This is the movie you wanted to buy back from the studio?
It doesn't really matter, and maybe that's why it makes such a noticible difference: "Annie Hall" was the first of an apparantly unconcious trilogy where Woody Allen, acting as a writer/director/actor ("Star Wa- oops!- DUST Memories" is the third: "Interiors" came out around the same time but is a very different non-animal and doesn't count) acceded -- in very different stages of reluctance -- his own attractiveness, brilliance and success in all realms of life.
But in "Manhattan," Allen dumps his editor?collaborator? Ralph Rosenblum and takes control in collaboration with maverick non-union non-recognized cinematographer Gordon Willis to make a very different film. Allen allows that the concept was to make a film in real wide-screen (aka "anamorphic") set in New York.
Unlike "Annie," this film is non-improvisational and supremely more stylish; and being filmed in widescreen black & white is by no means the greatest of the differences.
Meaner than "Annie's" breaking-the-fourth-wall snottiness, "Manhattan" honed a contempt for the delusional and self-hating inhabitants of its namesake into a screed in which even the judgemental character Allen plays (who lectures everyone -- especially himself) is scalded for having no business enjoying the magnificent vistas they cluelessly scamper through with as much appreciation as a yeti in the Serengheti.
Sorry. Great film, gorgeous cinematography (the first 10 min. are worth the price of the DVD alone), acting you won't even notice, it's so good, probably the best of any 10 films of the last 25 years, regardless of your opinion of Allen's life or personal crap.