Shadows and Fog (1992)

reviewed by
Brian L. Johnson


                              SHADOWS AND FOG
                       A film review by Ken Johnson
                        Copyright 1992 Ken Johnson

89 min., PG-13, Comedy, 1992, Black & White Director: Woody Allen Cast: Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, John Malkovich, Lily Tomlin, Madonna, Jodie Foster, Kathy Bates, John Cusack, Kate Nelligan, Wallace Shawn, Fred Gwynne, Donald Pleasence, Julie Kavner, Kenneth Mars, David Ogden Stiers, Josef Sommer, Philip Bosco, Robert Joy, Kurtwood Smith

In the city of London, a strangler is going around killing people. Allen, for no known reason, is convinced by a vigilante group to go out to the streets on a very foggy night to try to help catch the strangler. Once on the streets Allen doesn't know what to do, so he wanders around aimlessly running into all sorts of people.

SHADOWS AND FOG is a typical Woody Allen film. It is fun to watch, in a Woody sort of way, and is a must see for Woody fans, but seems to have no real significance. I don't recommend this film for those people who don't care for Woody's films. SHADOWS AND FOG is not close to being as good as the film EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX, BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK, which I consider to be Woody's best film yet. The film is worth watching , but I can't give it over a three (on a scale of zero to five). SHADOWS AND FOG is rated PG-13 for adult situations and adult humor.

The film is filmed in black and white, which gives it an eerie feeling. When Woody, or anybody else, is walking around London, it is rather spooky. It adds a real atmosphere to the film (and also probably cut down on the cost quite a bit). Just about the entire cast of the film are established actors/actresses, although many of them only have cameo appearances. The only two people who have real roles in the film are Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. Others, like John Malkovich, Lily Tomlin, and John Cusack, have supporting roles, but aren't on the screen for very long. Others, like Madonna, are on the screen for about two or three minutes, and then never to be seen again. They all, however, give wonderful performances.

Some of the camera angles were very inventive and others I really didn't care for. I think the one I disliked the most was in the brothel where the camera was sitting in one spot panning around the table. It made me feel a little dizzy, and most of the picture was blurry because the camera was focused on a few people sitting around the table, and mostly what the camera saw was the walls of the room (because there were so few people).

The locations and scenery were very good. The rooms had a Peter Greenawayesque feeling to them from the way that the props were placed, and in most instances what the props were. The locations really looked like they were in London, (I didn't think to look at the credits at the end to see where it was actually filmed). The way the alleys looked, I found to be rather beautiful. This seems a bit weird to me after seeing the film, with the presence that the alleys were supposed to portray, but in the black and white and with the stone work on the buildings the alleys looked very pleasing.

I was quite shocked to see how old Woody looked. The last film I had seen Woody in was A MIDSUMMER'S NIGHT SEX COMEDY, which was done in 1982. Woody has never looked young in anything that I have seen him in. Even in EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX..., which was done in 1972, Woody looked old. But now he looks *very* old, and I almost didn't recognize him (his voice definitely gave it away).

Ken J.
blj@mithrandir.cs.unh.edui
.

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews