Start to Download Movies in Seconds!
Downloading movies has never been so simple! Now with Movies you can easily find and download any movie you want. Our website guarantees fast download speed, no codec problems and of course - best quality. You can search our database and download the most popular hits or some rare classic movies that you always wanted to see. Movies guarantees your satisfaction as soon as you open the downloaded movie!
Buy Celebrity Movie. Watch online or Download
6.2
Genres are ComedyDr Produced in 1998, USA
Available Quality: Hi Def, Hi Def
Rating: 6.2 out of 10 (12607 votes)
 |
1920x1040 | 8127 MiB |
|
 |
1280x688 | 4471 MiB |
|
| Actors | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Winona Ryder | Melanie Griffith | Kenneth Branagh | Maurice Sonnenberg |
| Aleksa Palladino | Dan Moran | Greg Mottola | |
| Directors | |||
| Woody Allen | |||
Storyline
Plot Summary:
Lee Simon, unsuccessful journalist and wanna-be novelist, tries to get a foot into the door with celebrities. After divorcing his wife Robin, Lee gets to meet a lot folks of the rich and or beautiful, partly through journalism, partly because he has a script to offer. But life among those from out-of-this-world is hard, and his putative success always results in defeat. Meanwhile Robin meets a very desirable TV-producer and takes the first steps in the world of celebrities herself.
More Movies
Comedy, Fantasy
Action, Comedy, Romance
Action, Comedy
Comedy
Comedy
Henry Fields
24 May 2012
Branagh is not Woody
One of the most brilliant Woody Allen's 90s' pictures, such a mockeryof the "beautiful people" with some traces of a romantic comedy andsome reflexions about couple troubles made in Woody. But there's anobjection and that's Kenneth Brannagh. He's a great actor (no doubtabout it) but in "Celebrity" you can't help thinking that he'simitating the character that Woody should've played. It's quite clearthat Woody wrote this for himself, but he was too old to play a manthat conquers Winona Ryder or Famke Janssen.Last but not least, what about Judy Davis?? God, she's magnificent, oneof the best actresses ever, and that scene with the prostitute istotally hilarious. Woody should've married her instead of Mia 30 yearsago!! So, if Woody would've played the role that eventually played Brannaghthis could've been one of his best works. But Brannagh is not Woody,and that's noticeable.*My rate: 7/10
George Tetsel
24 May 2012
Hmmm... I Wonder
After reading several critics' opinions on Celebrity, and then the commentshere on IMDB, a question came upon me. What if Celebrity had been releasedunder a pseudonym? What if nobody knew it was Allen's latest work? Ok, ok,YES people would have thought the Branagh character was very much animitation of Allen, but besides that? I think people would better sense thequality of a film if they went in with fewer pre-conceived notions. Can youimagine if every time you met somebody new the person would be handed a listof your best moments/ characteristics, and then would chastise you everytime you acted otherwise? I agree, this is not Allen's best, but I alsodon't believe it deserves as much criticism as it is getting. Thecinemetography is brilliant, and the performances by Judy Davis, WinonaRider and Charlize Theron are wonderful. Perhaps the Allen imitation isoverdone, but Branagh is appropriately pitiful, and so the movie works.
Ron
24 May 2012
My general impression
I have seen many Woody Allen films, and have tired of his nervousstuttering. I thought I might be spared that in this movie because hedoesnot appear in it. Unfortunately, the star mimics Woody's style, which isworse than watching Woody himself.
Jack Gattanella
23 May 2012
Funny, but not too great
Woody Allen's Celebrity would've been better, but instead of Allen playingthe lead (as he usually does) he gives his role he should've played toKenneth Branaugh. This wouldn't be too bad, but Branaugh's character actstoo much like Allen would. He plays a journalist who is in love troublesand is mixed up with a supermodel, actress and others while in a marriage. Not all of this film is funny though, most of it seems like a lash-out fromAllen after all the bad tabloids about him. Still, there is a lot to laughabout here, including a OK performance from Leonardo DiCaprio and some greatblack and white cinematography from cinematography by Sven Nykvyst. A-
JawsOfJosh
23 May 2012
A muddled but enjoyable spin on the effects of fame
After continually bringing his audience through one high after another witha brilliant comeback in the 90's, Woody Allen has a little bit of a letdown- but still manages to entertain - with "Celebrity". There are manycomponents of the film that make sense, but the whole balance betweenshowcasing the pratfalls of fame and chronicling his usualneurotic-Manhattan marital fallout don't always work. Why Allen castBranaugh to play "Woody" is puzzling. Perhaps Woody is all too aware of theaudience's despondence with him cuddling up to women one-third his age, ormaybe Branaugh was used just to see what kind of response it would provoke. Either way, Branaugh does well; it just depends if you can stomach himplaying Woody.There are as many good jokes here as any other Woody film, but the frame ofreference is different. His jokes don't exclusively concern the absurdityof fame, but also how ridiculously far it extends into American culture andhow it's now seen as the ultimate power play. The fame of religion, sex,excess, the lack thereof and the just plain fame of fame ("It's allshowbusiness!" Branaugh complains). Allen acutely demonstrates how famecorrupts a person (Branaugh shamelessly hawking his screenplay) and how someseem to find normalcy in life despite it (Joe Mantenga's easy-going TVproducer). We also see how the culture of celebrity affects everyday peopleand how they think. Witness the scene where a group of rabbis, appearing ona talk show, calmly ask beforehand "Have the skinheads eaten all thebagels?" Meaning it didn't matter to a group of Jewish clergymen that theywere sharing a green room with Nazis, because they're about to be on TV. Also consider the scene where the wonderful Judy Davis (somewhat reprisingher excellent role in the fantastic "Deconstructing Harry") seeks out a highclass hooker with nervous, star-struck adoration in search of sexualadvice.Just when the film starts to sag (or seem in search of a plot) we are givena brief jolt by the crafty Leonardo DiCaprio. Woody may have predicted theattention DiCaprio was about to attract with "Titanic" and offered him thisrole out of sympathy. DiCaprio gives a frenetic cameo as Brandon Darrow,allowing him to lampoon his public image before the press ever constructedit: that of the young, spoiled movie star. With this bit part, DiCapriojoins Woody in extending his middle finger towards the media (as Woody hadbeen doing in his work throughout the late 90's). Overall, the film isquite puzzled in its presentation. The black-and-white cinematography is anice touch, it's doubtful Woody chose B&W for the same panoramic methods heheld in the late 70's / early 80's. I assume the B&W photography wasdesigned to impress you with more of a behind-the-scenes feel. Maybe someof the humor got lost in Woody's determination to hold contempt for thefamous high life, but "Celebrity" is worth one look if you consider yourselfa mild Woody fan.
Peter Juul Rasmussen
22 May 2012
Allan does Altmania...
Nice to know he's there. Woody Allan does it again. It's funny. It's great.It's real. Actors act. Kenneth Branagh does a great Woody Allan. It's alovestory with a twist. Big issues rounded up in the circle of celebrity. Howdowe choose our idols? Why do we worship them? And how can we becomecelebrity? It's all done with Altmania, but it's everything Prêt-à -Porterisn't. If you're a Woody Allan fan and you haven't seen this one yet thereis something to look forward to...
Drew
21 May 2012
Its 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?
bear-81
21 May 2012
TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE!!!!!
God!!! What an awful film!!!! Sad thing about it is that I LOVE WoodyAllenmovies.......what the heck was he thinking when he made this stiff??? IdidNOT laugh, chuckle or even smile at any given point throughout this overlylong anoying piece of garbage. If there was a point to all thismess.....itlost me early on. I got soooooooo sick of seeing Kenneth Branaugh do acheap impersonation of Woody.......why......why.....WHY?!?!?Woody himself should have done his own schtick without involving someonedoing an awful job imitating himself.I have had more exhilarating root canals done in my mouth than what Iwitnessed with this flick.Please....Woody......no more of this!!!
kinoman-2
20 May 2012
For whom the toilet flushes
"Deconstructing Harry" left many viewers wondering how close the centralcharacter was to the real Woody Allen. Well, "Celebrity" leaves one with theimpression that it might be close enough. The film is as misanthropic as itspredecessor, but it's also misogynist while the humor is shallow andobvious. The basic plotline echoes "La Dolce Vita", as a journalist (KennethBranagh), who aspires to but never succeeds in being a serious writer,follows the various New York celebrities and simultaneously fails toestablish any long-lasting relationship with the women he meets. Hisneurotic ex-wife (Judy Davis) dates a TV director (Joe Mantegna), whovirtually adores her, but she almost manages to blow the whole thing.Branagh does such a faithful imitation of Woody Allen's screen persona, withall the ticks and mannerisms intact, so it verges uncomfortably on a parody.Judy Davis basically reprises her role in both "Husbands and Wives" and"Deconstructing Harry", which is a woman on a verge of a nervous breakdown.The female characters, portrayed either as sex-crazed dumb blondes orbeautiful but insecure career women, are all inexplicably attracted to toBranagh's self-loathing, neurotic loser. It looks dangerously as an oldman's wishful thinking. It seems that Woody Allen desperately needs newthemes and style, otherwise as Branagh's character put it: `Don't ask forwhom the bell tolls, or rather for whom the toilet flushes.'
iago-6
19 May 2012
Woodys best in years
A lot of the reviews have said that this film is one of the weakerrecent Woody Allen movies, but I actually thought it was his best sinceHusbands and Wives. It's much more subtle but every bit as scathing asDeconstructing Harry. Everyone says Woody's films just aggrandizehimself, but I feel that his latest few have been exercises inself-loathing.Certain people (in these very pages) have felt that one is supposed tosympathize with the Branagh character. Certain people, we mustremember, are on crack. Branagh plays a low-life louse who gives theword narcissim a whole new meaning. He is looking to revitalize hislife by entering the world of celebrities. He is contrasted with hisex-wife (the always amazing Judy Davis... who doesn't she do morefilms?) who is also looking to change her life, but not necessarily bybecoming famous. She does become famous, and near the end she says whatI think is the key line: "I've become the kind of person I've alwaysdetested, but I'm happier." My friend and I had an argument later aboutwhat the film was saying: a) that Judy has given up on seriousness andmeaning by becoming a celebrity, but now she's happier, or b) that the"entertainment products" that these people turn out don't matter atall, and that if one can find personal happiness (Judy eventuallybecomes much more social and comfortable with people) by doing them,then that's great. I don't know, but this is a far more interestingtreatise on finding happiness than the dreary "Happiness" was.This is also the funniest Allen film in years, with two totallaugh-out-loud lines which I won't spoil here.Overall, I felt the celebrity part, and all the walk-ons we not at allthe focus of this movie, it just uses that world as a backdrop. Thisfilm is also very sweet and real, with the scene in which Judy Davisvisits a psychic being one of the most intimate and touching I've seen.One last thing, it's fun to see a Woody Allen film in New York City,because you can watch the audience trying to identify all the placeswhere the scenes are set.--- Check out website devoted to bad and cheesy movies:www.cinemademerde.com
Curtis Mark Stratmeyer
19 May 2012
A failed experiment, to say the least.
God bless Woody for pushing the envelope. In the last 20 years or so he'smade two kinds of movies. The first category I call "New York stories",starting with Annie Hall then Manhattan, Hannah and Her Sisters, Husbandsand Wives, Radio Days, Crimes and Misdemeanors, etc. The second category Icall "Experimental Cinema", Like Zelig and Purple rose of Cairo. In thissecond category he's had some tremendous successes. Films like AnotherWoman, Bullets Over Broadway and Everyone Says I love you. Scenes From aMall is an example of a mild failure. Celebrity however is an excruciatingly dismal failure. What was hethinking? Another one of those ideas that probably sounded ok on paper, butafter filming it and realizing that its a turkey, what do you do? Throw itaway? Its too late. But its not too late for you, gentle viewer, if youhaven't seen it. See every other movie that Woody has made first, then, ifyou feel you must see this, go ahead, but put in your mouth guard becauseyou're going to grind your teeth.What's truly astonishing about this film is the number of top actors thatwere willing to participate. The script could not have been impressive tothem. All they wanted was to be in a Woody project.
Vlad B.
18 May 2012
Woodys substitute
It's no secret that Woody Allen is getting old. Moreover, he seems to havenoticed that exhibiting his adventures with women who are often threetimesyounger (Juliette Lewis in "Husbands and Wives", for instance) no longerappeals to the audience. But his obsessive vigor has not been extinguishedafter all these decades, enabling him to clock out at least one film peryear (a feat that no living American director can duplicate). In 1998,Woodyhas to resort to other venues of expression: a computerized ant and theformer Prince of Denmark himself, Kenneth Branagh. For Celebrity, theusually well-articulate and consistently noble Brit transforms into abumbling, confused version of Allen, laying it on like some sort of anElvisimpersonator: strangely amusing and absurd at the same time. Branagh's actis not terrible by any means, but one cannot help realizing that it's amereimitation of a master whose style is unique and unreproductible. Asidefromthis fundamental flaw, and the not-so-subtle "homage" to a certain Fellinimasterpiece about a journalist trying to run with the Bohemian pack, (justas Deconstructing Harry the year before was to "8 1/2") , the film is asgood as anything that Allen made during the 90's. It's all pure,undistilledWoody: cynical, exhillarating, malevolent toward every aspect and productofsociety (except old Jazz), and of course, saturated with appropriatelyhilarious sex jokes. How this doesn't become redundant from one movie toanother is known only to the director. As always, the pace islightning-fast, with virtually no pauses in the dialogue, or dull,lingeringshots: something seldom matched in indie film and practically unheard ofinHollywood. The five supporting females are in most excellent form: fromJudyDavis (typecast as a neurotic) who inexplicably generates sex appeal, toWinona Ryder, who is simply beyond description. Leo DiCaprio's briefsemi-autobiograhpical turn is the definite highlight of what could havebeenAllen's best film of the decade if he had only tried to create aprotagonistwhose mannerisms were slightly different from his own.
rbverhoef
17 May 2012
Not bad, not great either
The problem with Woody Allen is that he has made great films, a lot,and that expectations for his work are always high. With 'Celebrity' itwas not different and therefore it is a little disappointing. Ifanother writer director would have made this film I think I would haveliked it better. Maybe that is strange, to compare it with his otherfilms simply happens.In 'Celebrity' we follow Kenneth Branagh who plays Woody Allen,although he is named Lee Simon. A movie without Woody Allen himself isnice, but with a character that basically is Allen, why not play ityourself? On the other hand, Branagh does a terrific job. We see howBranagh divorces his wife and after that we have single episodes of hislife where he meets women, tries to make them his, fails or succeeds,only to enter the next episode. At the same time we follow his ex-wife,Robin (Judy Davis), who meets a new man Tony (Joe Mantegna) and doessettle.Branagh is a writer. He writes a novel, has written two novels with badreviews and now he finished a screenplay. In the episodes he tries tooffer his script or new novel to people who can change it into a movieor book. We have Melanie Griffith and Leonardo DiCaprio as spoiledactors, Famke Janssen as a girl who really likes him and could help gethis story into a book, Winona Ryder as the girl he has some realchemistry with and Charlize Theron as a supermodel.The problem is that every episode feels like an episode instead ofeverything combined as a movie. The Theron and DiCaprio episodes aregreat, the Winona Ryder episode is sweet, the others are prettystandard. The intercuts of the ex-wife's life are pretty good as well,but still feel as single episodes.Although the film as a whole is not that great there are enough momentsto enjoy it. You will not be bored. The black and white photographylooks terrific and that is something that makes the movie morepleasant. It is well acted and of course directed, but for a WoodyAllen comedy it is not my first choice.
Movie_Man 500
16 May 2012
Felliniesque
Technically, this is one of Allen's best movies for pure fluid cameramovement. Watch how he goes thru crowd scenes here, you can't look away.However, many of the actors in this story look uncomfortable, especiallyJudy Davis, who never seems to relax in any of her scenes. It may be justher character is supposed to be played this way, but it looks like Davisherself couldn't calm down at all during filming. That aside, I love thebeginning and ending with the Help in the sky and the final sequence at thefilm premiere is haunting. Sure, this is a Fellini knockoff but who betterto imitate? On a more physical level: this has to rank at the top forCharlize Theron's sexiest time on screen. She looks almost unapproachablehere, like beyond super model status. Her moments are all too brief butmemorable and most of them hit the wow factor without any dialogue. Shecould stand in a corner and still be a knockout. And Allen really gets agreat, equally short performance from Melanie Griffith. Her and Theronshould have been the leads.
esseff
15 May 2012
Uuuuugghhh!
As a general rule, I won't comment on a movie that I did not sit all thewaythrough. So I forced myself to endure the pain of watching this filmbeginning to end just so I can say with honest sincerity: To me, thismoviewas awful...but maybe I just don't get this kind of rambling self-absorbedcynicism posing as cleverness. I must just be dumb. If you liked thisfilm...you'll love Robert Altman's Pret-a-Porte.
Kevin J. Keefe
14 May 2012
Smart, funny, Woody
This is a smart, funny, Woody Allen movie. It is somewhat annoying thatWoody keeps writing about the same themes, but he still makes uniquelyinteresting movies. I laughed out loud a number of times, and that's alwaysworth $7.50. It also made me think, about creativity, relationships, andfame. That's gotta be worth another $.25. Much has been made aboutBranaugh's imitation of Woody; how come nobody complained when they gaveMichael Caine an Oscar for the same ticks and stammers in "Hanna and HerSisters"? (For that matter, check out Mia and Diane Keaton in any number ofhis movies. His dialog and direction force many of his actors to sound likehim.) I was intigued by the relationship Branaugh had with the book editorwho believed in his writing, then destroyed his draft novel when he dumpedher.This is not one of those Woody movies, like "Hanna" and "Bullets OverBroadway" that will cross over to a wider audience. But to his loyal fans,it is a keeper. (Now "Shadows and Fog"...that stunk!)
johngorlewski
13 May 2012
Bad Woody Allen impersonations
I generally like Woody Allen's movies. I couldn't get half way throughthisone. Robin Simon's and Doug McGrath's Woody Allen impersonations were veryirritating. Can you say overdone? Why would a good director like WoodyAllendirect his stars to do bad impersonations of himself?Most of Allen's movies have a throwaway scene or two that degenerate intohis nervous stream of consiousness, but this film's main two charactersjustrambled on like 2 mental patients. Sweet 'n Lowdown and Bullets OverBroadway had those moments that reeked of leftover standup material. Theydetracted from the flow of the movies but were over quickly. All ofCelebrity is made up of one 2-hour long such moment.I didn't even see Leonardo DiCaprio to criticize him. Halfway through, Icaught myself realizing that the two neurotic victims would just get backtogether in the end, and I was simply waiting for that to happen. Ibailed.Maybe this film could use some quality kills. And a couple of flesh-eatingzombies.Sad.
billy-7
13 May 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.
David Simoni
12 May 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.
Daniel
12 May 2012
A Great Man Chokes
One of Woody Allen's worst films, a brilliant defense for anyone whoconsiders Allen out-of-touch, self-indulgent, and irrelevant. A storylessmishmash of tired, unfunny gags, Woody has absolutely nothing to say andtakes forever to say it (uncharacteristic for Allen, who's films have beenthe last bastion of auteur-brevity, the movie is a trying two hours-plus).Sure, the movie looks dynamite, and sure it's got a great cast trying itsbest, but can anyone honestly tell me that this movie's humor wasn't musty,it's narrative wasn't rambling, it's attempts at satire weren't annoyinglyweak? A real disappointment, especially following last year's wonderfullyvulgar, honest, and funny "Deconstructing Harry." This has to be the worstfall-winter film season in years.
Copyright SoulFilms © 2002-2012 All Rights Reserved.
- Support
- | Privacy Policy
- | Terms of Use
- | FAQ
- | Help
- | PDA version