Café Society (2016) - Comedy, Drama, Romance

Hohum Score



In the 1930s, a Bronx native moves to Hollywood and falls in love with a young woman who is seeing a married man.

IMDB: 6.6
Director: Woody Allen
Stars: Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart
Length: 96 Minutes
PG Rating: PG-13
Reviews: 45 out of 184 found boring (24.45%)

One-line Reviews (159)

But back to the film itself, it has a jazzy tone, very fast paced, it's very situational as well.

Most boring Allen-movie in years .


In my opinion I find it very boring and most of the cast they've chosen are the ones that rarely express emotion which makes it even worse.

The stunning Blake Lively looks really tall next to Jesse Eisenberg.

It's not great, but I enjoyed it enough for what it was.

The lead character Jessie was portraying was pointless.

And Carell's portrayal of Phil cannot make him a character we care about, as he is just as yawn-inducing as Bobby.

Storaro which uses silhouette, graphic compositions and glowing close ups in an often genuinely breathtaking manner.

No story.

It's also unfortunate that Woody seems obsessed not with its bluesier underside or more experimental areas, but with Dixieland jazz, which is arguably the most trite of its forms.

The film takes a long time to warm up, only really taking off once the love triangle is established, however, the dynamics of the triangle are rather fascinating with both the uncle and nephew only gradually finding out that each is a third wheel in the other's affair.

Sure it's clichéd, sure it's not everyone's type, but it's entertaining through and through.

But it is definitely worth watching on a big screen, especially for any Woody Allen fan.

Thoroughly entertaining.

He's so bland, it's almost painful to watch.

Each character of this movie, particularly Bobby and Phil both are looking for some way or thing where they can escape this over glamorized and pretentious world.

Pointless movie from a tired old woody.

It's about ambitions and priorities, and the winding roads of fate that take us to unexpected places.

Pointless, really.

At the start of the movie New York is depicting as drab and grey, the colors are cold and washed out, the warmest you get is when you are watching scenes of the family home.

Dull, boring, monotone acting.

i was relatively into it for a while but it's very boring and the story is just stupid love triangle drama.

Much like his voice, the film feels warm, familiar if sadly slow and blunted.

Seriously boring and pointless .

Watch her on screen is like watching paint dry.

Once again it is star studded and has a fine polished look but the story line is limp, the leads dull, the denouement a slight variation on at least a half dozen other Allen films.

Second, the story was just so flat, schematic and boring w/o any dramatic build up and very little character development.

We now know that he still needs some money and so he tries to ride on his old waves and so he regurgitates this pointless, stale, piece of drab cinema so that for old times sake people will drop a few more pennies into his coffers.

I liked being immersed in the world of old Hollywood glamour, painted in beautifully nostalgic colors by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro.

That have something to do with the fact that this movie is a bit predictable, and there's nothing special about the story.

She's wooden, monotone and emotionless.

Despite the review given it is worth watching if you want an easy night home with a glass of wine.

No story, no drama average performances no great lines which woody is so good at

It's like everyone's boring life.

A superb cast, lush sets, spectacular cinematography, compelling story and the best musical score in years - this film has everything.

Actually it's only 96 minutes, but it's so drawn out and boring.

An early scene involving Eisenberg and a hooker is drawn out and simply embarrassing.

The first problem I have with this film is its pacing is a sort of in-between film its fast in some parts but for the most part slow, and lets the plot develop over time.

Perhaps those are two vastly different extremes, but like any Hollywood story, there's plenty of unexpected comedy along the way.

However romantic or predictable the tale may seem, there's always humour in sight, as a means of being astray from the typical route in romantic dramas.

Its engrossing to see its underdog leading-man falter in life & love, only to realize that experiences define us, for better or worse.

" With brilliant cinematography by Vittorio Storaro and great performances from Eisenberg, Carell and Stewart, the film is one of Allen's most enjoyable in years.

Though not rising to the quality of his best films, Cafe Society is a sweet, seductive, and charming little romantic comedy that may be a bit slight, but remains thoroughly entertaining.

It undoubtedly aids the visuals and the stunning backdrop of 1930s Hollywood and New York.

Woody Allen has provided a fairly enjoyable take on the romantic genre, with some genuine performances, humour and a story that appears interminable.

As a result of Mr. Allen's 'efforts', these characters end up being exactly as you'd expect them, underdeveloped and uninteresting.

Did I mention how boring this movie is?

Vonnie (Stewart), and vice versa, only, she is also the other woman involving with a married man (a knowing coup de maître plays out wonderfully albeit being an ever-familiar cliché), who will offer her something she can hardly resist, so it takes a heartbreak to grow up, as a result, what doesn't kill Bobby only makes him stronger.

The colors were too intense and too sharp to fit the story.

To get the easy bits out of the way first, "Cafe Society" is utterly stunning visually.

The dull, dry colors that are used during the mafia scenes depict the seedy underbelly of the glamorous exterior of both Hollywood and a fancy New York nightclub.

Or that the stunning Blake Lively is going to go for him in the first place ?

He is wonderful, and can make you feel whatever the character is feeling, even the most mundane of emotions because he is that good of an actor.

Cafe Society is a little on the slow side - the acting is good, there are a few jokes, it's historically accurate (I'm always looking for films about old Hollywood to goof up like Barton Fink), and the photography and fashions are beautiful.

Boring is the only word I can come up to describe this movie.

I got bored of looking at Kristen Stewart pointy chin, and inexpressive face.

And worst of all, it was painfully, painfully BORING.

I highly recommend it

As the time passes though, both of them grow to be more like Steve's character and we assume it happens because they were sucked in that empty world.

No redeeming qualities, boring!

That is the set-up, a predictable formula that Mr. Allen and other screenwriters have used and re-used time and time again.

for what we get it's still entertaining and enjoyable and is worth checking out in theaters.

She marries the other guy, Bobby runs back to New York, instantly becomes this big-time speakeasy owner slash mobster (the name of the joint is the eponymous "Café Society"), and marries a stunning blonde (Blake Lively) who has his babies and is also called "Veronica".

It all comes beautifully together in this thoroughly enjoyable film.

He is made for period parts, and the first half focusing on him is thrilling.


Apart from that this is a treat for both the eye and the ear offering evocative glimpses of the glamorous life on both East and West coasts in the thirties and a soundtrack replete with standard after standard.

This is a competent and enjoyable glimpse into 1930s Hollywood and New York high life and nightclub scene, held together by Bobby Dorfman (Jesse Eisenberg) who commences as a shy, awkward and somewhat typical Woody Allen character working for his hot shot uncle film dealmaker in faraway Hollywood.

Enjoyable even though imperfect and nothing new .

Saved by good (though clearly overrated, judging by the number of reviews lauding it) cinematography and a nostalgic set, this movie is weakest in its writing, which is an excruciating combination childish simplicity and unbearable pretension.

Delivering boring, dour and staid lines.

You can tell that for youngsters Eisenberg and Stewart, working with Allen was a wet dream, but I wonder if they were really pleased to play such bland and dull roles.

Allen's Screenplay is consistently engaging & offers humor in the most unexpected places.

The similarities: the protagonist is Jewish, the movie explores identities of cities, there's a love triangle and infidelity, it resembles a stage play, it's a comedy but has some sad material, there's no villain, it stars a beautiful young star (Kristen Stewart joins Emma Stone, Scarlett Johansson, Evan Rachel Wood, Hayley Atwell and Christina Ricci as a Woody Allen movie love interest) and it has many unpredictable twists and is rather fast-paced.

Enjoyable .

A love triangle ensues between the three and it is very fascinating to watch how it unfolds.

Déjà vu Allen, repetitive speakeasy script dialogue where the plot develops like 'oh so not sweet' molasses - slow, predictable and not so enjoyable.

The main love triangle storyline was compelling, and I found the gangster subplot to be incredibly entertaining.

There are lots of worse ways to spend 95 minutes so from that standpoint it's worth watching.

An entertaining film, as it is usually the movies of Woody Allen.


The performances are bland, the pacing is boring and drab despite that fact that the set crew left all the lights on during filming, the comedy is nonexistent, the characters are awful, and the movie as a whole is incredibly pretentious.

Allen, who uses many of the same actors over in his films, Stoll twice, Eisenberg twice, Posey, Sirico and company, relies on his actors to deliver some of his most entertaining, fun and light-hearted material to date.

The resulting confusion is worthy of Allen's mentor, Anton Chekhov.

It cost me nearly $100 to take my wife and her best friend to this movie, the friend fell asleep and my wife hated the characters...

Lifeless plot that just seems to meander in aimless, predictable fashion.

There, he met a stunning young woman who captivated him.

Jessie Eisenberg=a boring, unattractive, hunchbacked waste of space.

Terrible waste of time .

Entertaining throughout, but it left me with a bit of an empty feeling inside.

This was bland .

It's definitely worth watching.

it all will be more meaningful in the end than watching this trite, soapy, stereotyped, boooriiiiiing movie!

However, it mostly left me feeling incredibly empty and I'll possibly forget about it.

Enjoyable and Interesting .

The acting was somewhat OK, but the story was boring, uninteresting, sick, and had no redeeming qualities.

It is a movie worth watching, though it is not as good as some other Woody's works.

The visual elements in this movie are absolutely stunning, the camera work is done well and there's a definite nuance to this type of shooting that works very well with the setting of the early 20th century glamour of Hollywood.

A serious yawner.

Woody Allen continues to tread water and cannibalize (Radio Days, Bullets Over Broadway, Manhattan etc.) with his latest release, the incredibly trite Cafe Society.

It's entertaining, intelligent and elegant cinema.

Her eyes always look lazy/bored/annoyed with the world, I'm not sure.

Usual rehash of Woody Allen Older man-Younger woman imbroglio still proves entertaining .

It was that pointless.

It just seems pointless that's all.

It's even pointless to say that this movie was pointless.

This movie follows Bob as he moves to warm and sunny Hollywood from drab and grey New York to start a new adventure in his life and get into working in the movie industry one way or another.

I found the story very dull, I could not even achieve the "suspension of disbelief" that is required to enjoy a movie.

The character he plays is whiningly predictable, and Eisenberg is unable to give heft to an undeveloped role.

But, and this pains me to say, this movie was terrible, just awful: way too long, insipid script, a story line that went nowhere except in circles, Jesse Eisenberg doing a very bad Allen imitation, and the "romance" between him and Kristen Stewart had about as much electricity as sitting in a ballpark during a rain deluge and watching the infield turn to mud.

Allen's trite dialogue, and romantic entanglements have gotten old.

Karell was pointless.

Beautiful-looking but dull .

However they outweigh them slightly, Now One thing I liked about this film was the cinematography each visual is superbly shot each shot is stunning and the camera work done for this film really adds a special layer to this film.

that looks absolutely stunning through Storaro's lens and Allen's direction.

Pretty, but seriously flawed and frustratingly dull.

Jesse Eisenberg, best known for his portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network, plays Bobby, a young New Yorker who heads out to Hollywood in search of an exciting future.

As it is, it feels very disjointed, and it also doesn't seem completely sure of the type of film it wants to be.

Jeannie Berlin and Ken Stott (The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey) play minor roles as Bobby's parents, Rose and Marty.

Overall, this is definitely a film worth watching, with a competent screenplay and an ensemble that works well together to create something truly representative of the glamour and life of the early 20th century.

I did think Café Society is the most complex love story among others made by woody Allen in recent years, there'er so much details he wants to jam into 90 mins that make the whole story seem a little scattered and pointless, also the story line itself span about more than 10 years , so it's not easy to control even by Woody .

Verdict; Café Society is a simple tale of love at first sight, and though it comes across as tragically predictable, it's wonderful to look at.

Besides good interpreters, what really reigns in the picture is the wise and strongly effective use of light, from the wonderful amber and golden light of the opening scene on the edge of a swimming pool, to the awesome and never boring shooting of the Manhattan skyline from the bay, or from Bow bridge in central park, where New York appears as an embroidery of light and colour, the umpteenth declaration of love by Allen, and for the first time the necessary setting for that pure and naif vision of love.

In some way I feel like this is a movie about Hollywood, about how boring it is to be involved in the middle of the industry.

What an utterly pointless movie this was.

Enjoyable, well shot, fantastic music selection, funny with it's unique stamp on it.

The loudmouth neighbor was pointless and his pointless death delivered via the pointless mobster brother Ben was again, pointless...

Well, it does hit all the pretentious buttons, and a review of the review demographics show us that, indeed, many young viewers may sat through this tripe for Ms. Stewart.

When Bobby first arrives in Hollywood, he has second thoughts engaging a first-time prostitute whom he's just hired to come over to his apartment.

Bland Love Story .

a waste of time .

Tedious and pointless .

Enjoyable .

wanted to leave after 20 minutes.

Eisenberg channels vintage Woody with fascinating results, while Stewart oozes naturalness.

The pointless romance they had with Kristen was pointless.

Great atmosphere, great actors, entertaining story-line.

Many of the films scenes seem pointless and many of them unnecessary.

It's a fine line to walk, where the beauty of the music can add class to a film that warrants it, or make a dud seem pretentious.

However, i felt the pacing caused a messy disjointed and lazy and rushed final third act.

This one is sweet, romantic, entertaining and fun.

The only bright spot in this entire film is the brief appearance by the hot sexy lovely Blake Lively as Veronica, she livens up this dull film, if only for a very brief time.

she is uncomfortable and empty in her own skin.

But if it helps, it was also largely predictable.

When we are rewarded with the usual delights of Allen's repertoire, it all comes out banal, like a list of axioms repeated one too many times.

My conclusion, after so many films like this, is that Mr. Allen is simply not talented at what he has been trying to accomplish, though I'd be the first to say that his "screwball comedies" of 40+ years ago were quite entertaining, at least in terms of the sensibilities of that age.

It's just stunning.

This is an engaging and enjoyable film to inhale, one that roller- coasts from innocence to the melancholy of lost opportunity and bemused wonder over what life really means…just like all Woody Allen films.

Uninteresting, Slow .

For scene after scene, I found the character to be so bland and pointless that I could not root for him.

It's so pretentious, and so adhering to the modern obsession with realism as well, that we are conned into thinking minor plot details matter.

People are so dull and bland.

derivative, poor acting, boring story .

Even Stewart couldn't save it, but she was fantastic I think and enjoyable to watch her on it.

And Blake Lively looked stunning.

Still, Allen serves up enough of an engaging plot at this point to keep us interested.

This is the kind of pretentious flick that sucks in less critical viewers, who probably haven't even heard of Neil Simon.

This is such a pointless film.