Why I adore Woody Allen (favorite movies: Purple Rose, Hannah, Crimes, Bullets, Midnight in Paris), I've never understoodd classifying Manhattan as a "great" movie, much less one of Allen's best. For me, it's some very funny one-liners (as usual), and some New York gag out-takes from Annie Hall. Yes, Allen is getting more "artsy" in front of the camera, and the openly monologue is one of his funniest jokes ever. But the movie itself, I find merely so-so. (I know I'm in the minority, but part of me wonders if I'm TRULY in the minority. Maybe film critics were fooled by the then-daring use of black-and-white.) As for Mary Wilke, I agree with you, Jason, she's interesting. And Keaton (clearly stretching her acting chops after winning the Oscar) is a delight, as she always is in an Allen film. But the big problem relates to one of the film's many plot problems: she's just such a horrible person that I can't imagine Issac (or anyone) falling for her. And then once he does, she then seems to become a completely different character: chronically insecure, neurotic, etc. Yes, yes, I get it: the confident exterior was all bravado. But that seems like such a cliche, and I'm sure it was one even in 1979 as well. She's like all the characters in Manhattan: basically, she's just a series of (funny) jokes. Like the Meryl Streep "lesbian" character and the character of Yale, she's not really a character at all. It's all completely about Woody Allen. Which may be fine, because Allen is so funny and interesting. But to me, Manhattan has always seemed like a step BACKWARD from the superior Annie Hall -- less about character or story, more about the jokes. Maybe he felt burned by the reaction to Interiors (and all the Bergman comparisons). Or maybe I'm just wrong. But for me, despite Keaton being arguably better than she was in Annie Hall, Manhattan is "lesser" Woody Allen.

brent, excellent analysis. It's hard for me to extract my reaction to the film from my experience of seeing it when it was released and in the context of Allen's previous movie Annie Hall. That contrast is a stark one, albeit not as a radical a shift as Stardust Memories or Interiors. And perhaps that's the point: Manhattan represents a significant change in Allen's storytelling tone, underscored by the black and white cinematography. From a character standpoint, one need go no further than comparing Diane Keaton as Annie Hall and Diane Keaton as Mary Wilke. I remember at the time being rather gobsmocked by Keaton in this role, so used to her as a lighter comedic character. Not here. As you note, she is pretty much unlikeable. But in a way, that's what makes her so compelling, at least in relation to all of the other Allen movies up to this point in his oeuvre. In sum, I can see your points completely. But when I think of Manhattan, I am reminded of my experience walking out of that movie theater in Thousand Oaks, California after having seen it and spending much of that night discussing the film with friends - because it signaled a big shift in Allen's storytelling, essentially opening a door to much a wider range of narratives in the years to come.