This is a great movie. Far better than I expected; I'm not the biggest fan of movies set in the past, though. It's a great mix between drama and comedy, I would definitely buy this on DVD if I should find it. But I just don't get why it's taking place in the 1930's, in my opinion the movie would be just as good if it took place in out time. And, again in my opinion, I feel that Steve Carrell is slightly miscast in that role, I'd prefer someone like John C. McGinley or someone like that instead. But otherwise it's a great movie. I'd give it 80%, or 8/10.

Watching "Café Society" was such a depressing and frustrating experience I couldn't believe I "owed" it to Woody Allen. But on second thoughts, it makes sense because only a director of his caliber, one who accustomed us to thought-provoking and/or heart-warming gems of originality, could heighten our expectations so high they would literally smash into deception, breaking in thousand pieces of disbelief. That's how I felt when the film ended, it wasn't even bad, it was just a lame and lackluster attempt to explore all the usual shticks for a plot so vacuous it wasn't even "interestingly" bad.The story? In a nutshell (and I mean a very small one), a young New Yorker named Bobby (Jesse Eisenberg) wants to work in Hollywood for his uncle, a rich and famous producer (that's for the pleonasm) named Phil Stern (Steve Carell). Phil has a mistress, his secretary Vonnie (Kristen Stewart), naturally, Bobby falls in love with her, the resulting triangle cannibalizes the first act until Vonnie picks Phil and we can't even tell if she chose him like she meant it. Never mind, a defeated Bobby goes back to his Big Apple of a hometown, and with the help of his gangster brother, he opens a restaurant, meets a young woman (Blake Lively), they marry and have a kid. Bobby meets Vonnie again, she's married, they share a romantic night in Central Park. Then they get back to their lives and the film ends with the two of them feeling alone.I could mention that there's a criminal subplot supposed to spice the film a little, but you might as well throw a pinch of salt and pepper on Lake Ontario. One could say that it's not "what" happens but the way it happens. Sorry, but even the treatment couldn't have been worse if it was someone trying to imitate Allen. Each element of the story is a poor man's version of what he did before, and better. The real love letters to Hollywood and show business were "Broadway Danny Rose", "The Purple Rose to Cairo" and "Bullets Over Broadway". The bittersweet romance is an Allen staple ever since "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan", the Jewish family element has never been as endearing as in "Radio Days". There's not a single element that doesn't feel like we've seen it before.But even then, it would have been acceptable if it these ersatz were half as good as their originals. Woody Allen has lost his touch on this one, so bad it hurts. Eisenberg tries desperately to make an impression of Allen in his early scenes, falling in a similar trap than Kenneth Branagh in "Celebrity"... why all the actors feel the need to impersonate Alvy Singer when they're in a Woody Allen film? Now, Kristen Stewart isn't bad but the role is rather unflattering, she just plays a secretary who goes from being an unpretentious free-spirited girl above the 'starlet' mentality, to a sophisticated socialite. In between, she's torn between the two men and you can tell she tries to get rid of that awkward 'puzzled' expression inherited from the 'Twilight' series. You can tell that for youngsters Eisenberg and Stewart, working with Allen was a wet dream, but I wonder if they were really pleased to play such bland and dull roles. Even Steve Carell isn't given many scenes to shine, everything is handled in a casual, peaceful and matter-of-factly way. And if the romance is toned down and subdued, Allen insists on the ethnic element more than needed. Allen has always been a window to New York Jewish culture, but talk about overplaying it. If another director made the same film, let alone a Gentile, this would have been raised a big polemic and even accusations of stereotypical portrayals.I always laugh at Allen's references to a nagging Jewish mother figure or his interaction with his rabbi, this is one of the defining elements of Allen's humor, just like self-derision is prevalent in Jewish humor, but in "Café Society", it is overused to the point of… pointlessness. So, the producer is Jewish, the nephew works for his father, a Jeweler, named Marty, his mother is a version of Julie Kavner after she went in a dryer, overcooking food because of germ-phobia and uttering Yiddish expressions just in case we forgot. Even the prostitute in Hollywood, happens to be Jewish. I swear there are more ethnic references in "Café Society" than all of Woody Allen's movies combined. That critics would point it this characteristic in an Allen film can give you an idea of how serious it is.We would have guessed Bobby's background without it be thrown to our faces every forty-seven seconds. If it was a religious film à la "A Serious Man" (the underrated masterpiece from the Coen Brothers) it would have made sense, but here, it was uncalled for. This insistence from Allen on elements of the background while the plot was devoid from the usual excitement and creativity left me puzzled. I didn't know if I had to be angry or sad, but I guess I'm worried. I felt like Allen lost his touch and could only rely his story on (another) nostalgic letter to Hollywood, New York and his Jewish roots. In fact, there's a well-meaning intent behind "Café Society", but I felt like an over-nostalgic, maybe melancholic (or mildly senile) Allen made it.2016 wasn't the best year for homage to old Hollywood anyway, both "Café Society" and the Coens's "Hail Caesar" were forgettable movies but they say a lot about the evolution of filmmaking, forcing directors to be reminiscent of good old days, "La La Land" did better without turning it into a period movie. I hope that excess of nostalgia doesn't mean Woody Allen lost his touch with the present. I hope this is just a misstep and that he has one or two masterpieces under his sleeve.

Cafe Society is a term used to describe an elite (shallow) group of wealthy and/or famous people who participate in social activities that are unreachable to ordinary people. This film mainly centers around (1) early Hollywood and (2) the main character's dysfunctional family.The leading actor is not a convincing innocent & all the characters have a debased & distorted view of personal morality.Unfortunately this movie provides clear evidence of anti-Christian bias on the part of the filmmakers.The mockery & derision of Christianity seems to be the prevalent norm among films being released by Hollywood,there are virtually no films with positive Christian portrayals.The protagonists brother Ben commits a murder and is given a sentence of capital punishment for his crimes,he converts to Christianity for its promise of an everlasting life after death. In the scene where the characters are discussing his decision and the concept of heaven, his Jewish mother states: "First a murderer then a Christian? What did I do to deserve this"Blasphemous Posturing & Hostility Masquerading As Humour. The film industry in the USA have normalized what was once considered deviant and are defining as deviant what was once considered normal.Lower standards and moral relativism are promoted by movies like this. Deviant and normal have officially swapped places when it is acceptable humour to put Christians on a par with murderers

This movie was terrible. Cardboard acting. Stilted dialogue. Unbelievable emotional dynamics forced by the plot. Characters and plot you don't care about. Annoying narration. I admit that even the very best Woody Allen movies only strike me as "ok", but this is an awful movie riding on legacy and betting on fans declaring the emperor's new clothes are genius. It did look sorta pretty....that's it.