**1/2 of****
Three completely different short stories told by three of Hollywood's most influential and profilic directors in the most exciting and mythical city on earth. Seems like a shoe in doesn't it? Well almost. Looking forward as I did to the Woody Allen piece "Oedipus Wrecks" the wait was worth it, but still somewhat unsatisfying. This featurette would've been a welcome change of pace for Woody at the time given that he hadn't made a flat-out silly comedy for a while and he manages to make good use of every moment. He has a great cast,(Kavner, Questral are particular standouts) and a genuinely strange premise to work with and the results are a riot, dare I say one of Woody's best. So what's so unsatisfying? As good as "Oedipus Wrecks" is , it still suffers because it has to follow Coppolla's god awful and charmless "Life Without Zoe." Seriously I had absolutely no clue what the hell was going on in this obnoxious, cutesy-poo clinker. Can anyone help me understand why Coppola thought anyone would like this? Sitting through "Zoe" is so emotionally draining that by the time you get to "Oedipus" you're too annoyed and confused to fully enjoy it. As a result Scorsese's "Life Lessons" comes off the best of the three. Nolte and Arquette are flawless and the intensity and friction between them make for an engaging if not distressingly tense 35 minutes.
Three completely different short stories told by three of Hollywood's most influential and profilic directors in the most exciting and mythical city on earth. Seems like a shoe in doesn't it? Well almost. Looking forward as I did to the Woody Allen piece "Oedipus Wrecks" the wait was worth it, but still somewhat unsatisfying. This featurette would've been a welcome change of pace for Woody at the time given that he hadn't made a flat-out silly comedy for a while and he manages to make good use of every moment. He has a great cast,(Kavner, Questral are particular standouts) and a genuinely strange premise to work with and the results are a riot, dare I say one of Woody's best. So what's so unsatisfying? As good as "Oedipus Wrecks" is , it still suffers because it has to follow Coppolla's god awful and charmless "Life Without Zoe." Seriously I had absolutely no clue what the hell was going on in this obnoxious, cutesy-poo clinker. Can anyone help me understand why Coppola thought anyone would like this? Sitting through "Zoe" is so emotionally draining that by the time you get to "Oedipus" you're too annoyed and confused to fully enjoy it. As a result Scorsese's "Life Lessons" comes off the best of the three. Nolte and Arquette are flawless and the intensity and friction between them make for an engaging if not distressingly tense 35 minutes.