BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Match Point

 
 
mtheory
18:50 / 01.12.05
Has anyone seen this movie? I'm not a big Woody Allen fan...but I love Scarlett Johansson...
 
 
FinderWolf
19:11 / 01.12.05
It seems it's getting consistently good reviews across the board -- but it's so new that I don't think many have seen it yet. Or has it not even come out yet?

Buzz at various film festivals is that it's Woody Allen's strongest film in years.

And of course, it has Scarlett in it.
 
 
Hieronymus
19:11 / 01.12.05
Eh? What's it about?
 
 
mtheory
20:53 / 01.12.05
Love triangle set in London and maybe some tennis thrown in...?
 
 
sleazenation
21:09 / 01.12.05
Anything to do with Wimbledon?
 
 
Spaniel
22:07 / 01.12.05
Don't know too much about the movie - trying to avoid spoilers - but two of my friends saw it when they were in Madrid a couple of weeks ago. They loved it, which is good news because these are people, like me, that love Woody when he's on form, and people whose opinions I really trust.

Happy happy.
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
23:18 / 01.12.05
Have you people seen the trailer? Hard core fuck-thriller. Written & Directed by Woody Allen.

This movie am not made by Woody Allen. Bad reviews from nobody.
 
 
mtheory
04:53 / 02.12.05
Hard core fuck-thriller? Hmm..interesting. I guess I'll have to get that innocent version of Ms. Johannson from Lost In Translation out of my mind when I watch Match Point..lol
 
 
FinderWolf
12:49 / 22.12.05
OK, so I saw this...pretty good overall. Doesn't really feel at all like a Woody Allen film for the most part, except for a few lines here and there and scenes of the wealthy having lunch in lavish rooms making Robert Altman-esque overlapping 'idle rich' cocktail conversation. And I'm a Woody Allen fan - but a fan who feels that Woody's been rather off his game for a while.

What is refreshing is that it's a very quiet, intense film...and the lead actor is very much NOT your typical Woody Allen male lead. He's not playing "The Woody role," in other words - unless it's the lying, scheming, manipulating, desperately selfish part of Woody. Brian Cox (of X2 fame) is here doing nice stuff as a high-class father, actually all the actors do a fine job. Scarlett is beautiful and sexy, yes, but also really gets the desperate, totally neurotic, lost, needy, completely dysfunctional aspects of her character. At times I found myself thinking 'wow, this is the same girl who was the quiet subdued type in Lost in Translation.'

The film goes in directions I didn't honestly expect it to go, especially with a title that suggests a lighter romantic comedy. I won't do spoilers here, but let's just say in many ways, it reminded me of a sort of remake of "Crimes and Misdemeanors" but with an even worse lying, cheating character a la Iago.

The movie is sometimes ham-handed in the way it says 'this is a sweeping tragedy!' by having the lead character talk about how much he loves tragedy, doesn't believe in God, there is no justice, no order, etc. and then having opera soundtrack of tragic operas during suitable scenes, but even so, the opera during the super-dramatic scenes still worked and tugged at my heartstrings.

Since the thesis of the film is that there is no God, no justice, no order to the universe anywhere to be found, it's all luck. Everything is luck and if you have the bad fortune to be very unlucky, you're just screwed. Sometimes it's also ham-handed because we get that this is the thesis of the film, and long after we've gotten that, characters talk about luck and how important it is to be lucky. We see in the way scenes play out how one character or another avoids or incurs disaster by just being lucky or unlucky.

At times I felt like this thesis is a bit tiresome, like a moody teenager dressed all in black who goes around repeating "there is no God, no order, no justice...the universe is black empty nothingness, all chaos, all luck, no order at all..." But I have to say, as a quiet, intense character piece, the film really works. And I liked that almost none of the lines sounded like "Woody Allen lines." Also, there are almost no jokes in the entire film.
 
 
Tits win
21:20 / 06.01.06
Yeah, good, solid stuff. I reckon with a bit more effort, and attempts to tie the overall tone down to one thing, it could have been fantastic.

But as is, it's hard not to like it. Woody has done well.

Rhys Myers effected-British accent was a bit shit at times though. And some of the dialouge was a bit dodge. One more concentrated edit and I'd probably have no complaints at all. And GOD how sexy is Scarlett in this? Don't agree that she got the neurotic down though, not enough, anyway. I found Myers character arc a bit unonvincing, therefore.
 
 
Harhoo
08:14 / 19.01.06
For me, Woody Allen's always been a great filmmaker, rather than a maker of great films. Even his best works are far from flawless and even the (ever-lengthening list of) worst have their good bits. And for a bloke who appears not to direct, he can get some great performances.

Matchpoint, however, is just, well, odd and apart from the very opening sequence and a matching bit at the end isn't really like an Allen film at all. The plotting is perfunctory, the script is drab and the main character is daftly unrealistic, poorly stitched together and played by somebody who really can't act but does at least resemble a better-looking Will Young.

Don't think there are any good lines in it whatsoever, but there are a whole lot of bad ones. The film drags horrendously in the middle as well, with a dull half-an-hour or so while we sit around waiting for the (tortuously foreshadowed ('We had a very interesting conversation about Dostoevsky' indeed)) endgame to kick in. It also made me stop fancying Scarlett Johansson, which is odd.

The redeeming features are GRATE performances by Emily Mortimer and Matthew Goode (who I haven't a clue about but is the best thing in the film by a long way) and a decent double act between Ewen Bremner and James Nesbitt, which doesn't really fit in with the rest but provides the few (intentional) laughs.

Oh, and if you're the sort of person who says stuff like "And how can she afford that flat?", "And why would posh people who regularly attend the opera all have a mad love for Andrew Lloyd Webber?", "And why not get somebody who even vaguely knows about tennis to have a look at lines such as 'Who was the best? Henman or Agassi?'" then your head may actually explode.
 
 
PatrickMM
20:01 / 25.01.06
I saw it yesterday. It's good on the whole, but definitely drags at times. I knew the basics, but there were some well done, surprising plot twists, it's just it took too long to get to them. The lead character's not particularly likable, which was interesting, because it makes us sympathetic towards all the characters who get victimized in the film, while still having a vague desire for our main character to get away with everything, precisely because if he didn't, it would cause even more pain for the people who are actually likable.

And side note, is it a requirement that a song be recorded on a scratchy record to be used in a Woody Allen soundtrack?

And final note, if you're thinking of seeing this, read as little about it as possible and don't watch the trailer.
 
 
FinderWolf
20:37 / 25.01.06
>> And side note, is it a requirement that a song be recorded on a scratchy record to be used in a Woody Allen soundtrack?

Basically.
 
 
Harhoo
09:10 / 26.01.06
>>And side note, is it a requirement that a song be recorded on a scratchy record to be used in a Woody Allen soundtrack?

Philthy filistine that I am, the scratchy opera actually made me long for the scratchy jazz of films past. And I'm pretty sure I never thought that would happen.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:22 / 26.01.06
I've been informed that anyone who lives in London will take against this film. Specifically the bit where girl-with-not-much-money looks out of the window across... wait for it... Kensington.
 
 
X-Himy
12:12 / 26.01.06
I thought that all the actors playing characters with an accent (I am American natch) did wonderful. The shooting during various scenes of seduction played wonderfully. But then there is Scarlett. Don't get me wrong, she radiated sex, and had a screen prescence that burned my retinas. And physically, she delivered her lines. But verbally, her delivery sank like a stone. The only time I believed one whit of her verbal delivery was when she starts getting a little screamy. But otherwise her voice was practically monotone.

I also felt that some of the dialogue was uneeded exposition, like Woody didn't feel that he could trust the audience. There was nothing particularly confusing or muddled about the film, and I could have done without these explanations. The... (SPOILER ALERT)











ghost scene at the end was uneeded. It felt unauthentic, and just another excuse to go to exposition land with the character's motivations. That said, unlike Spider-Man 2, when I was trying to figure out if I could strangle myself with my own intestines, it was not as bad. Plus it gave a funny interlude when the cop woke up.





SPOILER OVER







I don't know what it is about Woody Allen movies, but I feel every damn minute. Not that this is a bad thing. But Annie Hall, which I love is only 70 minutes or so. And after watching it the first time, I would have sworn it was two hours. Watching Match Point dragged a bit at the end, but only because Woody was too busy increasing the tension by grabbing me at the nuts.
 
  
Add Your Reply