nancy ended up getting married to a man that she seemed to truly love, so both she and her new husband were happy also. Clifford was the only one who seemed to come out at a loss when everything was said and done, so Mill would have said the net gain was in happiness. Kant would have also said Clifford did the right thing, because he would not want it to be a universal law that people can kill each other out of jealousy.

In total, this film had quite a few things going on and different themes underneath the surface. The ending seemed to suggest to the audience that the person who does what is immoral but can get away with it is happier than the person who does what is right.

Allen's best

[blanche-2 · 10/10 · 7 June 2000]

This is a profound film, a true classic and great even among Woody Allen's great films! Thought-provoking and involving, I've found since seeing it that the film and its statements about good versus evil, denial, guilt, narcissism, have never really left me. A film with many layers, one that demands a re-visiting from time to time.

A masterful balancing act

[gridoon2024 · 7/10 · 21 December 2014]

For a brief period of time, in the early 1980s, Woody Allen seemed slightly unsure of what direction his career should take: serious or funny? (He even made an entire movie about this uncertainty, "Stardust Memories"). I think "Crimes And Misdemeaors" (and also "Hannah And Her Sisters", to speak only of his 1980s movies) is what he was always really getting at; this movie is basically a drama, and yet it contains some lines funnier and cleverer than anything in, say, "To Rome With Love". It is about moral dilemmas, yet it is amoral; it is deep, yet accessible; it is relaxed and easygoing, yet self-assured and carefully planned out. The entire cast is good, but Martin Landau in particular gives a superlative performance. And Allen's choice of music is, as usual, spot-on. *** out of 4.

A perfect film

[sanarg · 10/10 · 30 August 2005]

Not much has to be said. This is an outstanding film, possibly one of the best films I have ever seen. All performances are perfect. Half drama, half comedy, and that very well done. It has deep thoughts about quilt and mistakes, lots of truth about relationships. It has laughs and a perfect ending. Every time I watch this film I just want to sit down and write, just write something interesting to leave behind. The film is already 16 yrs old and you wont notice that at all, it's one of those films that never age. I would recommend this movie to anyone who doesn't want to spend another two hours of his life watching yet another Hollywood crap.

Guilt.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 31 December 2015]

This is about as close as Woody Allen is likely to come to real tragedy. Martin Landau is having an affair but his paramour threatens to lower the boom on him by telling Landau's wife. Landau arranges to have his love murdered but is stunned by what he has gone, haunted by moral lessons learned from a rabbi when he was a child, and ends the movie thoroughly chastened but not in jail. He gives a subtle performance too.

That's what is know as "the A story." The "B story" has Woody Allen as a documentary film maker in love with Mia Farrow, who is in love with Allan Alda, an egotistical, famous, rich nincompoop. The egotistical, famous, rich nincompoop gets the girl, while Allan's marriage dissolves, leaving him forlorn.

Well, okay. It's not King Lear. But it's enjoyable and at times slyly thought provoking. (Is it really necessary to believe in God and an afterlife of punishment in order to feel guilt?) A rabbi, done to a turn by Sam Waterston, represents God and has gone blind. The symbolism is clear but the meaning is nebulous. The scenes of Jewish rituals are semi-real and heartwarming, like low-key versions of John Ford's weddings and dances.

Allen's job is making a documentary film about Allan Alda, whom he loathes. Alda is foolish and, furthermore, he's got first dibs on the girl Allen loves. So the documentary, which is supposed to make a public icon out of Alda, turns out to be a disaster -- scenes of Alda shouting and bragging, intercut with shots of Mussolini on his balcony haranguing his fascist supporters, Alda copping a feel in a dark hallway. During the viewing of the film, we see Woody Allen seated in the theater and chuckling at his own cruel wit. Alda sits there aghast, his mouth open, and then fires Allen on the spot.

Of course, the film is necessarily cluttered with Woody Allen's conversational tropes. "How AHHH you?" And, "I just feel, I don't know, unsettled. Y'know?" And Allen's compulsive wisecracks are up to par: "The last time I was inside a woman was when I visited the Statue of Liberty." Lots of dinner parties with guests, a wedding, a sentimental dance. The conversations are incredibly middle-class and banal -- the virtues of acupuncture and the center piece at Rockefeller Center. But the pace is deliberate, and the staging precise, as befits a tragedy.

I preferred the B story to the A story. They weren't seamlessly blended. Yet it's watchable and diverting, and odd to see Woody Allen so seriously probing a concept like guilt.

Does anyone else see what I see?

[EW-3 · 5/10 · 13 May 2005]

This movie is two separate stories made into one via just three devices: 1) a relatively minor, albeit symbolic character (a blind Rabbi), 2) a brief meeting of the two main protagonists, and 3) a philosopher's narration at the closing (or it would seem so, anyway).

The first section - the "crime", and the good part - tells the story of an eye doctor (very nicely played by Martin Landau) who has it all: a wonderful wife and family, a successful career, a beautiful home, and a neurotic mistress (Anjelica Huston), the last of which threatens to spill the beans and destroy everything in his life. Landau is a respectable, decent guy who finds himself unable to cope with the enormity of these circumstances, and he goes to an extreme by enlisting the help of his mob-connected brother (Jerry Orbach), who has the mistress killed. There follows some interesting scenes in which we see Landau going to an emotional edge over what he has done, and searching his past and present for some answers. It is a well-done, believable story that raises a lot of interesting philosophical questions.

The second section - a much lighter story than the first - stars Allen in his typical genre in which he plays a filmmaker doing a portrait of his brother-in-law TV producer (Alan Alda), and whom he greatly despises. This story is further complicated by a love triangle with a television documentary maker, played by Mia Farrow. There are a few amusing lines in this section, and it wraps up into a somewhat ironic ending.

But what is the connection here? The first time I saw this film, I kept asking myself: "What do the Landau and Allen stories have to do with each other?". I found myself asking the same exact question the second, third, and fourth times I saw it as well.

Then I saw an interview with Allen. He said that the Landau segment is a statement of his belief that there is no God or divinely-inspired morality - not much of a surprise there.

The second part of the film, says Allen, was trying to tell us that intentions do not matter, but rather it is success that counts in this world; that even though his character truly cared for the Farrow character, it was the vain, shallow, unworthy, but nevertheless rich and successful Alda character that eventually won her heart. OK, I guess that point comes through as well.

But once again, we are back to the same question: What do these two stories have to do with each other? Not much, from what I can see. What is the "crime" or even the "misdemeanor" committed in the Allen segment? If you can connect these two stories, you might also have some success in connecting "Sleeper" with "Gone With The Wind" - the stories really don't mesh. To put it bluntly, it almost appears as if Allen had two separate scripts, neither of which were meaty enough for a full-length film, so his solution was to combine them into one movie. Am I correct? Someone please explain to me why I am not.

Rare film that ventures into Good and Evil Conscience

[nlevin11 · 10/10 · 30 April 2005]

Let's begin by declaring that you do not need to be a Woody Allen fan to appreciate this film. As is often the case, Allen's schlemiel character is the least sympathetic and interesting one in the movie.

But that aside, here's a story that I found thoroughly engaging. Is there a perfect crime? Is guilt the same as remorse? How does a "good" person come to terms with his sins?

The blind Rabbi: Is God unseeing? The Holocaust survivor philosopher who challenges survival (that's all I can say without spoiling): is there any real redemption?

The movie has flaws but I give it a "10" for daring to ask serious questions. (And the visit to the old house in Brooklyn has a dynamism that all of us who remember our childhood homes will relate to.)

A masterpiece

[hausrathman · 10/10 · 20 February 2003]

Martin Landau, a successful doctor, contemplates murdering a former mistress who threatens his easy life while Woody Allen, an unsuccessful filmmaker, contemplates having an extramarital affair. This film, alongside "Annie Hall," will one day be rated as one of Woody Allen's greatest achievements. It is an important, intelligent work that explores the implications of whether or not this is indeed a moral universe. It also very funny. The subplot about Allen making a film about his successful, conceited brother-in-law (Alan Alda.) A masterpiece. I doubt he will reach these heights again.

One of Woody Allen's most ambitious films, also one of his classics

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 15 February 2014]

Woody Allen is not everybody's cup of tea, with me while his body of work is not always consistent(but that is true with a lot of directors) much of it is wittily written and insightful as seen with his masterpiece Annie Hall. Crimes and Misdemeanours has everything that is so good about the best of his work. With the subject matter and how the comedy and seriousness is blended Crimes and Misdemeanours is one of Allen's most ambitious, and along with the likes of Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, Husbands and Wives and Manhattan it's one of his best too. The look of the film is elegant and hauntingly dark, while the score is jazzy and seductive. The story has some key themes(good and evil and life and death as examples) that are very clearly addressed and dealt with with adroitness and truth. The concept is not an innovative one as such but it's challenging and hugely compelling. And the writing is to thank for that, the humour is wonderfully ironic and very characteristic of the distinctive wise-cracking Allen style, there are references and observations that are sharp and insightful(always one of Allen's strong points as a writer) and they is blended well with a serious tone that is dark and appropriately troubling, the shifts between comedy and drama didn't jar to me. The acting is very good, often outstanding. Woody Allen acts as well as directs and writes and there are no obvious problems with his performance(or his directing), not a likable character by all means but that was the intent. Anjelica Huston doesn't disappoint, nor does Jerry Orbach before his Law and Order days, Sam Waterson and Claire Bloom. Mia Farrow is affecting as well. But the acting honours go to Alan Alda and especially Martin Landau, Alda plays an absolute weasel to perfection while Landau gives a performance that has not only only been matched by his Bela Lugosi in Tim Burton's Ed Wood but also one of the greatest performances of any Woody Allen film. All in all, a Woody Allen classic, an example of ambitious done brilliantly. 10/10 Bethany Cox

A Movie That Shows there is no Absolute Answer

[dallasryan · 8/10 · 22 February 2012]

Woody Allen is Woody Allen. He always has some very thought provoking subjects to write and ultimately film about. Crimes and Misdemeanors in a lot of ways, in my opinion, is his most thought provoking film to date. What really brings the movie together is the ending where Martin Landau's character is talking to Woody Allen's character. I won't get into the whole movie here, but what Landau's character talks about to Allen's character is the fact that if you kill someone or had someone killed, you feel bad at first about it, but you ultimately move on with your life, and as time goes by, the killing becomes further away in your thoughts, like the phrase, 'This too shall pass.'

Allen's character talks about how if a person kills someone and/or had someone killed that they would ultimately confess to the police from feeling to guilty about it. Landau's character says, to the likes of, 'at first you feel guilty, but that's movie stuff confessing, no you get through it and move on with your life.'(again he didn't say this verbatim, but to the likes of he did).

Very interesting thoughts come at the movie viewer like fireworks bursting into the sky at this point such as- Is it truly only about survival and do we move on and adapt no matter what? Do we get through the lulls of life and learn to adapt, live and survive in this world the that way we like to no matter what? Do we learn to live with life, as it was, whether it be Crimes(something horrible as in we killed someone) and/or Misdemeanors(Cheating on your girlfriend or wife or both-for the polyamorous)? Another thought provoking subject that comes up is of what's 'real'(that has concretely happened, been seen in the world) and what 'isn't real or what hasn't and/or can't be seen'(God; Faith; all of this according to what the movie is stating).

Allen really makes you think in this film, and he's one of the best for this kind of writing. The answer is really simple since there isn't a solid black or white answer, which there never is anyway(And I believe ultimately, that's Woody Allen's point), it's pretty much to the individual. The funny thing is both Landau's character and Allen's character are both right.

There are some people in this world that would think like Landau and go on living their lives after killing someone and then there are some people in this world that make Allen's argument right, where they would breakdown and confess about their crime of killing someone, and that's real life, not a movie, it goes both ways, depending on the person. It comes down to 'What is Truth?' as Pontius Pilate said(Pronounced Pawnchuss Pilot).

Truth is to the eye of the beholder, it's different for everyone. Some people's truth would be on the side of Landau's character and some on the side of Allen's character. Some people are realists and see the truth as only what they can see and only what has happened, and some people's truth is what you can see but also what you can't see too, God and Faith in particular. What can't be seen is sometimes as real as what can be seen. There are things that happen in life through events of faith and worship and other ordeals that come to a fruition in the here and the now, and the realists wouldn't have believed it when it wasn't seen, but when it became seen, then they believed it. A very crafty movie by an absolute brilliant man in Woody Allen. It's a must see for the deep thinkers.

Wonderful Accident

[Bolesroor · 1 April 2009]

Woody Allen has claimed "Crimes & Misdemeanors" was a mistake, that he re-shot the final third of the film at the last-minute, completely changing the storyline and plot. Maybe he's that brilliant... maybe he's just being humble... whatever the case, "Crimes & Misdemeanors" works, and it stands as one of Woody's boldest statements on God & human nature.

There's wonderful symbolism at work as eye doctor Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau) looks to the eyes of God for judgement on his sins and murderous misdeed, but the parallel story of Woody's principled documentarian forced to film Alan Alda's obnoxious TV producer rings just as true: the wicked often go unpunished and generally awful people are worshipped for their financial success. This to me was Woody's last great film before the 90's found him in various stages of personal and artistic crisis.

"Crimes & Misdemeanors" is thought-provoking, conversation-starting film with wonderful performances from Allen, Landau, and uber-jerk Alda. Catch it if you can...

GRADE: B+

Martin Laudau amazing

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 18 April 2015]

Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau) intercepts a letter from his mistress Dolores Paley (Anjelica Huston) trying to reveal their affair to his wife Miriam (Claire Bloom). Dolores insists that he leave his wife. In desperation, he turns to his brother Jack (Jerry Orbach) who hires a hit-man to kill Dolores. Meanwhile Cliff Stern (Woody Allen) is a lowly documentary filmmaker. His braggart brother-in-law TV producer Lester (Alan Alda) hires him to do a documentary on himself as a favor to Cliff's wife and Lester's sister Wendy (Joanna Gleason). Lester keeps hitting on associate producer Halley Reed (Mia Farrow) while Cliff falls for her. Cliff is miserable with the work and would rather film philosopher Prof. Louis Levy. Halley is of the same mind.

Martin Landau is amazing in this. I like his side of the movie a lot. I like Woody's side, too. However I found the split rather distracting. I may want two separate movies out of these stories. Maybe Woody is making a point combining these two stories together. I can guess at the question being posed but at the same time, the point may be too subtle for an idiot like me.

An existential masterpiece

[Haynoosh · 10/10 · 8 March 2008]

In a world where there is no God and where the philosophers commit suicide,one can get away with murder and sell the story to a film maker.

Ironicaly enough the only one whose ideas prove to be true is Lesther the TV producer:"Comedy is tragedy plus time",and what a short time Hamlet might have said!Only four months after getting rid of his mistress,Judah Rosenthal who catches God's eyes nowhere but in the gaze of the dead Dolores,is an honorary doctor and a devoted husband and father again.

The ophthalmologist who can't see his own vices,the blind Rabi,the unfortunate documentary film maker, the successful TV producer... all are the guests of a wedding, of the beginning of a new life, with so many questions remained unanswered.The bride is leading her blind father through the dance,and we hear the voice of the philosopher who before jumping out of the window opens one for us,by telling that we define ourselves by the choices we make and only we, with our capacity to love can give meaning to the indifferent universe.

"What were God's eyes like?"

[majikstl · 6/10 · 30 January 2006]

In CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, Woody Allen plays a documentary filmmaker named Cliff Stern who is working on a film about a philosopher who is also a Holocaust survivor. As Cliff shows a sample of his incomplete film to Halley Reed, played by Mia Farrow, the old philosopher drones away in the background discussing rather elementary questions of morality. Obviously oblivious to the sad fact that the old man's rambling discourse is tedious and banal, Allen and Farrow rave about his insights and brilliance.

Meanwhile, Cliff is also making a TV documentary -- strictly for the money, about a crass Norman Lear-like television producer, played by Alan Alda. Lester, Alda's character, also happens to be Cliff's brother-in-law, and Cliff hates the man; supposedly because he is a crude and pretentious showman, but most probably because Lester is a financially successful crude and pretentious showman. Throughout CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, Allen holds up Lester to a degree of ridicule that is equal to the degree of awe he reserves for the droning philosopher.

It doesn't take a genius to see the parallel that this situation has for the way Woody has come to approach his film-making. He has this misbegotten desire to be taken serious as a dramatist and an insightful philosopher that clashes with the reality that what he does best is to create comedy, particularly comedy that mocks the very pontificating, overwritten gobbledygook that passes for deep philosophical ponderings.

CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS is roughly divided into two barely related stories. The "misdemeanor" of the title is a variation of the standard Woody Allen love story. Allen's Cliff is unhappily married and he lusts after Farrow's Halley, who in turn has caught the eye of Lester. There is a nothing terribly new or original in this tale, but it does give Allen a chance to hurl his usual sardonic barbs at the male/female condition and the sorry state of the world in general.

However, most of CRIMES focuses on the "serious" story, the "crime." Martin Landau plays Judah Rosenthal, a prominent and highly respected eye specialist. However, Judah's perfect world is threatened when his unstable mistress, Dolores (Anjelica Huston), gets tired of being taken for granted and demands that he leave his wife or suffer the consequences. Not wishing to have his well-ordered life shaken up, he arranges for his shady brother, Jack (Jerry Orbach), to "take care of" Dolores, while Judah moans and groans endlessly about how awful the whole situation makes him feel. Allen's point in CRIMES is that while Cliff's life is ruined -- or at least messed up -- by his petty sin of coveting, Judah's only gets better and better after his involvement in a murder. Allen's question seems to be how can such an injustice happen if there is, indeed, a just and honorable God?

Allen's point is well taken; unfortunately, his film is hard to take. As a filmmaker, his style can become stilted, arch and cynical. When he puts these qualities into his comedy, it produces wryly sophisticated humor. When applied to his attempts at drama, the result is too often sterile, dispassionate and unappealing. His literate comedy turns into painful preaching and posturing.

Allen is obviously most concerned with the story of Judah, a study of a basically good man who can commit and prosper from evil deeds. And perhaps the viewer could sympathize with Allen's queries if Woody hadn't inadvertently stacked the deck so that we sympathize to some degree with Judah's actions, by giving us a Dolores who is a belligerent shrew and a blackmailer. We aren't given a lot of reason to feel sorry for Delores, and even though Judah comes off as a transparently insincere hypocrite in his response to the killing, we are given every reason to believe that he has otherwise led a superior and moral life. Could it be that Judah can get away with a bad deed because he has worked hard to build up so much good karma in the first place? Woody won't raise that question.

Woody, meanwhile, tries to give us Cliff as the noble "little man" who suffers unfairly in the shadow of a rich and powerful sinner like Judah -- and, for that matter, Lester. But Cliff is not a very nice person. Beyond being a potential philanderer, Cliff comes off as a mean and petty little man, who seems to blame others for all his failures. When Cliff finds himself down and almost out at the end, it's his fault, not God's.

CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS is for the most part a parable, with the moral being "Life is not fair;" whether the crime is big or small, moral justice is an illusion. As obvious as it seems, it is also a self-serving moral that just doesn't ring particularly true, since neither Judah nor Cliff are all bad or all good and, most importantly, the story only examines fragments of their entire lives. Just as Cliff's film on Lester shows only parts that make him look bad, Allen is selective in how he reveals who Judah and Cliff are. It just may be that God has a broader view of what constitutes justice than Allen might embrace.

Certainly Woody seems to be far more judgmental than God, especially when it comes to judging God. Indeed, perhaps the true moral of CRIMES -- and much of his other work -- is that "It is all God's fault, or it would be if God existed -- but he doesn't, so let's blame God for not existing in the first place." For an atheist, Allen certainly places a lot of blame on an entity that he doesn't even believe in. In Woody's world, God just can't win.

Brilliant

[perica-43151 · 10/10 · 7 January 2019]

This is one of the most brilliant Woody Allen movies. Deep, dark and cynical, it speaks truth about the world around us. It essentially involves two plots, one about crimes (murder that goes unpunished) and the other about misdemeanors (involving Woody's character as a decent person who is inevitably a loser in such a world, and Alan Alda in one of his best roles as a memorable pompous villain with unforgettably mocked line "if it bends it's funny, if it breaks, it is't not funny"). Absolutely recommended!

and that's what they do...

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 5 February 2006]

Sometimes, Woody Allen gets so into stories about neurotic rich New Yorkers that his movies get boring. "Crimes and Misdemeanors" is acceptable. Ophthalmologist Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau) has been having an affair for some years, but is now considering having his mistress murdered, while filmmaker Cliff Stern (Allen) is trying to have an affair.

Yeah, that sounds like something that would appear in a Woody Allen movie, but he does an OK job with it here. Pretty much everyone does a good job with their roles. Still, I wish that Allen would sometime return to the comedy that gave him his start.

Bad mix of genres

[christophe92300 · 4/10 · 15 November 2014]

This movie is divided into two story lines : on one hand, a very lighthearted, boring, cringeworthy rom-com , and on the other a very serious drama that brings depth to the scenario, even though the pseudo intellectualism and excess of religious references can irritate some. It's hard anyway to understand this association and draw a parallel between these two quite uneven story lines that seem to have a lot in common and that, unusually for Woody Allen, are not intertwined like one would've expected. Ultimately, Crimes and Misdemeanors is not a bad movie but it clearly lacks coherence and suffers from a more than questionable mix of genre.