The funny thing about googling something like "best Woody Allen movies" is that there doesn't seem to be a general consensus as to what his best works might be and that order in which they should appear. For whatever reason, "Hannah and Her Sisters" had fallen down the order of our "to watch" list.

For much of the first half of the movie I had my moments where I doubted that quality of the film as it seemed as though it was a poorer version of some of his other works. For example, you saw the neurotic Woody Allen, the stammering female lead (Mia Farrow, who I've never thought was particularly great), and commentary on relationships. The plot was slow in developing and at times I found myself a little bored.

It was at that time that I realized that I had been missing the whole point of the movie. The movie wasn't necessarily about relationships or neurosis or adultery. It was about the different stages of life that we pass through and how we all interact in our different phases. Shakespeare really had it right - all of the world is indeed a stage and we are all players and everyone is the audience. It was completely necessary for a long and protracted first half of the movie because it takes time to show the phases that we go through and how our phases affect the phases that other people experience.

Overall I thought this movie was very good. It had one characteristic that I use to measure the quality of a good movie: I was still mulling it over hours and days after I watched it.

follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or IHateBadMovies on facebook