Download, Watch online Celebrity Movie.

Jeffrey M. Anderson 19 May 2012

The movie is filmed in black-and-white, but it's a far cry from his love poems Manhattan and Broadway Danny Rose. Celebrity is smaller, more cramped.

jhclues 18 May 2012

Woody Hits Bottom With This One

`Celebrity,' written and directed by Woody Allen, is one of his mostanxious, neurotic, caffeine-driven works ever, and he even includes whatcanbe construed as a disclaimer of sorts: the scene is the screening of a newfilm by an artsy-type director, whom someone refers to as pretentious; hismovie is shot in black & white and is apparently self-serving andself-indulgent. This film by Allen is shot in black & white, ispretentious,self-serving and self-indulgent. There is a story in here somewhere thatseeks to explore the nature and effects of fame, but toward that end theviewer is subjected to a vast array of unsympathetic characters, mediocreperformances and a lot of endless stammering and hand wringing. KennethBranagh should be happy with this one, however, because for him there is noplace to go from here but up; this is far and away the nadir of his filmcareer. He plays Lee Simon, a writer, a role written by Allen obviouslywith himself in mind, and Branagh does little more with it than give aWoodyAllen impersonation throughout the entire movie. Inexplicably, he fails tocreate any semblance of an original character, so caught up apparently with`doing Woody,' and the result is a ridiculous caricature that lacks anycredibility and is annoying in the extreme. How a terrific actor likeBranagh, with so many personal tools at his disposal, could produce such apretentious portrait is beyond comprehension. Judy Davis comes off lookingbad as well; playing essentially the same type of role as she did inAllen's`Deconstructing Harry' (which she pulled off so well), she has been`over-Woodied' in this one, taking her character of Robin (Lee's wife) to ateeth-clenching extreme. Watching such a gifted actress give such afingernails-scraping-the-blackboard performance is almost beyond endurance.Also wasted in this film are the talents of Hank Azaria, Leonardo DiCaprio,Melanie Griffith, Famke Janssen, and Michael Lerner. The only actors whomanaged to keep their heads above water in this one were Joe Mantegna (asTony, the only character you could come close to caring anything about),Bebe Neuwirth (as a hooker), Winona Ryder (as an aspiring actress) andCharlize Theron, who was probably the most memorable, in a convincing turnas a supermodel. Allen has made some great films over the years, butunfortunately `Celebrity' isn't one of them. This is vapid drivel thatwilldo little more than leave you jittery and have you reaching for the antacidtablets. I rate this one 2/10.

Kate 18 May 2012

well...

it wasn't all that great. I've seen better Allen films beginning with AnnieHall and Mighty Aphrodite. I think I even had more fun with ManhattenMurder Mystery. This one is different for one reason. No Allen on screen. Kenneth Branagh plays Allen's usual role of the neurotic writer who ends upwith incredibly beautiful woman and no one can understand why. Despite thetired character present in every Allen film, who honestly is no longer thatfunny to me anymore, the film made some good points about our society andwho it chooses to celebrate and ridicule, as well as the incredible forceluck plays in our lives. Bebe Neuwirth appears with a bit part that Irewound and watched again because I laughed so hard, and Judy Davis iswonderful. Kenneth Branagh doesn't do a bad job playing Woody, but he'sjust not Woody. It's worth a rent, but nothing more.

Michael O'Keefe 18 May 2012

Sometimes love is like life on a merry-go-round.

Written and directed by Woody Allen, CELEBRITY is quirky, witty, sexy,funny, tragic and very New York City. An all star cast makes a mediocrestory worth watching. A tabloid journalist(Kenneth Branagh)is going througha mid-life crisis and confesses infidelities to his wife(Judy Davis). Thecouple separates and their lives take off in different directions. She has atypical emotional breakdown. And he goes from one romantic flirtation to thenext. A myriad of stars make this vehicle move. My favorite two being CharlizeTheron and Melanie Griffith. You will also recognize Joe Mantegna, BebeNeuwirth, Winona Ryder and Leonardo DiCaprio. It is sometimes funny whatpeople will do to keep what they have or do to get what they think theywant.

LitHiUm-7 17 May 2012

Branagh's acting by itself makes this movie worth watching

It is a witty, funny black film in which Kenneth B. plays the best "woodyallen" of all times. The direction of photography is traditional comparedwith his last films.An excellent satire of celebrities with more believable less neuroticcharacters than I expect from a woody allen movie. The subtle critics tocatholics (instead of jews) are good for a change.I would recommend this modern classic not only to woody's fans but toanyonewho likes independent films.Besides, the rabbis and skinheads being accidentally put together in awaiting room (and getting along) is something you won't see in anywhereelse.

daved-3 16 May 2012

boring and shallow

I would call Celebrity a disappointment, but after the fiasco ofDeconstructing Harry a mediocre, boring, shallow film like this is a stepup. Kenneth Branaugh is a bizarre choice to play the Woody Allen role (youcan tell when he does the trademark stammer, e.g.: `I-I-I-I-I'm awash withuncertainty here.'). As with Deconstructing Harry, we have a main characterwho is untalented, abusive, obnoxious, pathetic, and led entirely by hispenis, yet we're supposed to be sympathetic. The film isn't so much aboutcelebrity but one man's quest to rationalize his decisions to rejectsupportive women and submit to physically attractive but emotionallyunstable women. Thereare a few good lines here and there, and most of the actors excel(particularly Judy Davis as the Branaughcharacter's ex-wife) but the whole screenplay is shallow and devoid of anyinsights into the human condition. Igive it a 4 and may have to re-think my policy of seeing every Woody Allenfilm that comes out (although, as with Deconstructing Harry, there will bescads of critics who will lap it up).

Daniel Karlsson 06 May 2012

Modern version of La dolce vita

Yet another Woody Allen... It seems like he can't get enough of thoseneurotic characters that he bases more or less all his pictureson.Kenneth Branagh is a disguised W.A. and practically plays his role; heactually mimics W.A., which is somewhat annoying.Like usual in W.A.'s films, Branagh's character is a man who doesn't have ahard time finding - and getting women; his weak spot is rather that he neverget satisfied with them (which is pretty hard to feel sorryabout).So, what does this movie have that other W.A. pictures didn't already bringus? Most of all, it has a tremendous (to use a typical Allen word) beautifulphoto. However, you could argue if this is the kind of film that fits wellwith Nykvist's black and white photo. Some scenes do, and they are great,but on the whole, I am doubtful.The movie does get better towards the end. It's not bad, but it could havebeen better. I think W.A. should have loosened up his traditionalmovie-making style in this picture. Replaced the main character with hisAllen gestures and made it a little more classic French/Italian-inspired.3,5 / 5

yave 06 May 2012

Debility (dvd)

Well, one of my last "1" rating was another Allen movie so he reallycollects mine.Here, he offers a dull movie with no plot (it's just a collage ofmeetings)and totally drowned under streams of babbles. By chance, Allenis to movies what men magazines are to publishing: as he got money, hecan always cast sexy actress: for this one he chose a young Charlizeand it was good to see again Ms. Onatop.Beyond making a movie about movie stars is as pointless and void as theconcept of celebrities. It's the same thing when TV makes shows aboutTV. It's cultural cannibalism or artistic myopia. My opinion is thatartists and celebrities are two different breeds. The first bringemotion and inspiration through art, the former had just their poor andmaterial life to offer to the audience. One delivers a message, theother runs after money.Let's make the difference and skip this movie for example!

Stephen-12 05 May 2012

Fun but not a classic

Not as bad as some have made out, this one. There are still plenty ofgreatjokes (the skinhead/bagel one is a classic), and the performances are oftheusual high standard (especially Judy Davis - this may be her finest hour).The self-reflexive irony is a new and welcome departure (eg criticisingB&Wfilms for pretension).Nevertheless, there are longueurs, the guest stars are treated even moreaswalk-ons than usual (especially Winona Ryder, whose part seems to fizzleoutas soon as it's got going), and one would have expected a more in-depthandincisive treatment of the cult of the personality - at least, one wouldfroma different film-maker (to be frank, Altman has done it muchbetter).Branagh isn't half as irritating as many have made out, though it'sobvioushe's impersonating Allen (not all that badly, to be fair, though he'sobviously not Jewish). That the film is still one of the better onesshowingat the moment is a testimony to Allen's genius. As someone else hasremarked, this is B+, not A. But I enjoyed it - and, as a novelist myself,there was plenty in it which spoke to me.By the way, has anyone else noticed how many more black people are in thisfilm than we expect from Allen? Is he softening?

eye3 05 May 2012

Too Much is Not Enough

Without the celebrities in the cast this movie couldn't hope for box officeappeal. Kenneth Branagh plays Woody Allen's screen persona well enough (ifa bit goyish); that he plays it at all illustrates my point. Woody Allenrelies on celebrity to sell his movies instead of writing interestingstories. If that's one of his "subtext" themes it doesn't wash with me;he's been using this celebrity-casting crutch throughout the'90s.Cute gags and interesting scenes (those who've seen it know what I mean!) donot a good movie make. Sitting in my seat I kept thinking, "there isn't acharacter or place in this flick I'd want to know in real-life." It takes30 minutes longer than it needs to make its unsurprising end. In some ofhis recent pix Woody tries to be clever by letting us know that he hears ourcomments about his writing and directing style; like a joke we've heardbefore it just gets old.About the only thing I can say in its favor is Kenneth Branagh shows he canplay Americans.

jediknight82 26 April 2012

It was missing something...

When I saw the coverbox for Celebrity, I thought that this would be anexcellent movie due to the all-star ensemble cast and the fact that WoodyAllen wrote and directed it. In reality, this movie did have it's goodparts, but to be honest, I was disappointed. First, the movie was in blackand white, which has worked for other movies (Clerks for example), but itwas not right for this film. You need to see the bright lights and gaudyjewelry that is present in Hollywood today. Second, I am a fan of KennethBranagh, but his performance left something to be desired. It was thoughhewas a puppet and Allen was the ventriloquist. If you watch one of Allen'smovies that he also stars in and then watch Celebrity, you will see thatBranagh is not acting as he normally would. He was acting just like Allen,and if I wanted to see Allen, I would have picked up one of his moviesinstead.

S. John Ross 26 April 2012

Kenneth Branagh plays the role Woody would have . . .

Just as John Cusack did in Bullets Over Broadway, Ken Branagh plays theneurotic writer that Woody himself probably would have played had this filmbeen made a decade or so ago. And what a difference to see Branagh this way!Some good character performances and funny scenes. Definitely worth alook.

Polaris_DiB 03 April 2012

Lesser known Allen aims for Fellini, hits Allen.

So, basically, this is Woody Allen remaking La Dolce Vita. The moviestarts out with Woody Allen ('scuse me, "Lee Simon", which is KennethBranaugh basically proving what I previously thought impossible -- thatsomebody who was not Woody Allen could pull off Woody Allen) at thehighest in his life, getting beautiful women, enjoying the company ofthe famous elite, getting anxious over nothing... and his wife RobinSimon (Judy Davis), who is at her lowest point, being dumped by Lee andconsidering plastic surgery. Over the course of a year, their liveswill completely reverse course, as misfortune hits Lee and fortunepicks up Robin, and in the meantime no end to silliness andcelebrity-related nonsense keep things chaotic, moving, and Allen-stylefunny.It's a pretty good movie but it's rather exhausting. At least thismovie makes Allen's womanizing seem a bit more understandable, asBranaugh is much more charismatic. One of Leonardo DiCaprio's bestroles is in here as a coked out screen star. Judy Davis does an amusingimpression of Blanche from A Streetcar Named Desire, and then laterperforms fellatio on a banana. It certainly will entertain you, ifyou're the type to handle Allen's neurotic approach to humor. I for oneam a friend.The point? Apparently, love, celebrity, all those things that peoplewant just strips down to luck. Of course, whence in it, it all becomesso solipsistic, but this comedy of errors shows that the mostsolipsistic ones are the most blind to the precariousness of theirposition.--PolarisDiB

Angela 03 April 2012

HOW?!?

Oh my goodness.. how could anyone have liked this movie? I bought it onsaleat movie gallery for $2 thinking I couldn't go wrong b/c it had one of myfavs in it [ Leonardo ] and it was cheap.. but I was wrong. DEAD wrong! Iwent in thinking the movie would be pretty bad.. just so I would like iteven in the smallest measurement when i watched it. Overall, there were afew parts i liked.. basically i only liked the character of the ex-wifeRobin. The movie actually had a half decent plot, but a SORRY script andpretty bad and boring acting at some points- also the B&W thing.. veryblah.It would have been a lot better with some color.. and flavor. I found thismovie to be extremely dull, stupid, and quite frankly DRUG TERRIBLY SLOW INMANY NUMEROUS places!!! Save your money.. do not rent this movie! It'sterrible. I don't think I've seen anything else directed by Woody Allen..but if it is anything like this picture.. I don't want to.

billy-7 01 April 2012

Woody coasting, but amusingly

This is mid-level Woody Allen, stylishly filmed in black and white,fast-paced, well acted, semi-cynical, semi-affectionate, and entertainingenough as it passes, but not terribly original, biting, or funny. KennethBranagh, Famke Janssen, and especially Judy Davis are brilliant in theirroles. Charlize Theron and Winona Ryder are also very effective. Worthchecking out, particularly for Woody Allen fans.

Drew 31 March 2012

It's good

When you've seen many films by the same director, and you consider yourselfa fan of that director's work in general, it is almost impossible toapproach a particular film without a certain set of expectations. Thisisn't fair, no, but it's inevitable. While I will certainly admit that"Celebrity" is far from Woody Allen's best work, I did endeavor to focus onthe film itself and try to ignore the disappointments that come from dashedexpectations. In that light, I'm pleased to report that "Celebrity" is agood film. First, let's get something out of the way. I'm sick to death of peoplecomplaining about Kenneth Branaugh imitating Woody Allen. Ok, so if youhappen to find it irritating, well, then it'll pretty much ruin the moviefor you. That's fair. But I don't find it irritating in the least. Moreover, I think it's a legitimate artistic choice which succeeds in whatit sets out to do. Consider: it wasn't Woody Allen's idea for Branaugh to ape his own screenpersona. In fact, Allen did all he could to discourage Branaugh from thisapproach, because he knew critics would skewer it. But Branaugh decided toplay it that way regardless. Why? Well, perhaps to make it funny. Lookingat the script, it's a perfect role for Allen to have played himself, andAllen would have made it extremely funny. However, the role really needed ayounger, more handsome actor. So, what's the ideal solution? Get ayounger, more handsome actor to deliver the same performance Woody Allenwould have. You can debate all you want whether or not this is a good idea(as, presumably, Allen and Branaugh did), but I think it's a legitimateartistic decision. Anyway, it isn't Branaugh that pulls this film down, in my opinion. It'sthe lack of focus. Allen's films frequently include a number of majorcharacters. This allows him to explore an issue from several differentviewpoints. He does this here, but "Celebrity" seems to lack the centralcore that binds most of his films together. It's exploring the idea ofcelebrity, and raising all sorts of questions and issues about it, but itseems to lack a coherent, central thesis. It doesn't seem to have anystrong premise at all. So, the film consists of disconnected pieces fitting together into a sort offormless, unsatisfying whole. But the pieces are funny, insightful,well-acted, and gorgeously shot. So how bad can it really be? Plus, I think what framework the film does have is overlooked by most of theaudience. Some viewers here have said that the film is about making moviesin contemporary Hollywood. It's not. That is one aspect of celebrity thatthis film explores. But this film is packed with almost every conceivableform of celebrity, from movie star to senator to literature critic to TVweather man to coma patient. Yet people seem to fixate on the LeonardoDiCaprio sequence (in my opinion, the weakest part of the film). Why? Perhaps because Leo is such a celebrity. As usual for Allen, this film boasts a tremendous supporting cast of famousand not-so famous actors. Charlize Theron, Joe Mantegna, Bebe Neuwirth,Famke Janssen, Hank Azaria and Winona Ryder all put in strong performancesin supporting roles of various depths. The only weak link, acting wise, isDiCaprio, who is entirely unconvincing.This film, while quite legitimately not numbered among Allen's strongestfilms, has never the less been unfairly maligned. It's funny, it raisesinteresting issues and makes insightful points about it's subject matter,and it looks great. What more do you want?

David Simoni 30 March 2012

Kenneth, what hast thou wrought?

Quite a leap for Kenneth Branaugh whom I last saw in a Shakespearan role.Kenneth, unquestionably a versatile actor, proves that he's also anexquisite mimic in this dreadful film of Woody Allen's. Drably filmed inblack and white, this colorless drama is the same old shtick with a newface. I couldn't help wondering if the film was in black and white becauseWoody's having more trouble financing his films these days. I could find noother compelling reason why he would do it in black and white. The lack ofcolor only succeeded in adding to the film's tedium.I can't figure out why anybody would want to see Kenneth Branaugh play WoodyAllen. I kept thinking that had Woody Allen just played himself, rather thanfinding someone else to play him, at least it would have been a littleeasier for me to suspend disbelief. As it was, I just found the WoodyAllenish mimicry of Branaugh to be gratingly annoying and totallyunbelievable. The character depicted by Branaugh lacked much of thelightness and humor of earlier Woody Allen films. In the final analysis, hecame off as a pathetic caricature of Woody himself, probably not what Woodyhad intended.

don_corleone1385 29 March 2012

I don't get why critics hate this film

I saw this movie a few days ago,and I loved it like any other WoodyAllen movie.And I don't get why so many people hate this movie and alsocritics.some say this film s too explicit and etc.I think the story andthe dialoges were great.One of the best things in this film was theCinematography which was fascinating.And the actings imo are at thetop.Especially,Judy Davis,Winona Ryder and Joe Mantegna did excellentperformances and deserved nominations,and about Kenneth Branagh,manysay is terrible in this because of doing a Woody Allen impression,but Ican't agree with that.I think he showed his versatility and did a verysharp performance. Afteral,I think this movie didn't get enough creditas it deserved and is a very very underrated and btw misunderstoodfilm.

Michael Dequina 24 March 2012

What exactly do we learn about our society? That it is one where just about every celebrity is willing to appear in a Woody Allen film.

Chuck Rothman 23 March 2012

Not one of Woody's better efforts

Woody Allen's hot streak -- a series of excellent films -- comes to an endwith CELEBRITY. Not that the movie is bad, but it certainly doesn't comeupto his other recent efforts. The film suffers by a lack of something tosay. Allen appears to want to say something about the nature ofcelebrity,but the message is muddy. Judy Davis's role (the best thing in the film)isclearcut -- Allen says that you are better off achieving celebrity bybeingyourself and achieving it as a byproduct. Nice sentiment, and welldown.The Kenneth Branagh story, however, doesn't seem to be saying much ofanything. (It seems to be intended as a parallel contrast to the story ofDavis, his ex-wife.) Branagh's character is too immature andself-centeredto be likeable (unintentionally similar at heart to Allen's character inDECONSTRUCTING HENRY -- who wasn't supposed to be likeable). It was alsoamistake to have Branagh doing a Woody Allen imitation; you immediatelycompare him to Allen (who probably wanted to play the part, but was toooldfor it) and the mannerisms are distracting.As a side note -- and spoiler -- the fact that Branagh's character, awriterwho has had two novels published doesn't have a copy of his third isludicrous (though dramatic). What with word processors and even carbonpaper, it beggars belief that he doesn't have something asbackup.Some of the elements are good ones -- Judy Davis and Leonardo Di Caprio,forinstance. But the Branagh character doesn't jell and neither does themovie. Interesting for Allen completists, but definitely one of hisweakerefforts.