Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

ellisrquinn I may have an unpopular opinion on this, but this is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I'm not criticising you for enjoying this film, as humour is subjective and some people like Woody Allen's style. But for me this film is bland both comedicly, Narrativley and Visually. I feel like I need to talk about how much of a disaster this film was.Although the sped up fight scenes are a decent homage to the Chaplin Era comedy; I found the scenes overly long, Pointless and annoying. These scenes did not create humour and stuck out like a sore thumb. They seemed to incorrectly Juxtapose the other styles In this film.The humour only managed to make me laugh a few times, as a few rare jokes were quite clever. Other jokes were delivered incredibly poorly by the actors, or the jokes were terrible, so the lines had no comedic effect at all. The delivery and presentation of the humour mostly failed.The visual style is bland and boring. It's not terrible, it's just mediocre and not very inventive. It follows the boring shot, reverse shot format. However, there is one scene with an interesting style (The Cinema scene).The story is very unspecial, it's basically just your average dystopian future (with only a few interesting ideas). Also several parts of this film are completely pointless; and if they were to be removed, nothing would have changed. There is a whole ten minute section where the main character is brain washed, only for it to be reversed minutes later. Thre is also a part when the main Character climbs out a window for no reason at all, only just to go back around into the room he climed into. The main plot only begins to happen in the final act, meaning that the first tow acts were entirely pointless filler. The pacing in this film is also terrible throughout the whole film.Overall this film is a complete waste of time. It is boring and unfunny. I feel like it failed in everthing it attemted. Some people may like this, but in my opinion, don't even waste your time watching it.

vincentgeorge-98430 Sleeper is a great comedy science fiction- a sub- genre which barely has any recommendations. Set in a future with Government oppression Woody Allen plays his usual neurotic self and is ably supported by a gorgeous Diane Keaton. Sleeper is one of the most underrated Allen films and there is no reason why you shouldn't see this one.

Kev11sky I recently watched this film again, in this futuristic year 2015. (My mind is comprised of its own original thinking parts).This film has all kinds of current themes about time travel, artificial humanoids, synthetic intelligence, worldwide corporate/government control, identity, media influence, cultural change, and so on and on.Much of it resembles recent sci-fi tropes in movies and TV... mixed with Woody Allen's satiric and slapstick comedy, and Diane Keaton's wonderful acting.I wonder if Philip K. Dick ever saw this film.I wonder what is meant by "sexual nightmares"... And what is "Aries Day"?? Could it be the actuation of fast CLONING of the Great Leader himself? Along with his nose?

lasttimeisaw "What happened to her face?", about 38 minutes into this Woody Allen Sci-fi parody SLEEPER, audience can distinctly notice there is something drooping on the left cheek of Luna (Keaton), a make-up goof? How come this scene has been kept in the final editing? Nobody knows but Allen himself. From this angle, it actually bespeaks the half-hearted style of the movie and declares "don't take me too seriously please!". In retrospect SLEEPER doesn't stand out among Allen's works, but indeed it is the watershed in his career since afterward (from LOVE & DEATH, 1975) his films has matured into a realm with a more sophisticated and judicious calibre about urbanite relationship philosophy which modern viewers are more familiar with, other than his earlier light-hearted and sex-obsessed farces launch his long-lasting career. Also simply the idea of Woody Allen directs a Sci-fi movie alone sounds inviting enough for me.Woody Allen is Miles Monroe, a store owner and divorcée in 1973, being revived out of cryostasis after 200 years, where autocracy has dumbed down human's intelligence. When he is on the lam as an alien wanted by the government, he meets Luna Schlosser, a well- behaved citizen, a self-claimed poet with a degree in oral sex, Miles falls for her, and together, they will eventually sabotage a final attempt of cloning the dictator from his nose, the last remnant of his body. Although only possessing a shoestring budget, Allen constructs the future-world with a strong influence of futurism, although the settings look chintzy in sight by today's standards, the film does stick with its wack-a-doodle mockery right from Monroe is awaken from his aluminum wrap, with many homages and references to past screen classics, theatrical pieces and slapstick burlesques. Sex is the unalterable wont in Allen's mindset, as he emphasises in the coda, sex and death are the only things he believes in. The most ridiculous props are the pleasure orb and the sex booth where two people can achieve orgasm in 10 seconds, Monroe has tried once, not with Luna, but with himself. The quarrelsome mode of Allen and Keaton forms a nice congruity which would later stride on to perfection in ANNIE HALL (1977, 9/10). Escorting the screwball plot is the ragtime score composed by Allen himself, a suitable company as Miles is an amateur musician in a jazz band too, altogether SLEEPER is definitely undemanding in viewers' brainpower to grasp its mockery of superficiality and social politics, but an insouciant cruise in a meaningless fiction, sometimes one might feel too silly to be keen on what is materialising on the screen, unfortunately that is not a sign of a great film in my book.