I [sic] New York

Recently, I have been considering how random my film reviews are: There is no thematic order to the movies I see, and this may contribute to an illegitimacy in my blogging. Then, I remember that this is a blog that follows my travels, adventures, thoughts, and reflections. There is no particular order to these aspects of my life, so the random reviews (courtesy, in part, of the unsystematic order of my Netflix queue) tow the the line of my life. I am sorry if you do not appreciate.

*****

While I am still a huge fan of "Paris, je t'aime,"  I cannot say my enthusiasm for the city-scape montage of love applies to the poorly planned and odiously executed "New York, I Love You."




(I forgot that preview features Phoenix--perhaps the most redeeming quality of the film.)




Anyways, the premise of this style of movie is that a series of short films shot around the city (in this case, NYC) harp on stories and aspects of love while featuring the city itself as a character. Each vignette features a different set of characters, a different take on love, a different section of the city; thus, each vignette portrays how each vignette's director views love in the city and views his or her love for the city.

While "Paris" effectively sheds light on how the short story can be communicated to the screen and how the short film compilation is an appealling cinematic form, "New York, I Love You" fails to achieve the same consistency.

Ironically, this lack of consistency originates in the solid links between "New York's" stories and styles. The shorts of "Paris" were distinct in style, characters, and takes on love. "New York" has a flow between stories that is far too connected and procedes as if the movie is the story of love in New York. The directors' individual takes do not shine through. The juxtapositions are dulled and vignettes are blurred together.

Another indicator of this flow is the absence of neighborhood-based division that was so effective in displaying Paris. Instead of labeling vignettes based upon neighborhoods (e.g. "Williamsburg," "Alphabet City," "Greenwich Village," "Harlem," etc.), directors just set their stories in their own favorite parts of the city. This means the movie does not expose the intimate love between individuals and the city for what it is; rather, the movie is almost a dedication to the tourist and popular attractions. Where is the NYC funk and grime? Where are the buskers? Where is the graffiti? Where is the halal cart?

The film feels incomplete because of its fast, impersonal pace--at least that's genuinely NYC. But as a story of love, between people and for a place, the film lacks.

"New York" has bright moments. Brett Ratner's take on a prom night in Central Park (a nostalgic piece now that Tavern on the Green is no more) has a genuine love for the city though lacks in a love between people. Drea de Matteo and Bradley Cooper's segment possesses a steamy love that allows the NYC transportation systems to act as a functioning character. And the Natalie Portman written-and-directed vignette courses with a familial love and a love of self (instead of a romantic one)--I am hesitant to pardon her shoddy New York accent that is found elsewhere in the film.

"New York, I Love You" lacks the passion I expected from the second in the "love" and short film series. The movie feels like a series of stories that are loosely connected, feature love, and take place in New York. The movie should be a series of stories about love: between people and for NYC.

My suggestion for the next in this set is "Barcelona, te quiero": One.5 out of five stars.