Bananas

This is one of Woody Allen's earliest movies, and I'd rank it probably 2nd out of his pre-Annie Hall movies, only behind Love and Death. It's certainly one of his funniest. The plot is pretty ridiculous (a neurotic product tester goes to the fictional San Marcos and ends up joining the rebels and eventually becoming president), but it's really secondary, and only serves to provide transitions from one comedy skit to another. It's pretty much a hit and miss movie, but when he hits (which is more often than not), it's very funny. There are plenty of hilarious one liners throughout. The music is very cheesy as well, but it fits in well with the silly humor. Obviously, this isn't like Woody's later movies, just take it for what it is -- a silly comedy -- and I don't think you'll be disappointed. Also of note, the opening credits are very funny and rivals Monty Python and the Holy Grail for best opening credits sequence.

Bananas_720p(480P)

Trailer—Bananas

Bananas

Stupid, inane Woody Allen vehicle where he spoofs revolutions in Central America, love relationships and assortment of other topics. Problem is that he tries to blend too much in and as a result this film has problems. Woody is always so interested in philosophy. It seems to be a constant theme in it. He should have stayed in college and majored in it. Louise Lasser, who had divorced Allen in 1969, should have broken all ties with him before making this 1971 film. She is silly and the rebel with a cause in all liberal undertakings. How Allen thinks that leading a revolution with UJA officials running with the revolutionists is ridiculous at best. This obnoxious scene doesn't even dignify a response from the viewers. Howard Cosell and Roger Grimsby are along for the ride as the play themselves as commentators on this nonsense. Real schlock at best!

This is one of Woody Allen's earliest movies, and I'd rank it probably 2nd out of his pre-Annie Hall movies, only behind Love and Death. It's certainly one of his funniest. The plot is pretty ridiculous (a neurotic product tester goes to the fictional San Marcos and ends up joining the rebels and eventually becoming president), but it's really secondary, and only serves to provide transitions from one comedy skit to another. It's pretty much a hit and miss movie, but when he hits (which is more often than not), it's very funny. There are plenty of hilarious one liners throughout. The music is very cheesy as well, but it fits in well with the silly humor. Obviously, this isn't like Woody's later movies, just take it for what it is -- a silly comedy -- and I don't think you'll be disappointed. Also of note, the opening credits are very funny and rivals Monty Python and the Holy Grail for best opening credits sequence.

"Bananas" shows why Woody Allen's early movies were far better. He plays Fielding Mellish, a products tester who is wishing that he had stayed in college ("I was taking black studies. I could be black!") After a brief fling with political activist Nancy (Louise Lasser), who is trying to restore democracy in the Latin American country of San Marcos (the movie begins with Howard Cosell hosting a "live, on-the-spot assassination" there). After she leaves him, he decides to go to San Marcos, where he gets involved with the revolutionary forces. Following the revolution's success, the leader installs some loony policies, and the US arrests Mellish for aiding the revolution. What follows shows the meaning of the expression "trial and error"! Allen truly reached his apex with this movie. It's just one crazy thing after another, namely when Mellish and the revolutionaries buy lunch. Sylvester Stallone, in an early role, plays one of the hoodlums on the subway.

When a bumbling New Yorker (Woody Allen) is dumped by his activist girlfriend, he travels to a tiny Latin American nation and becomes involved in its latest rebellion. Woody Allen's third film, as well as his third and last with co-writer Mickey Rose. Although Allen may be the more familiar name of the two, Rose actually had a very impressive career: after this film, he became a regular writer for the Johnny Carson show. This is the young, energetic Woody, the one who is a bit more zany than he went on to become, with more stuttering and not quite the level of verbosity he achieved by the 1970s. Definitely some golden years for the man, and a period his fans love. What is interesting is how this film predates the Reagan years by quite a bit, and even predates most of the 1970s. Were people in 1971 thinking after left-leaning revolutionaries in South America? Perhaps not, but it is something that has only grown in years, making the film somehow more relevant.