Match Point

[jigzaw]

Unfortunately Woody is vehemently against extra features.

[Ravi]

SPOILERS



Most of the movie was engaging.  I was genuinely interested in the screwed up situation Chris got himself into.  Okay, so its not the most original story, but I felt the unfolding of the story was convincing enough.  But the film lost me when Chris gets a gun from the cabinet and goes to shoot Nola and her neighbor.  It occurred to me earlier in the film that he could kill Nola, but then I thought, "Naw, this film isn't going to go that way."  But as the film started to go there, I felt I was watching a plot formula had seen in other films.

The ending, with the detective and with Chris getting away with the crime felt rushed and by-the-numbers.  We think the detectives are close to nabbing Chris for the crime, but some lucky accident causes him to get off scot-free, at least for the time.  The Talented Mr. Ripley is probably the best modern film I've seen about someone getting deeper and deeper into a situation and then coming to a very disturbing end.

[matt35mm]

I saw this in January, and decided to rent it to make sure I still felt the same way.

I do.

I loved this movie.  I find it engrossing in every moment.  In watching it a second time, I noticed that all of the scenes are very short, and very to the point.  Each scene had its place, and was set up beautifully.  I found it to be so wonderfully constructed.  I love the main philosophical point, I love the style and feel of it, and I even love Rhys-Meyers and Scarlett's awkward acting (I found it fitting).  It may not emotionally resonate with me through the ages, but I still, after viewing it twice, regard it as a near-perfect and enthralling piece of work.  It'd be somewhere on my top 3 for 2005, if I ever bother to make a list.

[Pwaybloe]

...The Talented Mr. Ripley is probably the best modern film I've seen about someone getting deeper and deeper into a situation and then coming to a very disturbing end.

It's funny you said this, because when the character of Chris was being introduced, I said to myself, "Oh he's a Tom Ripley character."  It turned out I was wrong, but still felt Rhys-Meyers was awkwardly strange.  He never really fit the character that Woody Allen was trying to convey, at least to me.  The same goes for Scarlett.  Not the best casting for this one. 

As things moved along, I thought, "Oh, this is an abridged 'Crimes & Misdemeanor's."  And it was.  Even down to the talking apparitions substituting his conscience. 

Anyway, the movie was ok.  Not the most original.  Not Woody's best.  But still ok.

[picolas]

spoils

It's funny you said this, because when the character of Chris was being introduced, I said to myself, "Oh he's a Tom Ripley character."  It turned out I was wrong, but still felt Rhys-Meyers was awkwardly strange.  He never really fit the character that Woody Allen was trying to convey, at least to me.

yes. at first i thought he was being a little weird, then when the murder stuff began i thought the physcopathicness of the performance made sense. but THEN when he felt really bad about the murder i thought nothing in the writing really suggested he was psychopathic. aside from the murder, which is the one point (afterwards) where he seems human. the idea of this psychopath no one notices who methodically climbs the bourgeoisie ladder for the perks and really doesn't love anyone and murders to maintain his position and goes unnoticed is very interesting but i think unintentional. Allen didn't write it that way, and i'm not sure if Meyers meant to appear so psychopathic and socially methodical and joyless, because he kills to maintain the rich life.. so it's a miscast. but if Allen had noticed what the performance was i think he could've rewritten this into something way better.

[Gold Trumpet]

This has to be one of the worst Woody Allen films ever.

Its nothing new for Woody Allen to play homage in his work, but the homage here is dry. All sense of the enjoyment that comes with a Woody Allen film is not in Match Point. The homage here isn't even towards Hitchcock, its for Kieslowski. The theme is that luck and blind opportunities are our true saving graces. Hell, the film even uses the name of one of Kieslowski's films (Blind Chance) as a line to indicate the theme. The problem is by the 1990s even Kieslowski was having fun with his own themes. All Woody Allen can sum up to give us is a stuffy and bland 2 hour movie that does one jab at convention at the end and really gives us nothing we haven't seen before.

I remember observing the opening monologue of Match Point and thinking a second year film school student could have done that good to introduce a theme. The well is running very dry for Woody Allen. Melinda and Melinda was a turning point. It was the first time Woody Allen played homage to his own work. He merged his comedy and drama together in one film. Thing is, I think it was all he could do to make a complete film. His once writing talent no longer had the scrutiny to invent character for an entire feature length film. With Match Point, we see his writing scrutiny can't even invent a homage work the entire way through. The well runs even drier for Woody Allen.

[Split Infinitive]

This has to be one of the worst Woody Allen films ever.

Its nothing new for Woody Allen to play homage in his work, but the homage here is dry. All sense of the enjoyment that comes with a Woody Allen film is not in Match Point. The homage here isn't even towards Hitchcock, its for Kieslowski. The theme is that luck and blind opportunities are our true saving graces. Hell, the film even uses the name of one of Kieslowski's films (Blind Chance) as a line to indicate the theme. The problem is by the 1990s even Kieslowski was having fun with his own themes. All Woody Allen can sum up to give us is a stuffy and bland 2 hour movie that does one jab at convention at the end and really gives us nothing we haven't seen before.

I remember observing the opening monologue of Match Point and thinking a second year film school student could have done that good to introduce a theme. The well is running very dry for Woody Allen. Melinda and Melinda was a turning point. It was the first time Woody Allen played homage to his own work. He merged his comedy and drama together in one film. Thing is, I think it was all he could do to make a complete film. His once writing talent no longer had the scrutiny to invent character for an entire feature length film. With Match Point, we see his writing scrutiny can't even invent a homage work the entire way through. The well runs even drier for Woody Allen.

I'd say it's not one of the best, but definitely not one of the worst.  To me, Match Point was a great deal of fun.  The whole production had the feel of a filmmaking exercise, like Allen finally decided to just play with his camera and stretch his skills a little bit.  I'm not sure we're meant to take Match Point as seriously as a lot of people seem to be taking it -- that's why the glaring flaw in the gem is the dream sequence in which Allen can't resist spelling out the themes of his film for the blind and deaf people in the audience who had been playing PSP for the last hour and forty minutes.  Strangely, I agree entirely with your assessment of Melinda and Melinda, but I had fun watching it.  He was clearly at a turning point, paying homage to his own work, but at least he's stretching his muscles (as opposed to his previous several comedies, which retread the same, formerly golden, roads he paved with his earliest films).  The whole of Match Point seemed design entirely to evoke a mood that even Crimes and Misdemeanors, with its heavy-handed ruminating, didn't quite touch.  Match Point is crisp, ivory-textured, and thoroughly weighted with emptiness.  I rather enjoyed Rhys Meyers and Johansson for that reason.  The clunkiness in writing (the prologue and dream sequence in particular, plus some of the colloquialisms that make it evident Allen hasn't spent nearly enough time in London) again felt fresh to me, because he was just playing around and experimenting, like a college student trying to get a feel for his own voice.  The themes are old hat, maybe even juvenily (did I just invent an adverb?) obsessive, but his view on luck seems even more cynical than Kieslowski's -- it means less than nothing.  Kieslowski touched on a mystic nerve that suggested fatalism in his later work; here, Allen does just the opposite, though presenting it in an overwrought fashion that suggests fatalism.  To me, that seems to be his own little joke.  I wouldn't say I loved Match Point, but I wasn't entirely disappointed.  As flagpolespecial said, Match Point is a bit of a one-trick pony, but it's still a lovely beast.

[Gold Trumpet]

Matt, if this film was not made by Woody Allen, would you like it that much? Or is the film saved because it is made by Woody Allen and diversifies his already large body of work?

[Pozer]

Exactly.  This movie sucks.

[Split Infinitive]

Matt, if this film was not made by Woody Allen, would you like it that much? Or is the film saved because it is made by Woody Allen and diversifies his already large body of work?

I have no doubt about the fact that I wouldn't like it as much if it wasn't made by Woody Allen, but I would still feel it's a solid film.  After all, a few of your criticisms were rooted in Match Point's place in the context of his other work.  As a standalone film, it still doesn't quite cover new territory in the realm of cinema as a whole, but the technique on display is so refined, the themes so clearly drawn, that I can't help but appreciate it.  I also relished most of the performances, with Johansson being the odd woman out -- not that she stunk, but she sometimes seemed to be in a different movie.  (That's part of her allure, I guess, but it doesn't always work for me.)  A great deal of the dialogue flowed naturally -- even though it seemed more American than British -- and I love well-written dialogue.  The music choices also intrigued me.

I guess I am having trouble separating Match Point from Woody Allen, so I'm just rattling off a list of the film's good qualities, but I lose my ability to articulate their resonance by restricting my references to the man behind them.  The thing about Allen is that he is very emblematic of the auteur theory.  There are many directors, I'm sure, whose films both fit together as a whole and are equally interesting taken individually.  But one of Allen's hallmarks is that each of his films is distinctively his; that's one of the aspects of his work that I find appealing, that they seem to blur the line between the man with the camera and the man on-screen.  He deliberately blurred the line, yet insists that it's definite and sharp.  To me, that's a fascinating paradox, and one of the driving forces behind his work.  So when Match Point comes along with its CGI wedding band, British cast, and hermetic cinematography, I'm compelled to stack it up against everything else he's done.  As I said, I connected with its themes and most of its execution independent of the filmmaker... But I'm not sure I want to evaluate it on those terms.

[Gold Trumpet]

After all, a few of your criticisms were rooted in Match Point's place in the context of his other work.

I had to think about this film in the context of his other films. I really had to think about that while watching it. I had to because it was the only thing that kept me shutting the movie off. I understand your sympathies but this film really bored me. The elements don't even have to be breathtakingly new. The elements just have to be interesting. What you call Woody Allen having fun in Match Point I call him acting without inspiration.

[godardian]

Just curious.... how do people feel this stacks up to George Stevens's A Place in the Sun? Or, to go back to the real root source of both, Dreiser's American Tragedy? I have seen Stevens's film, which is very good in a completely different way than Match Point is very good, but haven't read the Dreiser.

[Split Infinitive]

I had to think about this film in the context of his other films. I really had to think about that while watching it. I had to because it was the only thing that kept me shutting the movie off. I understand your sympathies but this film really bored me. The elements don't even have to be breathtakingly new. The elements just have to be interesting. What you call Woody Allen having fun in Match Point I call him acting without inspiration.

Well, as you said about Melinda and Melinda, it's as if he finally ran out of territory to explore, so he just decided to make a more detailed map of the territory.  I can't really argue with the basic gut reaction of boredom any more than I suppose you could argue with the basic gut reaction of enjoyment.  If there were more at stake, I suppose I'd try, but Match Point isn't a career highlight.  Now, on the other hand, if you started taking potshots at Manhattan... 

[1976]

terrific film. the ending was spectacular. considering the crime, is it wrong that I wanted this character to get away with it? I even got pissed during the ring-tossing scene as i assumed it would be the downfall, but Woody spun the situation around beautifully.

[©brad]

yeah that's great.

say, don't you think it's about time for an avatar change?