Good concept, poorly executed.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Melinda and Melinda (2004) was written and directed by Woody Allen. The film has an interesting basic concept. Two playwrights, one who writes dramas, one who writes comedies, are given a basic plot--a woman named Melinda drops in on a dinner party given by a professional couple. Starting at that point, each playwright develops a plot that demonstrates his own outlook.Both Melindas are played by Radha Mitchell. Mitchell has an uncanny acting ability that allows her to portray two very different women in the same film. Part of this tour de force is makeup and costume, but part of it is talent.Allen, although no longer considered the creative genius that he was in the 70's and 80's, still has enough clout to cast his films with very capable actors--Will Ferrell, Amanda Peet, Chloë Sevigny, Josh Brolin, and Wallace Shawn. The film is polished, the cast is professional, and Allen's talent is immense. Even so, the movie never really drew me in. Maybe that's because most of the characters are selfish, self-centered, and ready to fall in and out of love (and in and out of bed) as their ambition dictates. Not really my kind of people and, in this case, not really my kind of movie.

Here I am, for what seems the thousandth time, introducing a review as being of a film from a legendary director whom I've shamefully seen nothing by. Still, better late than never, no?Something of an experimental concept, Melinda and Melinda follows a conversation between two playwrights: one a tragedian, the other a comedian. They each believe their particular form of fiction reflects the true reality of life, and seek to prove this by twisting the same root story to a particular end.On paper, Melinda and Melinda sounds an ingenious idea: telling the same story from different perspectives to discern the differences between comedy and tragedy. Alas, this is not quite what the film actually does with itself. I expected, perhaps foolishly, to see the same scenarios and characters from different perspectives; to perceive the same strings of events through alternating pairs of eyes. What actually happens, in essence, is that we flip between two similar but quintessentially different stories. Their only considerable similarity is in their beginning at a dinner party, which itself lasts not particularly long in either case. This had me somewhat disappointed, my expectations flung from the window and replaced with, you might say, two elongated short films. Melinda and Melinda, contrary to what its synopsis suggests, is not an in-depth examination of comedy versus tragedy, but rather two half films loosely strapped together by occasional and dysfunctional scenes of the original characters summarising the plots thus far. These scenes are wince-inducingly clunky, the performances overstated and criminally redundant. The worst effect of the misuse of the film's premise is that, due to their essential non-relation, the two segments are left to function independently, which neither is well equipped to do. The tragedian element is particularly lacking, none of the characters or circumstances eliciting sympathy, relatability, or anything in the way of the audience's consideration. It's not bad, per se, but nor is it at all good; to watch characters to whom we're not endeared have their lives crumble as a result of infidelity is simply boring. The comic segment excels in comparison, but is itself quite flawed. Much as I might dislike the man in just about everything, Will Ferrell takes centre stage, his early despair at burning his "Chilean sea bass lightly dusted with lime" simply the film's best moment. The positive effect of his presence is short lived, however, the quirky silliness wearing thin before long. Charming nonetheless for most of the running time, he's certainly—I genuinely cannot believe I'm saying this about Will Ferrell—the best thing in the film. The comic section as a whole is certainly better, its humour a lifeboat in the overwhelming sea of boredom its opposite offers. Perhaps a ninety minute expatiation of this would have been better, but alas, that is not what we are given. By the end, it's clear that the original idea has been abused, mistreated, and brutalised beyond all recognition. A typically poorly delivered wrap up from the playwrights informs us that—who'd have guessed!—life is neither tragic nor comic but a combination of the two. No thank you.A great idea so fumbled, mishandled, misused, and dropped on its head in its execution that it bears no trace of the wonderment it first postulated, Melinda and Melinda is just plain disappointing. With one half soporific and the other half enjoyable, it's horribly unbalanced, and punctuated (thankfully) infrequently with very poor summative scenes. Its comic side is fine; its dramatic side banal and bland. In short, it's a complete mess.

"Comic or tragic, the most important thing to do is to enjoy life while you can. Because we only go round once, and when it's over, it's over. And, perfect cardiogram or not, when you least expect it, it could end like (snaps fingers) that."The general opinion about Melinda & Melinda is pretty mixed. I fully expected this to be one of Allen's weaker movies, but I ended up enjoying the heck out of it. I don't know if my enjoyment was because of my recent infatuation with Radha Mitchell, or if the movie really was just that good. Whatever the reason, I'm convinced that this movie is sorely underrated. A group of friends sits at a table at a restaurant, and listens to two versions of a story; one comic, and the other tragic. The stories are both played out with completely different actors; save for the character of Melinda (played by Radha Mitchell), who arrives unexpectedly in the middle of a dinner party in both stories. I know that may sound a little confusing, in a movie that questions whether the essence of life is comic or tragic, it works well.Three complaints: some of the humor was hit-and-miss, the script was a little too unfocused to communicate the themes of comedy and tragedy in a way that presented a totally focused point, and Ferrell didn't have a perfect handle on the "Woody Allen role" (though I can't really think of who could have done it better).  Those are the only less- than-favorable comments that I have to make. I thought the film as a whole was a combination of a great cast and smart writing, and those are the main things I look for in anything Allen directs. This is a traditional Woody Allen movie. More Annie Hall than Match Point. Which means it's very verbose, focused on a specific type of people that you only find in New York City, and it has his trademark humor. I would hesitate to recommend this to an Allen novice, but if you know what you're getting into and you "get it", then you might enjoy Melinda & Melinda as much as I did.

Can't remember an Allen movie I actually liked, but I decided to give this movie a shot nonetheless. The concept was very delightful, but sure enough, Allen is still bad.We all know the usual mannerism of Will Ferrell, but much like every other character in this movie, his delivery was more like an imitation of Allen himself - down to the stuttering. I completely agree with another reviewer who questioned "How many actors can he get to stand in for his own neurotic, compulsive über-New Yorker persona?"Allen's directing style is very distinguished, but I'd say more like repetitive. He's basically producing never ending remakes of the same story with the same characters. The dialogue was horrendous. Wooden clichés sprinkled with occasional fancy words. Hobie considers himself to be an intellect (like all the characters that are projections of Allen) yet he speaks and stutters like a 10-year-old. Then, in the middle of mindless repetitive ramblings where he goes on and on and on about some extremely mundane topic, he throws in a completely random reference to Dostoyevsky or Kieślowski. Wha? Worst thing is - I really think that Woody is giving himself pat on the back for the "ingenious" cultural references. The cinematography wasn't a treat, either. In one of the restaurant scenes the camera sweep was so bad it was painful to watch.Without giving out too much about the ending, the dialogue was so embarrassingly corny, I thought it was a dream sequence until the credits began to roll on the screen. The ending could have been cobbled together by an average 12-year-old fan-fiction writer.