Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Melanie Bouvet The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

alexisphelps Hadows and Fog isn't Woody Allen's most celebrated work, in fact it barely gets a mention but I liked the film. Its setting is a circus in some town in Eastern Europe and the film is brimming with marquee names like John Malkovich, John Cusack and Jodie Foster to even Madonna. The jokes and gags are funny though not in a direct way and there is a bare plot so to speak. The decision to shoot in black and white is sound as the cinematography is a highlight even detractors of this film speak well of.

smatysia Woody Allen is annoying as usual, playing a Kafka-inspired role set in Germany or Central Europe in the early twentieth century. (Electric light is commonplace, but no automobile is ever seen) Allen's shtick was original and amusing in the early Seventies, but it palled many decades ago. The plot is fairly boring, and never really ties together very well. There is a sort of "all-star cast" that is largely wasted. And the film (and plot) had no real ending, it just kind of quit. However, there were some good things. The mood was set very well with the fog, the black-and-white photography, the music. Nice performances from some of the cast, especially Mia Farrow, John Cusack, John Malkovich, and even the much-maligned Madonna. Some of Allen's direction was effective, such as the 360 shot around the table at the brothel. But overall, the film was boring, and I cannot recommend it.

SnoopyStyle Bookkeeper Kleinman (Woody Allen) is awakened by a vigilante mob with a plan to catch a serial strangler who always strikes during foggy nights. He goes to the morgue to ask the doctor (Donald Pleasence) about the plan. After he leaves, the doctor is killed by the strangler and he fears a glass will point to him.In a traveling circus, sword swallower Irmy (Mia Farrow) discusses leaving with her clown boyfriend Paul (John Malkovich). She catches him cheating on her with tightrope artist Marie (Madonna). Irmy runs away and is taken in by prostitutes (Lily Tomlin, Jodie Foster, Kathy Bates). Jack (John Cusack) pay her $700, an outrageous sum, to sleep with her. The police raids the whorehouse and they are brought to the station where Kleinman steals the glass.This is a meandering tale. Its black-and-white style points to the old German silent movies. It's stock full of big actors in small roles. It has bits of funny moments, mostly Woody with Mia. Woody is playing around with the style. There is no murder mystery since the killer's face is shown. It doesn't make for a compelling story but it's an interesting exercise nevertheless.

RisingStar12 A warning before I begin: So far, in my quest to see all Woody Allen films, I have only seen the following: Annie Hall, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Manhattan, Vicky Christina Barcelona, Whatever Works, and Hannah and Her Sisters. I felt that I should have stated that before I went any further. While I enjoyed this film, it was not my favorite that I have seen of his. There were some great moments, but it did not feel like an instant Allen classic. The plot is very simple, yet very complex at the same time. Woody's character has been woken up in the middle of the night and is told that he is a part of a plan which he knows nothing about. The viewers do not know anything more than he does, and so we constantly learn with him. From what we do know: there is a killer on the loose, the killer only attacks when there is fog on the island, and there is currently fog on the island. Woody is then thrown into the adventure, completely unsure of what will happen next. It is very much a circus film, in which anything can happen. Not all films are able to maintain that spontaneity, yet—in this film—it works. The supporting cast is wonderful. There are a ridiculous amount of cameos. Because of the spontaneity described above, however, I did not feel that WA was trying to "star up" his film in the hopes that more people would go see it. Madonna as a curly-haired adulterer? Kathy Bates, Jodie Foster, and Lily Tomlin as hookers? Mia Farrow as the wife of a sword swallower? Whatever. It works. There were, however, some elements which did not fit as easily together. The tone changed several times throughout the film. Because of the fact that the film was about a killer on the loose, it would have made more sense for the paranoia and fear aspect to travel throughout the entire course. Instead, it seemed that there were interruptions of philosophical moments. While this great in films like Crimes and Misdemeanors, they felt like Woody Allen was reading philosophy books during the writing of the script and became temporarily distracted. I was hoping for the moments in which characters question reality to fit more with the plot. They did not, and the film suffered because of it. Mind you, the rest of the film was created in a fashion where these small slips were forgivable. This film was not a mess in any way and is still better than much of the material that is being released today. In the film, we are introduced (or have we already been introduced) to what WA has said is his personal belief: that we are destroyed by the absence of illusions in life. To those who have not read that much on WA, this may be a very great concept. For those who have heard it before, however, it feels a little...ordinary. Though what do I know?