User reviews

When I look at his filmography on this site and count the films I consider great from the 70s till the early 90s I only stumble over two or three entries I am not fond of. Granted, some are greater than others, but Woody Allen essentially created consistently excellent films for two decades. Whether comedy or drama, whether set in New York or elsewhere, his films are not only great American films, but they belong in the international arena of film art.

Having said all that, and hopefully having disclosed my own bias in discussing the man's work, I can say without further ado that I loved "A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy." It is hardly the type of Woody Allen film that would receive dozens of critical accolades and nominations (in fact it was only nominated for a Razzie), but I think that can be explained by the fact that Woody Allen set a bar of expectation for himself. When you watch "Manhattan" or "Crimes and Misdemeanors" and then this you see a change of pace, a sort of lighter tone. That does not, however, mean that this film is without its merits. Taken strictly as a film, not as a Woody Allen film, it is plain wonderful. I think that goes for most of his films (except maybe some of the more recent ones).

Allen, of course, is up to his usual tricks again - he takes a Bergman film ("Smiles of a Summer Night") and spoofs it, makes it his own and I think successfully. The atmosphere of this film is what makes it so watchable - the beautiful blend of humor, nostalgia and unfulfilled desire, which I think he perfected in "Radio Days," come through exquisitely. It's also an interesting move away from the stark atheism, or at least agnosticism of his earlier films - the presence of spirits, shadows and ghosts, things unexplained by science, unaccounted for by our sentient experience.

The most interesting aspect of it is that this mystical theme is hardly incongruous with Allen's other films, including his tragedies. Whether his films underline the hopelessness of existence (like "Interiors") or the mystical, and thus hopeful nature of human relationships, they only differ by the mood the storyteller is in when he speaks of them.

Here we have an entirely Shakespearean comedy full of criss-crossing love affairs, absurd relations, untamed desires all leading to hilarious revelations, or serious revelations under the most comic circumstances. Jose Ferrer is remarkable as Professor Leopold, a cold, atheistic intellectual, an accomplished thinker and professor. Contrary to his character, Allen bestows him with some of the funniest lines in the entire film. For example, when he realizes that his marriage to Mia Farrow's Ariel will be the end of his bachelorhood and that he is attracted to Julie Hagerty's nurse Dulcy, he attempts to compliment Dulcy over a game of chess. He says: "You have a wonderful flair for spatial relationships." These little speeches are completely in line with the comic absurdity of the whole, like Tony Robert's Maxwell, a romantic doctor who, gets shot not once, but twice in the film (once for love and once for revenge {meant for someone else}, nonetheless), or Woody Allen's stockbroker / inventor Andrew.

There is such joy in this film, such passion. Yes, maybe "Radio Days" is more articulate and personal on the subject, maybe "Crimes and Misdemeanors" is one of his best tragedies, "Manhattan" one of my favorite of his films along with "Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Another Woman." And, while "A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" is not as great, in my humble opinion, as the aforementioned films, it is still a great film, if that makes any sense.

Woody Allen's "Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" that was made in 1982 between "Stardust Memory" (1980) and "Zelig"(1983) is considered by many as a lesser Allen's work or even failure. It was even nominated for a Razzie (Mia Farrow) for crying out loud. Well, failure or not, I'd take this silly, funny, humorous, beautifully photographed with Felix Mendelssohn's Symphony No. 3, Violin Concerto in E Minor, Piano Concerto No. 2 and "A Midsummer Night's Dream" suite for the soundtrack little treasure over the majority of Hollywood comedies any day or night including midsummer night. Spoofing Shakespeare's classic comedy and highly successful Ingmar Bergman's "Smiles of a Summer Night", Woody made a light comedy about six very different people - three couples in a turn-of-the-century who gathered together in a country during the weekend party in search for love, understanding and meaning of life and death which has his own unique style. Allen does not take things too seriously and laughs at and with his characters providing the best comical scenes in the movie as an inventor. One scene is his first appearance with the wings on his back when he tries to fly and another when he pedals his flying bicycle in a very ET - manner. Funny and memorable.

7.5/10

I thought this was really quite good. Had not seen before as is never really mentioned or advertised. Particularly enjoyed Julie Hagerty's performance. I don't know why she has not been a bigger star and more used in films. Her timing and line delivery is very funny. Jose Ferrer also excellent at his pompous best. Mia farrow and Mary Steenbergen both look lovely in the summer drenched locations, that look like one of Englands Southern Shire Counties! Perhaps not Woody Allens best, but as he apparently 'hates' the country side, some gorgeous scenes filmed by Gordon Willis. I have given this a '7'rating, and would certainly recommend to all.

While this movie is not considered to be one of Woody Allen's masterworks, the sight of him in the countryside he so feared in Annie Hall and Manhattan, surrounded by crickets, rabbits, frogs and wild mushrooms, is a funny one, especially for his fans. Shakespeare was clearly on Allen's mind when he made and titled this movie--not only A Midsummer Night's Dream, but also The Tempest. There are obvious references (Mia Farrow's character's name is Ariel), and more subtle ones in the dialogue, when Woody's character talks about a "half goat" mystical lover. The film also marks Allen's first union with Mia Farrow, and the two work wonders together here which would be proved in several subsequent films (it's quite sad that their off-screen relationship ended the way it did). It is beautifully filmed and Allen uses music as effectively as he did in Manhattan. There are not a lot of belly laughs or memorable one-liners, but it is fun to watch nevertheless, and everyone in his ensemble cast seems to be having a great time.

Cute and charming, if not really much more.

Gordon Willis's photography is nowhere near as amazing as his earlier collaborations with Woody, and the film doesn't have any wildly funny moments.

But the writing is witty, and the acting solid if not triumphant. It just doesn't feel like a Woody Allen film somehow. More like a nice, solid, unassuming French farce.

That's not a bad thing, and this film is still better than 99% of what comes out of Hollywood, with a sweeter, more upbeat tone than usual for Allen. It's just coming on the heels of masterpieces like 'Annie Hall', 'Manhattan', and 'Stardust Memories', and just before other great films like 'Zelig' and 'Purple Rose of Cairo', it can't help but pale a bit in comparison.

A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S SEX COMEDY was Woody Allen's amusing variation on the Ingmar Bergman classic SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT, which had been previously re-worked as a Broadway musical by Stephen Sondheim called A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC. This film is about three couples in turn of the century who gather at one of their country homes for the weekend and it is clear at the beginning of the story that these three couples are hopelessly mismatched and we see the very human foibles that split up and mix up these three couples during this memorable weekend in the country. Woody and Mary Steenburgen plays the hosts for the weekend, a seemingly happily married couple whose happiness is clearly surface deep. Tony Roberts plays a womanizing physician and Woody's best pal who arrives for the weekend with his nurse (Julia Hagerty). In her first screen pairing with Woody Allen, Mia Farrow plays a former flame of Woody's who has arrived with her much older fiancée (Jose Ferrer) who she is scheduled to marry on Monday. Watching these three couples fuss and fumble all over each other in an attempt to be with the person they really want to be with is what makes this charming period comedy work. As always in Woody's films, music is crucial in setting the mood and Woody has chosen some classic Mendelsohhn pieces that set the perfect mood for the piece. The performances are uniformly fine, with Roberts a standout. Not one of Woody's better known films, but if you'd like to see where his relationship with Mia began, take a look.

Woody's tribute to Shakespeare and Bergman has three couples spending a few summer days in an idyllic country setting circa 1900. The pacing is rather slow and it takes a while to get going and then doesn't quite go where Allen's better comedies have gone. The cinematography by Willis is gorgeous and there is the beautiful music of Mendelssohn, including his Violin Concerto, the Third Symphony, and of course his incidental music to "A Midsummer Night's Dream." This is the first of many teamings between Allen and Farrow, although the part was written for Diane Keaton, who was unavailable. It is an amusing film but could have used a few more laughs.

"A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy"

What an intriguing title if you're not quite familiar with the work of Shakespeare or Bergman, it reads itself as if Woody Allen was so trusting our general knowledge that he expected us to know what would sneak behind the bush of this charming title. Well, for one thing, I'm not familiar with what it is referring to, but nonetheless I thought it would be the opportunity to tackle some sexual issues with a subtly comedic tone, something less raunchy than "Everything You Wanted to Know" yet more sophisticated than "Manhattan". Unfortunately, whatever Allen tried to do, all we got at the end was a timid approach of sexuality in a light-hearted drama.

That's the inconvenience with movies defined by their titles, it better gets it right... and in this unfortunate case, Allen didn't have the gutsy approach that could have inspired more passionate and inflamed moments, and the level of detachment that could have enlightened him about the danger of taking himself too seriously, it's already bad for a dramatic director, let alone a comedic one. Woody Allen takes himself too seriously on a first-degree level and it is so frustrating that I wonder how the fans felt after watching this movie that followed the puzzling "Stardust Memories": Allen's homage to Fellini's "8½" ... when the desire to copy his idols became more and more symptomatic.

Take "Love and Death", which I believe to be his funniest comedy, the movie features many takes on Bergman's iconic shots but the genius aspect is that Allen uses the tone of parody, which creates a clever mix between homage and the awareness of his own comedic talent, something that Bergman could never have achieved. In "Interiors", Allen surprises his world with a dramatic film that can be considered the most Bergmanian non-Bergman film, but he doesn't fool anyone, the movie is so un-Allenian that the feeling of cinematic experimentalism and artificiality could have ruined the film is it wasn't redeemed by the actors' performances, a great script and a tactful direction.

"A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" is in the continuity of "Stardust Memories" but at least the movie features a plot, made of triangular loves, between men whose sexual desire is like a compass with the north deviating from the women they actually love and women who are so apparently moral that the only way for her to admit their own luscious desires is when a man makes the first step. And the film takes place in midsummer, in a natural setting inhabited by never-ending twilights and ephemeral nights, a peculiar cycle governing the natural impulses of all the protagonists. The movie features many magnificent shots accentuated by an enchanting cinematography depicting nature in a hormonal state.

Indeed, Nature steals the show in a film where the acting could have been much better handled. It had a strong lead through the character of Leopold, Jose Ferrer in a flamboyant performance as a rationalist scientist with such a huge ego we would never believe he'd fall into the trap of adulterous basic instincts, since he's already engaged to the angelic Ariel, Andrew's first true love. Andrew is Woody Allen, the wacky inventor and Tony Roberts is a sex-addicted doctor whose personal theory is that 'marriage is the death of hope', he comes with his nurse, Dulcy, played by Julie Hagerty, a woman with a frivolous lifestyle matching Maxwell's personal conceptions. And last but not least, there's Adrian, Andrew's wife, played by Mary Steenburgen, a woman whose rigidity rhymes with another unfortunate word. It's only fitting that it's always the men making the steps because their characters are so well-written that I question the distribution of the roles for the female cast, a weakness that undermines the quality of the film.

Maxwell has a love at first sight with Ariel, but she's so cold and dull that I could never have pictured her as his soul-mate ... while there was much more sex-appeal in Adrian. Dulcy was supposed to exude something that would convince Leopold to live his last hours of freedom but the role is played with such fragility and shyness that I failed to see the appeal again. I don't blame the actresses, although I thought Mia Farrow's performance was awkward and would have better suited the character of Adrian, but at the end, we have the men leading the film and the women's performance is like a self-reflexive take on the script's own weakness, it's as if the story was also sinning by cinematic frigidity. I suspect Allen already had the ending in mind, and a promising script on the paper but on the screen, echoing his own inventions, it failed to take off despite all the pedaling.

The film can be compared to a sexual moment with nice preliminaries ruined by a climax that just comes off too early, and this is what I felt from the ending, a sort of waste of actors' talent, of actors' direction and a bizarre sensation of 'unfinished material'. Each one is entitled to some mistakes, I wouldn't call this film a mistake, because many parts are still enjoyable but there's just something slightly misleading in the title for there's no real sex and no real comedy, only some flirts, some smiles and at the end … a big interrogation mark.

This interrogation mark would have been dramatic if we didn't know that Woody Allen would finally pull himself together and bring out his greatest streak of movies in the 80's, with "Hannah and Her Sisters" as the pinnacle, a film with more than six characters but each one written with an extraordinary level of a three-dimensionality that cruelly lacked in "A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy", not Allen's best film but still better than some best directorial works

I am amazed at how neglected this film is. It is a real gem. I'm a big Woody Allen film and I consider it one of his best. The story is intelligent, well-written, funny, and charming. The themes of love, fate, and immortality are explored in a thoroughly entertaining way. A great performance by all the actors, but special mention should be made of Jose Ferrer and Julie Haggerty. See this movie. You will not be disappointed.

Not great, but I do like this low-key Woody Allen film, if for no other reason than its laid back feel and peaceful country location. Woody is out of the busy, stifling city for a change, and if you've been following his films with any degree of regularity it takes us viewers out on a similar vacation from Manhattan, too.

Three couples spend a weekend together in the countryside, circa 1900 or thereabouts, and wind up falling in love with just about everyone else other than the person they're supposed to be with. This is the first film to feature Woody along with Mia Farrow, who's a dazzling beauty named Ariel in this story and becomes the competing main object of desire between Allen and his philandering best friend, Tony Roberts. Mary Steenburgen is Woody's sexually repressed wife.

Jose Ferrer is enjoyable as an older stuffy and pompous professor who intends to marry the young Ariel later that weekend but wishes to sow his last wild oats with Julie Hagerty before he makes the commitment.

A few gags (Woody plays an inventor with a slew of humorous gadgets), but expectations for a bunch of hard belly-laughs should be lowered in place of a more relaxed byplay about love and lust in the woods.

Review: I really wasn't that impressed with this movie because I didn't find it that funny or slightly interesting. The concept, which is basically about a group of friends who lust over each other in the wilderness, got a bit tedious after a while and Woody Allen's weak jokes and silly characters didn't have any depth or substance. The fact that everyone is lusting over Mia Farrow, didn't help because I really couldn't see what was so adorable about her. Woody Allen, who plays a mad inventor, was also quite annoying after a while and he just seemed to be running around, setting up rendezvous's with the different characters. The whole look and feel of the movie was quite dated and the storyline goes down some weird avenues that go a bit too far. Disappointing!

Round-Up: With only one movie left in this Woody Allen series, I still haven't seen anything that amazing from this accomplished writer/director and I personally think that the movies with Diane Keaton are much better than the Mia Farrow ones. All of his films seem very similar to one another and the concepts, which are usually based around troubled relationships set in New York, aren't that imaginative. Before I got into this filmography, I was hoping to see the mind behind his unique work, but all I have seen is that he is definitely one for the ladies and he loves writing about relationships which are in turmoil, which shadows his own life in his latter years. Because I watched these films back to back, I honestly got fed up with them after a while and his humour is for a certain crowd which I am not part of.

Budget: N/A Round-Up: $9million

I recommend this movie to people who are into there Woody Allen movies about a group of friends who get together in the wilderness and end up lusting for each other. 3/10

Despite being one of Woody's lesser works this film still succeeds to entertain. The sight of Woody on a flying bicycle is worth watching the film alone, as is the wonderful scenery. Despite not having an outstanding script, though good by anyone else's standards, Woody's take on Bergman & Shakespeare's tale is a success that makes the summer seem like a magical time of escapism and hope. Woody succeeds in the modern take on the Shakespearian theme of confusion & love and manages to make a warm and pleasant film

Every now and then for the last couple of decades I have taken the occasional look at a Woody Allen film (with as open a mind as I can muster) in an attempt to work out what it is that people seem to adore about him so much. Having just read an extended magazine interview with the man in which he came over as a genuinely likeable human being I thought I was in a good place to have another go at finding what 'it' is.

Whatever it is I didn't see it here. You would have thought with a title like 'A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy' there would have been some sex or comedy in it. Apart from one throwaway line line delivered near the end of the thing which was genuinely funny - more for the delivery rather than the content - the film didn't raise a smile! And the sex was endless talk about off- screen activity and a couple of 'humorous' on-screen sub Benny Hill fumbles.

I remember hearing an interview with Jack Lemmon, many years ago, in which he said that when Billy Wilder was directing him in a scene in 'Some Like it Hot' Wilder gave him a pair of maracas to hold, and told him to shake them after Tony Curtis said his line and stop before he delivered his own. Lemmon was perplexed. The scene's dialogue was a snappy and rapidfire to and fro interchange. The maraca shaking would slow it down to a crawl. But Wilder was the director and Lemmon did what he was told. When Lemmon saw the film with an audience he understood. Curtis' s line were funny. So were Lemmons'. If Lemmon had come in with his line as soon as his actor's instincts told him to, the audience would not have heard it because they were still laughing at Curtis's previous line. His line would have been lost. Curtis's next line would make no sense... and the scene would have collapsed like a house of cards. Wilder knew where the laughs were and built space into his direction to let the audience enjoy them. Allen doesn't leave any space for the audience. We're not given any space to get the' jokes' (such as they are) because there's always someone talking straight after them. What they are saying is usually inane piffle and by the time you've registered that what they are saying is of little consequence and not a zinging comeback (if was generous I could concede that a lot of the inconsequential dialogue here is Allen's carefully crafted, verbal equivalent of maraca shaking) any humour in the 'joke' that just went past has evaporated.

The less said about Allen's helpless, "oh look at me,I'm so clumsy" shtick the better.

I'll give it a couple of years and have another go and seeing what the Allen cultist adore so much.

When I saw this film I thought it was from Allen's early period and I thought of it as a prototype Manhattan but when I checked the chronology I discovered that it belongs to his middle period and postdates both Annie Hall and Manhattan. It really is like Manhattan set in the woods of New England. As far as I can see, it is his first film with Mia Farrow and his camera is besotted with her as are all the male characters in the film. Mary Steeburgen also looks good although I can never work out whether she really can act or whether she is just having trouble with her contact lenses. The scenes of New England are beautifully shot and are ravishing to look at. I thought the element of mysticism sat uneasily with the rest of the film.

This film is said to be Allen's take on the Bergman film Three Smiles of a Summer Night although I cannot comment on this because I last saw the Bergman film 35 years ago at a student film society. Maybe the mystical element in Allen's film is lifted from Bergman. There are also obvious parallels with A Midsummer Night's Dream with the mortals swapping partners and with spirits flitting about in the woods. In keeping with the subject matter, Allen uses Mendelssohn for the incidental music rather that his usual classic jazz numbers.

Mainly of interest to Allen fans, I would think. The witty dialogue is here in spades, but the story is terribly uneven.

Several commentators have complained about the mystical element in the script. It does seem a little out-of-left-field, I must admit. But I think it works thematically a lot better than it works structurally. Consider the arc that Leopold moves through during the film. Andrew's "magic ball" is an absolutely essential element of that arc. And since the film is in some ways about the magic aspects of love in a country setting (as compared to "Manhattan", which presents a very cynical version of love in the city), some flights of fantasy are not inappropriate.

So, taking this theme of love as magic, Woody gives us a character who stands in direct opposition to the very idea of any sort of "unseen" world. He is a strict rationalist (actually, in philosophical terms, "empiricist" is a better word). The events of the film force him to confront a side of the world he's never admitted existed, and quite rightly, thematically speaking, he ends up being the most changed by the experience of any of the characters. He goes from one end of the spectrum to the other, literally becoming one of the spirits in whose existence he never believed.

And it isn't just some arbitrary sideline which detracts from the main romantic plot, either. It's really essential to the very core of the film that this character be present, and go on this journey. It's also a very clever way of ensuring that the real-world seriousness of death and love never impinges on the highly crafted tone of light comedy.

Unfortunately, for someone not expecting it (as I wasn't), the elements of fantasy don't seem to sit very comfortably in the film, which results in a very strange, awkward viewing experience. Still, a fine film, and very funny. If you like Woody Allen in general, I don't see why you wouldn't like this.

And Mia Farrow is delightful, and lovely, in her first visit to the Allen milieu.

This is easily one of Woody Allen's worst films and just as overrated as Mighty Aphrodite. The movie starts out with Jose Ferrer about to get married to Mia Farrow and they are going to spend the weekend at Woody Allen's house in the country. Allen is married to Mary Steenburgen and they are having some sexual problems. Tony Roberts is Allen's best friend and a doctor and also a sex addict who is bringing his nurse, Julie Hagerty. It turns out Allen used to date Farrow but nothing came of it but he doesn't tell Steenburgen and she is pretty upset. Roberts falls for Farrow pretty quickly and she doesn't know what to do. It is a pretty short movie and it's just not that interesting and one of Allen's worst.

A married couple, Andrew and Adrian, invite a group of friends over to their house in the country for a few days. The guests consist of two couples: Adrian's cousin Leopold, a stuffy academic, and his fiancé Ariel and Andrew's friend Maxwell, a doctor and serial womaniser, and his nurse Dulcy. Andrew and Ariel have a history - Andrew thinks of Ariel as The One That Got Away - and meeting her again rekindles those emotions. However, Maxwell is soon smitten by Ariel too.

Another Ingmar Bergman-inspired Woody Allen movie, though lighter than Allen's usual such offerings. This lightness is largely a good thing in that when Allen goes Full Bergman the result is usually very slow and depressing. Here we have glimpses of the funny Woody Allen mixed with a drama that encompasses fidelity, existence, marriage and metaphysics.

This mix is both a plus and a minus. The plus is that, as mentioned before, this isn't a full-on Bergmanesque drama. The negative is that the movie is neither fish nor fowl: half-drama and half-comedy and doesn't excel at being either. The drama ends without much profundity. The comedy is used sparingly, as if Allen did not want to detract from the (ultimately, half-baked) drama. So many opportunities for a good one-liner or a good skit that went a-begging as Allen pulled his punches. This could have been a great comedy if Allen had abandoned the drama part.

This all said, this is a reasonably entertaining movie. The humour, when it is used, is great - some wonderful one-liners. The characters are engaging and the plot is interesting, with love triangles/rectangles/hexagon that make for intriguing, who-will-end-with-whom mysteries. Good performances all round.

Not brilliant, but moves at a good pace and is never dull.

Almost a hidden gem, except that no one has an excuse for not knowing about any Woody film. The cast is delightful. Every line of dialog is laced with wit and humor. No New York angst here, just the usual relationship muddle, mixed with the usual existential questions of the the meaning of love and life and ...

Not a message movie. As the title indicates, the point of all this is comedy. My favorite bit, which didn't make it into the quotes section goes something like this:

<Andrew is hovering outside Maxwell's window in his self-propelled helicopter>

Maxwell: Andrew! What do you think you're doing?

Andrew: Its an invention of mine. I think I've got most of the bugs worked out. What do you think?

Maxwell: Andrew, don't be silly. You can't fly.

Andrew: I can't?

Maxwell: Of course not! You're a mammal!

Andrew: Oh.

<Andrew crashes to ground>

Tony Roberts is the perfect straight man. Its a pity that Woody hasn't used him in some of his later films. This is one of those handful of films that can be watched over and over again. One to own. Sadly, this (and several other Woody masterpieces) are out of print.

A wacky inventor (Woody Allen) and his wife (Mary Steenburgen) invite two other couples for a weekend party at a romantic summer house in the 1900s countryside.

This was the first of thirteen movies that Allen would make starring Mia Farrow, and quite possibly the worst. Farrow was nominated for a Razzie Award, making this the only Allen film to get any such nomination. Indeed, Farrow is terrible here, and it seems bizarre that she is the object of more than one character's affections. Steenburgen, on the other hand, is quite charming and is given an unfortunate role.

This is one of Allen's lesser works, and definitely not a financial success. But it is not without its merits. The characters (other than Farrow) are good fun, and there is plenty of that classic intellectual fodder Allen loves to have his characters spout.

This movie features shallow characters, mildly amusing shtick, and early 1980s New York acting school pseudo-intellectuals placed back in 1900 for a weak parody of Bergman's "Smiles of Summer Night. " The title, score, and some silly supernatural effects suggest fairies or spirits to add a nod to Shakespeare, but the themes that both Shakespeare and Bergman delineate in their wonderful works are not even remotely touched on by Allen, who turns the magic of sex and love and its attendant pain into...shtick. Allen once admitted that in his lifetime he would never make a film as good as any film Bergman made; at least he knew his limitations. Allen was a comedian working in a post sexual revolution era where sex had to be covered up by jokes and special effects, the way it's been for any mainstream American movie of the past 35 years. This parody of Bergman thinly disguises a love of Bergman, and only serves to highlight the glaring differences in scope between Bergman's film and Allen's film. It follows in a Hollywood and vaudeville comic tradition of mocking the highbrow for the benefit of middlebrow tastes, but is not irreverent or incisive enough to produce real laughs. This may be partly because it's so one-sided, with all of the fantasies and neuroses coming from a male consciousness, whereas Bergman and Shakespeare (not to mention the great farce writers, such as Feydeau), always gave men and women equal representation.

First,i should say that i am an inconditional Woody Allen fan. I saw this movie for the first time yesterday and i had a GREAT time! Tony Roberts is just great in that one! I wonder why Woody did'nt cast him more often? I won't give you the plot as you already know it. I'll just add that A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy is a different Woody Allen film. This time he focus on the country in is beautifulness instead of the more common urban movie he used to shoot. And that gives this movie something unique compared to Woody's other works. The jokes and the situations are very funny and i laughed a lot! So if you are a Woody Allen fan and haven't seen that one,forget about all the bad words that movie got and enjoy a realy entertaining viewing!

Falling between films such as "Manhattan" (1979), "Stardust Memories" (1980), "Zelig" (1983), "Broadway Danny Rose" (1984), and "The Purple Rose of Cairo" (1985), "A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" (1982) might come off as a mediocre minor work in the oeuvre of director Woody Allen. The film presents the director's usual themes, style, and narrative without developing them into anywhere near the insights of, say, the subsequent "Zelig". Nonetheless, "A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" offers a pleasant viewing experience for any Woody Allen fan as well as those who appreciate subtle comedy which puts more emphasis on the matters of the heart and the intellect rather than those of mere physique.

The story, lending little more than the idea of blending relationships from William Shakespeare's most-celebrated comedy "A Midsummer Night's Dream" (1590-7), concerns an inventor (Woody Allen) and his wife (Mary Steenburgen), whose sex life has been suffering recently, who invite two couples to their summer residence: a professor who despises metaphysics and theology (Jose Ferrer) and his wife-to-be (Mia Farrow), who had a budding relationship with the inventor in the past, and a physician who is more open-minded when it comes to philosophical questions (Tony Roberts) and his young expendable sweetheart (Julie Hagerty). This simple set-up offers many directions for a comedy of errors, misunderstandings, and changes of heart which Allen develops in his usually amusing and stimulating fashion.

Although the story and its events may not bear that many resemblances to those of Shakespeare's play, one is enticed to look for them from the moment one hears the music of Felix Mendelssohn, who composed the most famous music for the play in question in the 19th century. The most striking similarity is that both the film and the play portray characters who escape into nature where they are subjected to the powers of the heart or, alternatively, of the subconscious. What is more, both the play and the film juxtapose reason and emotion (or imagination) in the drama. In Shakespeare's play, the city which the lovers escape from represents reason and its domination over emotion, whereas the forest with fairies and magic represents emotion and its freedom from or, possibly, domination over reason. In Allen's film, this juxtaposition is captured by the character of the arrogant, naturalist-minded professor (whose counterpart in Shakespeare's play might be Egeus or Theseus), representing reason, and the other characters and the surrounding natural milieu, representing the powers of emotion. As Allen's narrative playfully takes sides with the latter, the spectator witnesses the inventor's discovery of a machine which allows to peek into the super-sensible world with spirits from the past. Above all, Allen's "A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy" tackles the ancient theme of lust versus love. Other characters contemplate whether love without lust is possible, others whether lust without love is. This theme can, obviously, be seen as a development on the theme from Shakespeare's play.

One of the film's greatest strengths is its subtlety which is a common denominator in Allen's comedy. Allen's extensive use of the off-screen space, the long take, and the mobile camera constantly imply that there is more than the eye can see. This gives elegance to the cinematic expression while also articulating the central theme of the film.

Overall, like Shakespeare, Allen is able to use multiple sources, ideas, and themes to concoct an amusing and intellectually as well as emotionally stimulating piece of cinema which lasts with its viewer. Maybe not as sharply and distinctly as "Zelig" or "Manhattan", but it can be dug up every once in a while.

Allen goes to the country (somewhere he hates going in real life) and has a weekend with his friends - which are the usual successful white middle-class bellyaching types that feature in many of his films.

I usually find something to amuse in Woody Allen comedies, but here he really falls totally flat on his face. Even the one-liners seem to have deserted him. The really is no plot (bar bits and pieces of cod Shakespeare) - but Allen seems to use the location to allow a semi-mystical air, which just makes the thing even more witless and half-baked.

It just doesn't work at any level and is just a giant bore. The best thing about this film (apart from the end credits coming up) is that the bad reviews seem to get him to wake up and realise that simply throwing together a slapdash script and casting your mates in it doesn't make for entertainment.