Match Point

Review 1 of 11

thefly119 writes:

3of 4 Stars

Mild thumbs up. Fun and sexy story. One problem though, as beautiful as Johansson is she really can't act. It is hard (for me)not to see her as a really good looking person just reciting lines. I don't believe her in this movie, she just doesn't do it for me as an actor.

Sep 2, 2006 12:33:26

Review 2 of 11

blast28 writes:

1of 4 Stars

Woody Allen is like old milk in the refrigerator. He's long past his expiration date -- but nobody throw him out. They just keep on opening him up, taking a whiff, realizing how bad he stinks, and then they put him back.

Same goes with Match Point. I don't give a damn who says this movie is good -- they're lying. Utterly cliched, predictable, wooden, and overly contrived -- this movie is like swimming in a baby pool - you can't go beyond shallow. I found it painful to endure -- especially the two-dimensional performances of Jonathan Rhys-Myers and Scarlett Johannson. In short, they were terrible. And I don't mean this in a "I-don't-like-these-actors" terrible. I mean, quite simply -- bad.

Woody's writing was painful. I'm amazed anyone will write a check for this clown to continue embarrassing himself. But then again, I guess there are people who loved sniffing old milk. Just ask Madonna.

Jul 8, 2006 14:26:51

Review 3 of 11

rsadg writes:

1of 4 Stars

Devastating disappointment. Woody Allen churned out the same film as Crimes and Misdemeanors with a younger generation of actors. It seems he has nothing else in him to say. When a filmmaker revisits the same issues of lust and murder without any real ability for human connection, he finally makes a statement about his life. The redundancy and the revisiting of issues speaks volumes. And I have been a Woody Allen fan in the past because of his art, not his life. Big disappointment. Same Dosteyevsky story with a metaphor about a tennis ball. Big dissapointing deal.

Jun 22, 2006 23:14:50

Review 4 of 11

Leida writes:

3of 4 Stars

Tennis, a simple game…A winner one loser. Woody Allen suggests that life is not all that different to a game of tennis. Where sheer luck is the main contributing factor to the major events in our life. This film is provocative, captivating and disturbingly fascinating all at once.

From the start what appears to be a predictable romantic entwinement with two women. for Chris, the morally devoid and dangerously ambitious turns becomes more than he can handle. He feels he has no options left and he can’t see a way out of the situation. You grow to hate him as a character for his selfish and cold nature.

The sequence of events in this film is something that I don’t think could be improved on. The suspense that builds throughout the film is done masterfully and the ending is anything but predictable. This film is destined to become a timeless story of passion, ambition and most of all luck.

May 8, 2006 10:13:18

Review 5 of 11

francobina writes:

4of 4 Stars

I thought this film was awesome. A sum, as they say, much
richer than the parts. Many people seem to have a problem
with this or that aspect of the film, whether it be the acting of
Rhys Meyers or Scarlet Johannsson, or the tiny pin pricks in
the plot [or guns blasts as watduino seems to feel] it didn’t
matter to me because this film got under my skin big time
and I’m now doing what I never would have dreamed of doing
before and publishing some of my feelings about the film. I
agree with watduino that it is ridiculous to think no one heard
the blasts and that no one sees him leave { well he does bump
into someone on the way out} and that he throws the jewelry
into the Thames in full view; but all these ‘mistakes’ by the
Chris only added excitement for me because you had to
wonder if this what how he was going to get caught – oh,
yeah what about the scenes with the shot gun case – stuffing
the jewelry into his pocket – this only added wads of tension
during the next scene where Chloe announces her pregnancy
culminating in the call from the police. Allen just builds and
builds the tension beautifully. The work of a master I think.
All this was intentional on Allen’s part. As to the probability of
all this I fully believed that Chris was that lucky. To me it’s
like life. In a busy city you tend to ignore stuff that doesn’t
involve you. Loud sounds could be anything. You got to get
to work or to that show so you keep walking. People walking
out of buildings with bags – Hell I wouldn’t give it a second
thought. Throwing stuff into the river. ‘the guy must be a
wacko – all the more reason to ingnore him. Maybe too much
American TV and Film have trained us to think that everyone
is on the lookout for clues and that the slip ups will reap
rewards in the form of justice. Not a chance in this film. The
epitome of this is the subplot of the cop who figures it all out.
Brilliant.

Apr 4, 2006 07:43:31

Review 6 of 11

ebhp writes:

1of 4 Stars

Show anyone off the street this movie without telling them it was directed by Woody Allen, and 95% of them would leave the theater by the mid-way point. Convoluted, transparent, contrived, and at least 30 minutes too long, this movie was an exercise in frustration rather than the cinematic masterpiece so many people are claiming it to be.

I've seen soap operas better than this drivel.

ebhp

Feb 4, 2006 22:43:07

Review 7 of 11

watduino writes:

2of 4 Stars

I'm a long-time fan of Woody Allen's films, and I wanted to like this film, but I find I have several problems with it, some big, some small. One of the big ones is what I think of as the miscasting of the lead. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is amazingly handsome and smooth, but ultimately unconvincing. In his sex scenes with Scarlett Johansson, he's supposed to be the agressor, but all the heat is coming from her. He huffs and puffs like a couch potato on a treadmill, but just ends up looking like an actor pretending to have sex.

Another big problem is the ridiculous murder, in which we are asked to believe that no one hears two shotgun blasts, several minutes apart, in the middle of densely-populated London...no one sees him departing with a large bag after the afore-mentioned blasts...he throws the jewelry into the Thames in the middle of the day in full view of dozens of people on the nearby bridge...etc. etc. I know this is supposed to be about luck, but really! At the screening I attended, people were laughing out loud...I don't think that's what Allen was aiming for...or was he?

Two smaller but still annoying problems: First, I spotted the microphone in at least three scenes...if Allen is such a detail-freak, why can't he keep the blinkin' mike out of his shots? And second, why were both operas at what I assume is supposed to be Covent Garden accompanied by piano alone, not orchestra? Since when does the Royal Opera put on full-length operas without an orchestra? Little things, but jarring in what is generally hailed as an example of Allen's obsessive-compulsive directing style.

Lastly, I don't understand so many comments about this being such a big departure for Allen. Aside from the London location, the themes of obsession, guilt, and the role of luck in life were handled much more convincingly, brilliantly in fact, in 1989's "Crimes and Misdemeanors."

-- waduino

Jan 28, 2006 09:57:22

Review 8 of 11

justagirl1019 writes:

2of 4 Stars

The main allure of this film is Allen's desire to branch out from routine. Though the overall feel is very theatric, the film does not deliver it's main points with as much swiftness as it may have potentialy been done. Though setting the film in England delivers a certain eloquence and helps drive the "high society" ambience home, the film plot may have been nothing more than Lifetime channel-esque otherwise. The movie was very drawn out, yet manages to lack in character development which is very unlike Allen (comedies & dramas alike). It is unsure whether or not this was Allen's intention; to create unsympathetic characters even when there were certain points in the film where the characters beg for it. Not to mention Allen's choice, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, as the lead, acting skills in which have yet to be determined. The direction of the film definitely keeps the audience on its toes with constant twists and turns but strangely has a certain predictability to it as a whole. As a typical Woody Allen film, the sights and sounds are simply breath-taking and Allen's effort to his new style and direction should definitely receive an honorable mention. I'm not saying I didn't like it...I just didn't love it.

Jan 20, 2006 07:11:01