Vous allez rencontrer un bel et sombre inconnu

This film is about a family of mother, father, daughter and son-in-law, who go through various stages in their lives, creating an ocean of emotions that they have to deal with.

"You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger" tells the superficially wonderful life of an old man, who feels his life slipping away as he grows old. He leaves his wife, causing her to become neurotic, depending on a clairvoyant to sooth her nerves. Their daughter is trapped in an unhappy marriage, while her husband is dying to prove himself that he is still worthy of something. Given such well developed and convincing backgrounds, "You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger" can only be a great film on character analysis. There is not a moment of boredom, all the characters are attractive and engaging in their own way. In true Woody Allen style, the characters are quirky, yet interesting and adorable. The characters are not as paranoid as in previous films, which is a departure from his usual style. It is still a great effort, and I enjoyed watching it a lot.

The goofy comedian has always been a pessimist. True love has never existed in his films and his couples rarely find happiness together. Despite of this, his films has never been as scary as this.

What started as comedic twists and a taste of the bittersweet life has slowly evolved into a harsh, but tragically honest depiction of life. With You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger the evolution seems to have been perfected.

The goofiness is basically gone and what's left plays like a drama with darkly humorous undertones. But it might just as well play as an horror film. Tragic, raw and beautiful. It's not his best, god knows he has done a lot of great work, but it's by far his most "pure" work to date.

Is delusions the only plays you can find happiness? Is the ideas of love and friendship simply a charade we hide behind? Do we simply get bored of each other? You know there's at least some truth here, but though I'm not ready to accept it all the very thought of it gives me chills.

Conveyed with such fabulous performances, particularly from Gemma Jones, and as is often the case with Allen, one heck of a script, Allen creates the perfect atmosphere. To put it in the simplest way possible - this is pretty close to being the perfect feel bad movie.

*****SPOILERS***** People who go to Woody Allen's films should know by now that Allen is an agnostic when it comes to God, and a skeptic when it comes to anything "supernatural", especially "New Agey" beliefs. That doesn't stop him from using God, religion, and New Age beliefs in his films. In "Alice", one of Allen's best films, he uses a lot of "New Agey" beliefs and supernatural events. Those people posting here who think that Allen is "endorsing" fortune-telling, psychics, and reincarnation are WAY off track. Allen is using those things to compare and contrast the "ordinary" beliefs and actions of "ordinary" people. The husband, daughter, and son-in-law think that the wife/mother/mother-in-law is "delusional" because she believes in fortune-telling and reincarnation. BUT, does she REALLY believe in those things? Or, does she pretend to because it helps her to "get what she wants" and the "blame" goes to the fortune-teller friends and/or her own "nuttiness"? She doesn't want to lend her ungrateful daughter even MORE money------blame the fortune-teller. She wants to criticize her son-in-law for wasting his life trying to become a famous writer instead of becoming a doctor------that's what the fortune-teller said. She knows these kinds of things still "sting" her ungrateful family members, but it's not because SHE is being critical or mean------the fortune-teller is saying these things! She would rather be thought of as "nutty" than "judgmental and selfish". And, she knows her husband is the "nutty" and delusional one-----he thinks he can stop the aging process and death by working out at the gym and marrying a woman young enough to be his grand-daughter. The daughter is delusional because she thinks her boss has romantic feelings for her when he has never said or done anything to give that impression. The son-in-law is delusional because he thinks he is a great writer and thinks he can actually get away with passing someone else's writing off as his own. All these "delusions" are "ordinary" ones that humans have All The Time, so we don't recognize them as "delusions". We save that judgment for the "real nutty" things like psychics and reincarnation. Allen says, why are some delusions "nutty" but others aren't? Well, I guess our OWN delusions are NOT nutty, but other people's delusions ARE nutty. Does that make us delusional? Nutty? Or Human?

Anthony Hopkins is always a joy to behold on screen. If you're further into things British and your "Masterpiece Theater" memory is long, you will recognize wife #1 as the incredible "Duchess Of Duke Street" Gemma Jones, making a rare appearance on America's big screen. Like Allen's more recent films, save for the British accents, you could be in any city of urban sophisticates and wannabes. The London settings ultimately don't give the film a deep sense of any place in particular. But as Anglophiles have not been well-served of late Stateside, this release will have to do until some grand historic costume epic sweeps us back into a dark theater. All new Woody Allen comedies are also for those who don't dwell on the director's personal life and still enjoy him as a film-maker of thoughtful,lighter fare. Sure, his earliest films were more ground-breaking and side-splitting, but we've accepted that for eons now. Not an obvious Oscar contender as a whole, many of its performances are indeed worthy of consideration. Sony Pictures Classics' marketing is a good fit for American audiences who see the imprint of a studio's "for select audiences" arm as a modern-day film lovers' "Good Housekeeping" seal of approval -- proclaiming here is a work of cinema, several cuts above the mindless teen romp, action-adventure or horror rampage. Film comedy choices for 40-somethings on up have been bleak of late. As the Oscar race moves into its final quarter lap, a visit with this "Stranger" will brighten things up a bit. My 6 rating is relative to the quality of 2010's domestic crop. It could just as well have been a 5 if there had been more comedies worth $14 since January. But especially for Allen devotees, all is relative, in that sense at least.

An odd film for Allen, neither an overt comedy or one of his dark serious films (e.g. 'Crimes and Misdemeanors'). This is a 'light' drama, something he hasn't done much. While far from Allen's best work, I felt more warmly towards it than most of the press, especially after a second viewing. Some of the criticisms are valid; the voice over narration feels out of tone with the film, and at times tells us too literally what we already know. Yet, in the current American cinema, how many film-makers are getting to even and try and address the complex subtle questions of grown-up relationships, aging and the fear of death, and the lies we tell ourselves to get through it all? Or deal with the paradox that humans seem to need something to believe in, and yet that same belief can also lead us astray? Or give great older actors like Anthony Hopkins and Gemma Jones really meaty roles? As long as Allen keeps asking questions, he'll remain a voice worth listening to.