Nearly every critic hated the film because they took it personal rather than viewing it as a film. Allen has always used ideas, impulses, thoughts from his real life to create his films. None are definitive statements. Interestingly within a decade most of the critics that expressed hatred for it had mollified their reactions more than a bit. Perhaps they came to understand Allen's films a bit more and realized he was painted a tortured character here, and not totally denouncing his fans. Personally, I really like the film and consider it a worthy entry in that very fertile period of Allen's career from 1975-1993.
Reading these comments posted, I must admit I love this film. I saw it when it opened in 1979 or 80, and was smitten with the total nightmarish anarchy of it all. The black and white cinematography, Charlotte Rampling, the music and Jersey shore town locations. "I really like you're early films, the funny ones" sums it all up. Try and do something odd and new and you get dumped on.
Siskel and Ebert, like many other professional film critics, felt personally attacked by this movie. They don't like it but they're loath to admit to themselves why. Allen is skewering them and his obsessive fans. Regardless of what Siskel says, Allen's character is very likeable, and you identify with him because EVERYONE is projecting onto him what they think he is or what they think his films were intended to convey. This is why there's no reality in this film, and it keeps flashing back to childhood memories or the narrative is interspersed with fantasies.
Anyone who doesn't find it amusing that Dorrie would talk about "speed-reading Schopenhauer" should check to see if they still have a pulse. (And by the way, it's classic Allen to boot.) And as for 8 1/2, well, YES, it's a brilliant beautiful spine-tingling homage to that movie, not an "imitation" of it! I can't recall Siskel and Ebert ever being such total dorks before.
Stardust Memories is about so much more S & E see and express here. Yes, there's artistic and personal anxiety, but also the hopefulness of moments of love and beauty.
I loved it when I first saw it, and still do. In addition to the "Woody Allen's-eye view of the world" he gives, I found the relationship issues between Dori and Isabella interesting, his regret over Dori especially, and I could identify with the sort of existential confusion he was expressing throughout all of it, and always laugh at the conversation with the Martians, where there is practically no effort to disguise the fact that it's Allen doing the Martian voice...
It is absolutely a Fellni homage. Name one character, EVEN an extra, that isnt a visual freak to such an extent that Woody looks almost normal! It goes from reality to fantasy almost, almost seamlessly. Clearly not for everyone, and its not my favorite, but it sure is special and visually a tour de force
I love Stardust Memories. Unlike Interiors where he was trying to replicate Ingmar Bergman here he is trying to step into the shoes of Federico Fellini. Both fail to live up to those great directors but Stardust Memories has a weirdness that is more enjoyable than the dour and relentlessly depressing Interiors. In context of his career it is not his worst and far from his best. It falls in a fuzzy grey area that is going to polarize fans, both the longtime and the casual. The characters are mostly unlikable and oftentimes very annoying but it is a factor that appeals to me and challenges me to continue watching. It's visually beautiful and makes me wish there were more films made in black and white. The neurotic level of the characters are turned up to eleven,which might be a contributing factor why many people dislike or outright hate the film. I've watched it numerous times over the decades and it never fails to engage me. The line about the "early funny ones" has rubbed many the wrong way, but I think this is Woody turning on himself and not some dig at the audience. I would put this in my top ten favourite Woody Allen films, with Manhattan at number one and Stardust Memories at eight or seven.
He wasn’t ‘replicating Bergman’ in Interiors. He made his own film. Influenced, yes. But a great film. The way you say it implies he’s just ripping him off, when he’s up there with Chekhov and Ibsen.
Did he really say he didn't like it????? One of mankind's finest artistic acievements. It's his Fellini homage. He does that. I'm ahsamed that these 2 guys are supposed to be so (I can't think of the proper word). Disgraceful!
I recently watched “Stardust Memories” and I found it to be a very whiny and pretentious film with too many wide-angle close-up shots of homely faces. Siskel & Ebert are correct that this is a disappointing one-note film from a usually interesting filmmaker. “Stardust Memories” is definitely my least favorite Woody Allen film. 👎
Weird review. They both conflate the character with the director, a juvenile critical mistake. Stardust Memories is a triumph of moody nightclub nostalgia and one of the greatest films Allen ever made.
Stardust Memories is my favourite Woody Allen film, fail to see how they got it so wrong!!
Agree. Loved it from the day I saw it. They really can’t handle him not being cute and cuddly. Lame.
They both got it wrong.
Nearly every critic hated the film because they took it personal rather than viewing it as a film. Allen has always used ideas, impulses, thoughts from his real life to create his films. None are definitive statements. Interestingly within a decade most of the critics that expressed hatred for it had mollified their reactions more than a bit. Perhaps they came to understand Allen's films a bit more and realized he was painted a tortured character here, and not totally denouncing his fans. Personally, I really like the film and consider it a worthy entry in that very fertile period of Allen's career from 1975-1993.
This film is above their level. You have to get what Woody is doing here. The first quarter of the movie is real. The rest is fantasy! Love this film.
Reading these comments posted, I must admit I love this film. I saw it when it opened in 1979 or 80, and was smitten with the total nightmarish anarchy of it all. The black and white cinematography, Charlotte Rampling, the music and Jersey shore town locations. "I really like you're early films, the funny ones" sums it all up. Try and do something odd and new and you get dumped on.
Siskel and Ebert, like many other professional film critics, felt personally attacked by this movie. They don't like it but they're loath to admit to themselves why. Allen is skewering them and his obsessive fans. Regardless of what Siskel says, Allen's character is very likeable, and you identify with him because EVERYONE is projecting onto him what they think he is or what they think his films were intended to convey. This is why there's no reality in this film, and it keeps flashing back to childhood memories or the narrative is interspersed with fantasies.
Anyone who doesn't find it amusing that Dorrie would talk about "speed-reading Schopenhauer" should check to see if they still have a pulse. (And by the way, it's classic Allen to boot.)
And as for 8 1/2, well, YES, it's a brilliant beautiful spine-tingling homage to that movie, not an "imitation" of it! I can't recall Siskel and Ebert ever being such total dorks before.
Stardust Memories is about so much more S & E see and express here. Yes, there's artistic and personal anxiety, but also the hopefulness of moments of love and beauty.
I loved it when I first saw it, and still do. In addition to the "Woody Allen's-eye view of the world" he gives, I found the relationship issues between Dori and Isabella interesting, his regret over Dori especially, and I could identify with the sort of existential confusion he was expressing throughout all of it, and always laugh at the conversation with the Martians, where there is practically no effort to disguise the fact that it's Allen doing the Martian voice...
It is absolutely a Fellni homage. Name one character, EVEN an extra, that isnt a visual freak to such an extent that Woody looks almost normal! It goes from reality to fantasy almost, almost seamlessly. Clearly not for everyone, and its not my favorite, but it sure is special and visually a tour de force
I love Stardust Memories. Unlike Interiors where he was trying to replicate Ingmar Bergman here he is trying to step into the shoes of Federico Fellini. Both fail to live up to those great directors but Stardust Memories has a weirdness that is more enjoyable than the dour and relentlessly depressing Interiors. In context of his career it is not his worst and far from his best. It falls in a fuzzy grey area that is going to polarize fans, both the longtime and the casual. The characters are mostly unlikable and oftentimes very annoying but it is a factor that appeals to me and challenges me to continue watching. It's visually beautiful and makes me wish there were more films made in black and white. The neurotic level of the characters are turned up to eleven,which might be a contributing factor why many people dislike or outright hate the film. I've watched it numerous times over the decades and it never fails to engage me. The line about the "early funny ones" has rubbed many the wrong way, but I think this is Woody turning on himself and not some dig at the audience. I would put this in my top ten favourite Woody Allen films, with Manhattan at number one and Stardust Memories at eight or seven.
Well observed and well put, sir. Words that in fact I wish I'd used in my own comment. 😀
The neurotic level of the characters… IS turned up to eleven.
Grammar matters 🤓.
Well said !! Thank you
He wasn’t ‘replicating Bergman’ in Interiors. He made his own film. Influenced, yes. But a great film. The way you say it implies he’s just ripping him off, when he’s up there with Chekhov and Ibsen.
Did he really say he didn't like it????? One of mankind's finest artistic acievements. It's his Fellini homage. He does that. I'm ahsamed that these 2 guys are supposed to be so (I can't think of the proper word). Disgraceful!
I recently watched “Stardust Memories” and I found it to be a very whiny and pretentious film with too many wide-angle close-up shots of homely faces. Siskel & Ebert are correct that this is a disappointing one-note film from a usually interesting filmmaker.
“Stardust Memories” is definitely my least favorite Woody Allen film. 👎
Weird review. They both conflate the character with the director, a juvenile critical mistake. Stardust Memories is a triumph of moody nightclub nostalgia and one of the greatest films Allen ever made.
I hated Stardust Memories
A Pale imitation of 8 1/2