REVIEW: “Magic in the Moonlight”

Magic poster

There is no doubt that Woody Allen falls into the ‘hit or miss’ category. The 79-year old Allen is still writing and directing his films and we get a new movie every year. This self-imposed annualized system of his had led to several fairly rotten films. On the other hand, when Woody Allen is on his game, he can deliver some of the sharpest and wittiest character-driven movies you’ll find. His latest picture is “Magic in the Moonlight” and the big question was which Woody Allen were we going to get?

I have to admit my expectations for this film were pretty tempered. Critics seem to be split down the middle on it and even the positive reviews rarely featured high praise. So I sat down to watch the film preparing to be disappointed to some degree. But an interesting thing happened. The film hooked me after its first few scenes. As it went on I found myself more interested in its characters, more taken by its charms, more amused by its humor, and more satisfied with its simplicity. As it turns out I really liked this movie.


As with many of Allen’s films, “Magic in the Moonlight” follows a very eccentric lead character. Colin Firth plays Stanley, a famous traveling illusionist in late 1920s Europe. He is a smug, snarky fellow who we quickly learn to dislike. His arrogance really shows itself in his obsession with mortality, specifically debunking any notion of mysticism or an afterlife. When describing himself and his perspective on the subject Stanley states “I’m a rational man who believes in a rational world. Any other way lies madness.” His close-minded cynicism and innate stubbornness won’t allow him to entertain the possibilities of there being more beyond what we see.

One of Stanley’s side pleasures is exposing psychics as frauds. He is recruited by a childhood friend (Simon McBurney) to travel with him to the French Riviera where a young American clairvoyant named Sophie Baker (Emma Stone) has wooed a very wealthy family. No one has been able to disprove Sophie’s “mental vibrations”, but that doesn’t deter the overly confident Stanley. After arriving at the Côte d’Azur, insulting most of the people he meets, and sitting in on a séance, Stanley finds himself baffled at Sophie’s abilities. Complicating matters even more, he soon finds himself smitten with her.


When Allen’s material is clicking he can give us some truly fascinating characters. Stanley is a pompous and pretentious jerk. He’s insulting and confrontational, but there is another layer to the character. He’s also a miserable man whose facade of self-assuredness can’t hide his neurotic insecurities. The wily Colin Firth is fabulous and he handles Allen’s dialogue like a fine sculptor with clay. He delivers a character that is detestable, sympathetic, and sometimes laugh-out-loud funny. Much of it is due to the signature sharp writing, but a big part is all because of Firth. The man is incapable of a bad performance.

But it’s Eileen Atkins who almost steals the entire show. She plays Stanley’s wise and straight-shooting Aunt Vanessa. She practically raised him since birth and knows him better than anyone else. She’s a subtle firecracker and her frank but loving dealings with Stanley offer up some of the film’s best lines. I was a little less enthusiastic about Emma Stone. She certainly isn’t bad by any means, but in some scenes she just doesn’t quite feel right for the part. It may be that she clashes with portions of Allen’s writing style. I can’t quite put my finger on it.


One of the true stars of the film is cinematographer Darius Khondji. This is the fourth film he has shot for  Woody Allen and his work is fabulous. More and more locations are becoming bigger characters in Allen’s films. Here the gorgeous French Riviera setting is vividly captured. Sometimes it playfully lingers as a backdrop. Other times Khondji seems to be framing a beautiful postcard right up until someone enters the frame. And then there is the percolating 1920s setting. I loved the conscientious attention given to the many period details.

I can see where “Magic in the Moonlight” would be too lightweight for some people. For some it may not be funny enough. For others it may not be romantic enough. Overall it has underwhelmed a lot of people. I found myself happily wrapped up in its setting, its humor, and its simplicity. Now don’t misunderstand me. This doesn’t have the magic of “Midnight in Paris”. But it is a film I enjoyed getting lost in, and when the final credits rolled I had a big smile on my face.


17 thoughts on “REVIEW: “Magic in the Moonlight”

  1. We may disagree on this film (I found it watchable but ultimately mediocre) but your review is well written.
    Also, nice choice for your photo! 😉 The way Stone’s hair looks in that still is too gorgeous to pass up.

    • Thanks for reading and I appreciate the kind words. I can see where there may not be enough here for some people. I just loved its simplicity and I thought it was quite funny. Also a big fan of Firth’s performance. But I bet more people would agree with you. 😉

  2. Hmmm I was put off seeing the film a little by the numerous negative reviews around but this gives me quite a lot of hope. As a fan of both Stone and Firth I really should see this!

    • You know, I was a bit put off as well. That is why I skipped its run at the theaters. But I was pleasantly surprised. It’s a very simple and straightforward film but I think that is an actual plus in its case. And Firth is really good. Give it a shot.

  3. Woody Allen definitely falls into the ‘hit or miss’ category for me, too. I have to admit this doesn’t appeal to me at all, I’m afraid. I generally like Colin Firth but somehow the pairing w/ Emma Stone seems, I dunno, off? But hey I might give it a rent if I’m in the mood for it, I generally like Woody’s film when he’s NOT in his movie, ahah, and so there’s a chance I might like this one 😉

    • They are definitely an odd pairing and as I mentioned in the review Emma Stone feels a bit off. Her performance isn’t bad. She just doesn’t feel right for the part. Firth on the other hand is fabulous. He seems primed and perfect for Woody Allen’s style of dialogue.

      You should give this one a look Ruth. It’s not super romantic. It’s not super dramatic. But it has some really funny moments and it’s beautiful to look at. And the central character is stubborn, sad, and miserable. But he is also incredibly fascinating to me.

  4. Wow, all those high grades! You are the most generous blogger in the blogosphere 🙂 I myself enjoyed it much less than you did, but it was entertaining and the leads were very good

    • It’s about time I could start dishing out some good grades. Only one 5 Star movie this year for me but I am finally catching up with some I really like. Trust me though, I have a couple of stinker reviews written and ready. 😛

      As for this film, I thought it was a fantastic little gem. I keep calling it simple but I mean it in a very good way. It’s nothing deep or enthralling. It’s just fun, humorous, entertaining and as you say the leads are very good. Firth could read the dictionary to us and be mesmerizing.

  5. Pingback: The Top 10 Films of 2014 | Keith & the Movies

  6. Pingback: 3rd Annual Random Movie Awards | Keith & the Movies

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s