New York Stories (1989)

Wonderful character development!

the audience applauded

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

"New York Stories" are three films from three directors, and not the least of them: Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola and Woody Allen. What a premise! And what a disappointment! Maybe there should have been more than the setting to connect the stories; don't we expect a New York story from Allen anyway? They could have been set anywhere else without damaging the overall effect, but the question is why an anthology from the three greatest directors of their generation, sunk so lamentably into oblivion? And I guess the answer is obvious: Coppola's segment sucked. And it sucked big time. This is the first time I even use the word in a review, but I think it is for the right film. Scorsese and Allen's segments are no masterpieces, but "Life Without Zoe" is the worst film ever made by Coppola. In a nutshell, "New York Stories" failed because of Coppola.Have a quick look on its Wikipedia's page and compare the lengths of the three summaries. It's quite telling that the one in the middle is so thin. While Scorsese and Allen at least intended to tell us stories, you know, with characters, conflicts, with seemingly plots for Cinematic Gods' sake, "Life Without Zoe" is a lifeless, dull and shockingly thin film, relating in a fairy-tale format the adventures of a rich little girl, with her friends, and one obscure Arab Prince who speaks Oxford' English and still struggle to understand some basic words. Nothing much happens, which is acceptable for a character study or an introspective film, but "Life Without Zoe" can get away with such alibis. The film illustrates more of Coppola's nepotism (Papa Carmine composed the score, little Sofia wrote it and sister Talia starred in it) than any hint of the immense talent he once had.And "Life Lessons" is what "Life Without Zoe" should have been: it doesn't have a specific plot either, but it's lively, it doesn't have many characters but each one carries a strong emotional force allowing us to connect with it. It features Nick Nolte as an abstract painter, facing a mental block three weeks before the exhibition of his works, he must finish a giant canvas, certainly what has to become his masterpiece, but somewhere he lost the inspiration. The fuel instantly comes when he invites to his huge studio, Paulette, Rosanna Arquette as his former lover and student. He's obviously infatuated with her while she rejects him because she knows she doesn't get what she wants: a true opinion on her talent. The story is a fascinating tale of mental and emotional influences based on the mentor/disciple and lovers' relationships, and it is a visually dazzling film featuring the creative process in its most compelling form.Made of sensual movements of brushes caressing the canvas and more energetic uses of burning colors, we follow Lionel's movements while Scorsese maintains an interesting suspense on the final result. He plunges us into the beauty of art and the way it drains its best inspirations from our inner demons. It looks flashy like "The Color of Money" but the film borrows more from "After Hours" (starring Rosanna Arquette too), through the depiction of the artistic New York, a world made of venal interest and sincere passion, where talentless people use sex to fulfills their ambitions, and true artists translate the lack of it into their work. For Lionel, it's a mix of revolt, anger, passion and some rock'n'roll and sixties music highlighting Marty's talent to choose the right music for the right scene. Art fills art, and in forty minutes, "Life Lessons" stands alone among the highlights of Marty's career.Woody Allens' "Oedipus Wrecks" is not his riskiest or most revolutionary project, it's a comedy about a banker who can't stand the interferences of his typical Jewish mother, in his personal life and her constant disapproval of all his decisions, why would he marry a blonde woman with three kids from another marriage (Mia Farrow)? Why does he keep whining when she shows his baby pictures to random strangers? Given the film was made after the serious streak of "September" and "Another Woman", it's fun to see Allen getting back to his roots. And the gags work, climaxing with a formidable twist when the mother suddenly disappears after a magical trick (you'd recognize the Zitar theme from "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion"). The way her disappearance is involved is smart, her reappearance is even more surprising, especially that it introduces Julie Kavner at her most hilarious.What lacked in "Oedipus Wrecks" though is a satisfying ending; the last three minutes destroy the whole build-up. Surely, a screenplay with such a creative premise could have come up with a better conclusion, but it's like Allen was in a rush to finish the film, and threw away the most artificial and unsatisfying conclusion of his career. "Oedipus Wrecks" still benefits from the fact that it comes right after the horrendous "Life Without Zoe", and I suspect people would love any story coming after the plot less "Zoe". I wish "Zoe" wouldn't have existed if only to leave more room to the other films. I wish he could see Marty and Woody's films and look at "Zoe" and think "What have I done?" How can a man so capable of greatness like "The Godfather" let himself slipping that way? Hell, even his "Jack" is "The Godfather" compared to "Life Without Zoe". I even wonder if he didn't remove the last names in the opening credits out of shame.I've got to hand it to Scorsese to outshine two great directors and make a truly original piece of art, I wish Allen could make a worthy ending to a very promising comedy. And I simply blame Coppola for having ruined a great project. My advice: skip the second segment, start with the third, finish with the first, and it'll be fine.

I'll step out of the loop here about "New York Stories," three tales of New York from 1989, directed by three formidable directors: Martin Scorcese, Francis Ford Coppola and Woody Allen. I happen to think all three films had something to offer, and the fact that the Zoe sequence is about a child does not for me make it the weakest segment.I found the Scorcese segment starring Nick Nolte and Roseanna Arquette the most thought-provoking, the Zoe segment the most charming, and the Allen segment the wackiest. The first episode is about a tortured artist (Nolte) who expresses his sexual frustrations and problems with his young protégée (Arquette) in his work. She no longer sleeps with him and wants to quit New York and go home; he wants to kiss her foot and professes undying love for her. To Puccini's Nessun Dorma, he stares at his artwork and goes through a variety of emotions as he paints another masterpiece. This particular muse in the form of Arquette used up, one sees him at his art show connecting with another would-be artist/muse whose identity will also be lost in his genius.The second sequence, directed by Coppola, is a take-off on the Eloise stories by Kay Thompson. This little girl's name is Zoe. Her father, Claudio Montez (Giancarlo Giannini), is a famous flautist who travels, and her mother (Talia Shire) is a photo journalist who travels. Zoe lives with a butler and her dog Vegas at the Sherry Netherlands Hotel. She proves herself smarter than either parent in this charming film. My only question is why Giancarlo Giannini speaks Italian to his daughter when the name Claudio Montez is emphatically not Italian. Okay, it wasn't typical Coppola, but who said it had to be? The last one is pure Woody, Oedipus Wrecks, about a man with a nagging, critical mother who wants to marry a young woman (Mia Farrow) with children. He loves his mother, but he wishes she'd disappear. During a magic show, he gets his wish, when his mother goes into a magician's box and never comes out. Later she shows up in the sky telling him what to do, with the world as a witness. His girlfriend can't take it. He then goes to a psychic (Julie Kavner) who makes him a boiled chicken dinner. A complete delight.Three different, interesting stories by three great directors.

"New York Stories " it's a collection of three shorts made by Martin Scorsese ,Francis Ford Coppola ,and Woody Allen . The ending result ,even when it isn't the best work of those filmmakers , at least was very enjoyable to watch , and give us the chance their different styles . The first ,By Martin Scorsese"Life lessons " it's my favorite .The short story it's very well developed and the direction was quite good . It have nice music too . The second "Life Without Zoe " by Francis Ford Coppola is the short who received more bad reviews . Actually isn't bad ,but the story was very different to the other two .Anyway ,I liked it too . The third "Oedipus Wrecks " by Woody Allen , it's the funniest . The story it's very funny ,the script is clever and it is a satisfying ending for the trilogy . Although "New York Stories " isn't a perfect movie ,it is a worth watching .

"Life Lessons" (Scorsese)-This is really different from the Scorsese we are used to see. This special form (=short episodes) seems to have given the directors some new possibilities and freedoms. The movie is great. Nick Nolte and Rosanna Arquette are absolutely perfect. The story is simple on the surface, but the characters are very well build and very realistic: They are both lovable, sympathetic and stupid and selfish at the same time. The characters are maybe the deepest and most multi-dimensional that I've ever seen in a Scorsese movie."Life Without Zoe" (Coppola)-Very interesting movie. The story is about rich people, a rich and well succeeded family. The movie shows that rich people are people also. Very specially directed and acted. Very interesting."Oedipus Wrecks" (Allen)-I don't know if Allen is a director or an artist at all. He don't have anything to say, at least in this short picture. He's again acting himself, and comically, not acting very good. He's a super-neurotic person that creates problems out of nothing. He doesn't seem to have anything else in his life than whining about nothing and making movies about that. This is his most boring work I've seen. OK, maybe he's done something good also. But this was so bad, so boring and uninteresting that I hardly could watch it even with fast forwarding.Overally, because the Scorsese's piece is so great, and the Coppola's piece also in it's own way, this episode movie was very good, and very interesting. Allen's part couldn't make the other parts worse. Recommended for everybody.