Save your money for something good and enjoyable

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Wow, Scarlett Johansson is so beautiful. I love her attempt at Woody-type shtick, even though she may be too young to totally understand the gimmick, or the art I should say, Scarlett really goes for it and she's so cute doing it. So, so cute...I love Scarlett Johansson. I hardly notice Woody when I watch Scoop. I hear him. Hugh Jackman's very nice and he gives a convincing portrayal as the killer. Scoop has the right idea, with its...God, I love Scarlett in glasses! When she removes her glasses, then disrobes into her red swimsuit and dips in the pool with Hugh then pretends to drown then Hugh rescues her pulling her to the poolside then Scarlett thanks Hugh and apologizes then she EMERGES OUT OF THE POOL LIKE A GLISTENING VOLUPTUOUSLY BOSOMED AND BODIED AQUATIC GODDESS!! then Scarlett stretches out her crampy leg and introduces herself to Hugh, she's...uhhhhhh...what...Scarlett.........incredibly sensually pleasurable on a level that I did not understand until I watched it so closely just now. This is like Scarlett's hottest scene, omgoodness. Scarlett is the dream girl. Nice work, Woody, I totally love Miss Johansson and care about her character in this delightfully energetic whimsical tale with its twist and wonderful familiar score. Trust me, this is a really good film. Scarlett's lovely in Scoop really.

Overall,I found this one of the better, recent Woody Allen movies. While there are some small lacks-of-development in the script, I found it funny, and believable enough to keep me watching and make me interested.I suppose the one aspect of this film that I came away with is the funny lines that Allen cracks. (I thought his defense for eating bread was hilarious).My main objection with the film was that it did not explore why Sondra Pransky agreed to spend alone-time with someone she thought was a serial killer of women. This certainly did increase the tension of the film, however, and at every moment, we expected her to be assaulted by Jackman's character, or at least she and/or Allen's character to be discovered.The fact that she had asked him, casually, about his knowledge of tarot cards should and would have tipped him off that she was "onto" him. The next thing we know, she is in his cellar. Opting to be alone with him after that point was sheer madness on her part. This potentially-fatal error did not seem consistent with her character: That of someone both bright and sober.Waterman's ruse is revealed, at one point, and this antiquities room scene was an excellent opportunity for him to show some spontaneous ingenuity in his "explanation" of his behavior, but he dis-appoints by resorting to the shtick that he repeats several times in the film, while meeting new people. I found offensive the line, "You are a credit to your race". Is this an allusion to gentiles? I hope not. Why was it uttered five different times in the film?One would think that with all Allen has been through in the last 20 years, that he would have achieved some sobriety and deep thought. While many of his lines in Scoop are funny, it is basically the same old Woody, and the lines could have been inserted into any of his movies. Nevertheless, the plot works, and the acting is good.Something that I think could have been developed is the relationship, or at least the emotional connection, between Pransky and Lyman. When did true feelings develop in her.., and why? The 14th century lute?One other thing that I would have done differently is to have the spirit of Strombel offer somewhat more information on just why he thinks the lord's son is the murderer. There is bare-little to go on, and we would doubt the soundness of Sondra's and Sid's "investigation", if it were not for the obviously-shady, ambitious and cold nature of Peter Lyman.This movie is one that has an inherent fluidity-of-perception, and I think this was intentional: There are different ways to view the events, and I can appreciate that. The last Woody Allen film that I liked was Deconstructing Harry, and I thought Scoop is the best since then: If it had explored some fear and dread on the part of Pransky, colliding with unrestrained passion (or lust for money), a stronger dynamic and film could have been presented. The character Sid Waterman needed some development, too: Where does he live, and what makes him the person he is today? Pransky needed to be able to get him to calm down long enough to say something real.I may sound overly-harsh about this film, but as I said, I enjoyed it. The one thing I have always admired about Woody Allen (besides some of his humor) is the fact that he has always found it important to reveal, or even magnify, his weaknesses. By doing this, he informs, enlightens and reminds us about the nature of our humanity.

To stick with the journalistic theme of Woody Allen's 2006 film, Scoop, it seems pretty clear that Woody Allen was going for a fluff piece here, seemingly having fun with the material. Scoop works, for what it is and is a nice fun outing with the writer/director. With Scoop, we're in London again, with Scarlett Johansson, again, with a character communicating with the dead, again. Maybe I'm not doing a great job of selling it to you yet. Woody Allen can get by with repeating tropes because he does them so well. One doesn't care how believable it is that Scar Jo is getting leads for a story from a dead journalist because it is told in such an engaging way. With an opening reminiscent of Broadway Danny Rose, we see a table of journalists lamenting over a fellow reporter who recently passed away. The table discusses the means he would take to find a story and how desperately he would chase leads. The audience is also blessed with Woody Allen in a supporting role as a magician which was autobiographically fun considering Woody been interested in magic since he was a child. Scoop was a fantastically written film that followed Scarlett Johansson's character as she embroiled herself into a murder investigation all the while getting clues from her deceased side kick.People will talk about the surprise ending of Scoop, and rightly so, it's fantastic. Vengeance is achieved and the character you actually want to succeed does, and that's not common in a Woody Allen film. What stunned me the most, however, is that Woody Allen actually kills himself off in a film. Like Woody, I would like to achieve immortality, which is why no matter how fictional the circumstance I would never "kill myself off". I was stunned that Scoop actually led to Woody facing the grim reaper. That surprising aspect of Scoop ensured that I'd never forget it, the image still burned into my brain days later.

An American journalism student in London (Scarlett Jo) gets the scoop on a big story, and begins an affair with an English aristocrat who just may be a serial killer Director: Woody Allen Writer: Woody Allen image1.jpegWoody's 2005 followup to last year's Xlnt Match Point Just came from seeing the latest Woody Allen-Scarlett Jo collaboration, "SCOOP". Well, he musta scooped this one up from the bottom of the barrel. Light fare, to say the least -- lighter than air on a Sunday afternoon in the Arizona desert. Scarlet --well, yeah --she's easy to look at, but she better look beyond Allen if she wants to get serious about her career. Jack Hughsome --or wuzzit Hugh Jackoff -- Good looking Aussie chap, but little or no screen charisma -- Woody obviously threw this plot together just so he could spend more time following Johansson's lovely little rump around the set for a few weeks. Supposedly a comedy, but I didn't find it very funny, and, except for the one scene with Scarlett in a skin-tight one-piece bathing suit emerging from a swimming pool -- pretty boring -- but, okay -- she's easy on the eyes. The film was so flimsy it was like Chinese takeout in the Jewish neighborhood -- fills you up for five minutes, then you're hungry again -- I actually felt so unsatisfied that I wanted to stay and see a real movie right afterward, but it was too late --as the Pushkin Theater was letting out for the night.