2 of 2

"Shtick," by the way, is the best word for this film. Scoop is reminiscent of several of Woody Allen's films, but in a strange way, it harks back to films that were neither great nor lousy—and like those films, it is an enjoyable diversion, at least for those who are already fans of the Woodman. Some critics have complained that Scoop squanders the goodwill that Allen earned with the oh-so-serious Match Point, but I found that film disappointing and even a bit pretentious, whereas Scoop is exactly the sort of light fluff that it aspires to be. Or, to play on the title, it goes down easy like a scoop of ice cream, even if it's more like the soft stuff you get at McDonald's and not like a good helping of Breyer's. Scoop may not be as funny as Bullets over Broadway, which for my money is the best live-action Allen film of the post-Mia Farrow era, but it is also not as dull or tedious as some of his other films.

1. In at least one of his other films, Woody Allen says he doesn't laugh in the face of Death; instead, he makes belittling remarks behind Death's back. What do you make of this film's portrayal of Death (the Grim Reaper on the boat, etc.)? Is it just a joke, or is there a serious point to it? If there is a serious point, what is it
2. Do you think Sondra does the ethical thing by pursuing the mystery herself, instead of giving her tip to the police? Do you think she could have done anything differently, given how she came by her information in the first place
3. Do you think it is possible to receive messages from the dead? Why or why not? Are there any limitations on how we could, or should, receive such messages? Do you think the dead are all that interested in the concerns of our world?

Scoop is rated PG-13 for some sexual content. Sondra sleeps with a filmmaker she is trying to interview, and she later sleeps with a man she suspects might be a serial killer, but nothing is shown except bare shoulders over blankets. The story involves an unidentified serial killer; the only onscreen murder attempt is not graphic.

Photos © Copyright Focus Features

© Peter T. Chattaway 2006, subject to licensing agreement with Christianity Today International. All rights reserved. Click for reprint information.

Woody Allen enjoyed a return to critical acclaim last year with the troubling drama Match Point. Now, with Scoop, he's back in the territory of light comedy.

Scarlett Johansson stars as Sondra Pransky, a journalism student from the U.S. who encounters a ghost in London and learns crucial clues in tracking a serial killer. She teams up with a magician called Splendini (Allen), and gets to know an aristocrat named Peter Lyman (this year's busiest actor: Hugh Jackman.) With such an appealing cast, Allen has managed to score another hit with the critics, even if many of them do identify it as rather derivative of his previous work.

Frederica Matthewes-Green (Frederica.com, originally published in The National Review) says, "Scoop slips." She says it's "not very funny" and "not very suspenseful," and argues that Allen is repeating himself. "Perhaps he is searching for inspiration by asking himself which of his films got the best reviews, or gave him the most satisfaction. But films like this one only bring down his average from excellent to so-so."

Harry Forbes (Catholic News Service) disagrees, saying, "Shooting in the United Kingdom has given Woody Allen an artistic shot in the arm, and so it is that Scoop, the lightweight but entertaining follow-up to the excellent drama Match Point, proves another winner."

Christian Hamaker (Crosswalk) calls it "a dialogue-heavy comedy that runs out of gas long before it reaches the finish line. It's essentially two people talking, then three people talking—but it's only fitfully amusing." He does, however, praise Hugh Jackman's performance.

For the most part, mainstream critics enjoyed this Scoop.

Bob Hoose (Plugged In) says, "Scoop is a somewhat rare commodity in today's cinema world. It's a PG-13 comedy that veers away from gross toilet humor and blow-out-all-the-stops sexuality, relying instead on an old-school comedy staple: jokes. It's a middling-paced, middle-of-the-road romp that knows it's a lightweight bag of farcical rim-shots, and knows that you know it, too." But he's not pleased with the "occasional mystical/crystal ball-esque references and the breezy sexual attitude of the story's central character."

first page |  2 of 2