Customer Reviews

Match Point

5 star:		(105)
4 star:		(75)
3 star:		(52)
2 star:		(29)
1 star:		(23)

 

 

MATCH POINT is considered by some to be a departure for Woody Allen, due largely to its setting and its few oddities that can sometimes be an annoying Allen trademark. Yet it is also a well acted and well developed film that would be reminiscent for some of films such as ANNIE HALL. In order to know for sure, a person has to see it to decide and it's certainly worth seeing.

The film tells the story of Chris Wilton, and Irish born tennis player who realizes there's only so far his game will take him, so he takes a job as a tennis pro hoping to make a connection with London's upper class. His charm and ability ensure this will happen. He meets a client Tom Hewett, the son of a powerful business leader. Wilton marries Tom's sister, endears himself to his in-laws, and has a passionate affair with Nola, Tom's fiancé then later ex-girlfriend. Much of the film focuses on the ways in which Wilton goes to great lengths to cover up his affair.

The actors fit their roles well. Chris Wilton is played masterfully by Irish born Jonathan Rhys Meyers. Rhys Meyers has the look of someone who would fit into British upper class circles, and he comes across less as an imposter and more as a climber. Rhys Meyers, who is familiar to many who saw the film BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM, again an Irish lad trying to make it in England, albeit in very different circles, demonstrates he's a believable and versatile actor. Scarlet Johansson plays the American actress Nola, likewise gives a phenomenal performance. The Hewett Family: Brian Cox as father Alec, Penelope Wilton as mother Eleanor, Mathew Goode as Tom and Emily Mortimer as Chris' wife Chloe seem like British aristocrats, oblivious to all that is happening round them, yet believable too. Perhaps one of the films strengths is the fact that the Hewetts are oblivious to Chris' scheming and climbing, and that Chris is not a character whose controlled by ambition as much as his desire not to loose the good life he's created for himself.

My guess is that since MATCH POINT was nominated for several Golden Globe Awards and will likely be nominated for Academy Awards too, people will take notice of this film. One of our local newspapers praised MATCH POINT because it was a Woody Allen film that was not typical Allen fare. Another paper praised it because it is so Woody Allen, but set in London rather than New York. The long and the short of it is, chances are you'll enjoy this film whether you like Woody Allen or not.

MOVIE: Do you ever sit and watch a movie and try and guess the ending? Do you ever try and guess what direction a film is going? Well, I dare you to try and guess this film's outcome, go ahead, I dare you. Match Point is Woody Allen's character study as to how luck plays a role in our lives. Match Point opens appropriately enough with a sideline view of a tennis ball going back and forth across the net in slow motion. The narrator is the voice of the main character, Chris, played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers. He describes the game of tennis as luck, that once in a while the ball will hit the net. The frame then freezes as the ball hits the net, and he describes that luck determines which side of the net the ball will fall. Chris, who is an all-pro tennis player, decides to step down from playing and takes up teaching for awhile while he decides what he wants to do with his life. His latest student, Tom, shares a passion of opera with him and invites him to his family's balcony seats. There he meets Tom's sister, and he falls in love with her. However, he soon meets Nola, a beautiful woman who lures him in with her eyes. He soon finds out that Nola is Tom's soon to be wife. This is the film as it seems. Chris begins to have an affair with Nola, and after she breaks up with Tom they continue to romance without the knowledge of Tom's family. He gets married to Tom's sister and they are now expecting a child, his father in-law lands him a dream job at one of his corporations. Yet, it is still the lure of the temptress that calls to him. Woddy Allen sets up a dilemma for our main character that raises the question between love and lust, and luck and fate. While you may expect this film to be lustful drama, you have no idea where Allen takes you next. The brilliant aspect of the film, is that there is no score. I hate films without a score, I think music is 50% of a film's emotional effect on the audience, but where there is no original score there is opera. Allen uses opera to structure the scenes, since it is the one thing that ties Chris to the family. The opera changes in tone and emotion as the scene does, so it works to perfection. The film is interesting, you may find yourself debating about what happens in the end, but you realize it all ties in with what this movie is about. The film plot is something that you'd expect from Hitchcock, and it is a savory one at that. The movie is entertaining and thought provoking even if it doesn't seem plausible at times.

ACTING: Jonathan Rhys-Meyers does a superb job even though I think some of his dialogue seems stilted, but he's not to blame for that. He does a fantatsic job with what Woody Allen gives him. Scarlett Johansson is perfectly cast as the temptress, and she even gives her somewhat commercial character a human side as well. Great acting, even though the dialogue is stilted at times.

BOTTOM LINE: The film will lead you one way only to make a sharp left and take you where you wouldn't expect. You have no idea what's coming, and I dare you to guess the ending before it starts to unfold. The film is intelligent and an interesting watch, but it really doesn't boast any technical highlights. Cinematography is nothing to get excited over, but it's one doozy of a screenplay.

In a year where box office failures and special effects ruled the theater, Woody Allen fills a large void with the seductive and stunning film Match Point. It is stylish noir, the tale of an inadvertent social climber falling deep into a passionate affair that threatens to destroy the world of priviledge and money he has fallen into.

Chris Wilton (Johnathan Rhys-Meyers), a young tennis pro from humble Irish backgrounds, takes a job at a posh London tennis club where his fascination with art, literature, and opera quickly leads him into a friendship with wealthy socialite Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode). Quickly he meets Tom's sister Chloe (Emily Mortimer) who shares his passions for culture and whose doting attention he enjoys. Chloe is the type of woman you marry, but Tom's fiancee, Nola Rice (Scarlett Johannsen) is the kind of woman you lust after. Sexy, seductive, and passionate, she is the symbol of everything Chris wants but hasn't achieved. Marrying Chloe, Chris moves up the social ladder, gaining wealth, success, and money. The one thing he still desires, however, is Nola. Chris begins a pursuit of Nola with a passion bordering on the obsessive, one that is matched by her own dark intensity. That mutual obsession plunges Chris down the darkest possible path, threatening his new life, forcing him to take an action which could have shattering consequences.

Match Point is a film that surprises. Allen has created a world that while reminiscent of his earlier films, has a unique life and vitality of its own. The acting performances are superb, especially Johannsen and Mortimer. This film is what good moviemaking should be, full of character, tension, passion, and allure. This is what so many of us hope for in the theater, and Woody Allen has delivered it. Sadly this release of the DVD does not do the film justice. This is a bare bones release, so if you loved this film like I did, you are better suited to wait a few more months for a packed special edition. Highly recommened film, not highly recommended DVD version.

Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys Meyers), a former tennis pro, takes a job at an exclusive club in London, teaching the well-to-do. There, he meets Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode), the son of a rich businessman and they strike up a friendship. Tom learns of Chris' love for opera and offers him an extra ticket for the next show allowing Chris to meet the entire Hewett family; sister Chloe (Emily Mortimer, "Dear Frankie"), "Poppa" Alec (Brian Cox) and mother (Penelope Wilton, "Pride and Prejudice"). Chloe and Chris plan a date and soon become inseparable leading her to ask Poppa to find a position for Chris in one of his companies. Alec wholeheartedly agrees and Chris is soon the head of a division, spending weekends at the Hewett country estate and shagging Chloe on his sleeper sofa. Then, Chris meets Nola (Scarlet Johannson), Tom's American fiancée. They flirt and begin an affair. Chris and Chloe are soon married and move into a fantastic loft on the South Bank. But as Chris becomes more and more comfortable in his life with Chloe, and her father's money, his relationship with Nola spins out of control, threatening his newfound security.

This is just a small portion of the plot for the new film "Match Point". I remember clearly the first time I saw the trailer and the reaction when it was revealed as a Woody Allen film. There were a couple of audible "whoa"s in the audience. Everything in the trailer was different from anything we had ever seen in an Allen film before; hints of a torrid love affair, the predominantly British cast and setting, the dramatic overtones with little evidence of comedy, hints at possible violence. In short, it surprised everyone. It surprised me. After almost a decade of slogging through mediocre films like "Small Time Crooks" and truly bad, bad films like "Curse of the Jade Scorpion", "Melinda and Melinda" (shudder!), and "Anything Else" (double shudder!!), my patience as a die hard Woody Allen fan was sorely tested. The trailer peaked my curiosity. Is it possible? Could he have made another great film? Something so different from his previous works to respark his career?

"Match Point" is a very good film, easily Allen's best in a decade. But it falls short of his classics, films like "Annie Hall", "Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Crimes and Misdemeanors" for a few reasons.

One of the biggest surprises is that Allen would set a film anywhere other than his beloved New York. But the London setting works well for Allen's writing and directing style. His writing is a little unnatural at times; a large majority of the characters in his films speak as though they all attended an Ivy League college and consistently stand around talking about philosophy, opera and `making love'. I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but in his less successful films, it rings false. In his last great films, this worked because the people who spoke these lines were wealthy, educated and it was believable. He also balanced these storylines with the comedic antics of his character.

Another positive change Allen has begun to make is that he is casting other actors as leads in his films. Will Farrell, Kenneth Branagh, John Cusack and others have essentially played the "Woody Allen" role in some of his recent offerings. This is a step in the right direction, but in most of these cases, these younger actors are still speaking Allen's dialogue and it just doesn't work. Strangely, in "Point", there is no "Woody Allen" character, adding another level of surprise to the film. He has created something almost entirely new, challenging his skills and abilities.

The predominantly British cast and locations add a level of authenticity to his writing, helping it seem more natural. We fully believe that a bunch of upper crust Brits would act and speak like this. At one point, late in the film, a character quickly talks about neuroses, reminding us that this is in fact a Woody Allen film. But before and after this point, the thought never occurred to me. You might almost forget.

The biggest and best change in the new film is that Allen doesn't subject us to another interpretation of his character running around with an actress (or two) twenty to thirty years his junior. We are spared endless scenes of these actresses claiming what a great lover Allen's character is. Thank GOD! Allen is a funny guy, but to watch Elizabeth Berkeley, Helen Hunt and others fight over Allen, and his "ability to make love", is just painful.

In "Point", Allen casts Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Scarlet Johannson as the ill-fated lovers. Emily Mortimer completes the trio as Chris' supportive, yet eager to be pregnant wife. As the film begins, we realize we are in the hands of an accomplished filmmaker. Through a series of short scenes, Chris' life is quickly established and Rhys Meyers hints that his character may be a gold-digger, placing himself in situations in which he is more likely to meet the well-to-do. Then again, he could just be trying to make his life better; he is constantly trying to learn and seems to work hard. But Chris remains enough of an enigma to keep us guessing. As his life begins to get better, it also starts to unravel. He quickly becomes comfortable in his new lifestyle and sees it slipping out of his hands if Nola gets her way.

Emily Mortimer brings a quiet vulnerability to the role of Chloe. She adds just the right level of love and support to spoiled rich girl, making her character interesting and believable. Just as things begin to get complicated, she begins nagging Chris about having a baby. This causes her husband to vacillate back and forth. Should he stay with Chloe or leave her for a more passionate, but less comfortable existence with Nola?

The biggest problem in the film is Scarlet Johannson. She is good, but Allen's dialogue does not blend well with her age, lack of experience and accent. In her mouth, his dialogue sounds stiff and forced. The contrast between Johannson and the British actors is really quite noticeable. She is much better in her scenes with Tom, as his fiancée, sharing alcohol and food, flirting a bit, putting on an act. When she becomes the center of Chris' attention, she does and says things which seem unnatural becoming a fairly stereotypical "jilted lover". How exactly does a young American woman come up with the resources to move from England to the States and then back to London again? How does she survive in London on a shop girl's salary?

Also, there is a point during the resolution when characters, specifically two British detectives, talk about things we haven't seen. Their descriptions are amusing, but it is a sloppy method of storytelling.

These two points aside, "Match Point" represents a return to form for a master filmmaker. As the story unfolds, and we realize the events will be told in a series of tableaus, leaving out the unnecessary bits, we realize we are in the hands of a master. Sit back, enjoy and let Allen tell his story.

I can't understand why some have awarded this movie five stars - it's simply not that good. The movie falls into two distinct parts, joined together by the theme of the importance of luck. The first half sets the scene well, though Allen's tenuous grasp on dramatic continuity is annoying (e.g. Chris and Nola make passionate love in a field in the pouring rain, end of scene, no mention of their reception when they go back indoors). The second half (from Nola's discovery that she is pregnant) is truly dreadful - but credit to Scarlett Johansson for being irresistible in part one and the total opposite in part two. I was glad when it was over.

This is an odd experience for a British Woody Allen fan: it's set in London and most of the characters are British, but it's not a Britain I know.
Granted the characters are part of the landed gentry and a bit posh, but their speech patterns are all wrong. I watched it with a group of friends and we had a good laugh at the unrealistic dialogue that seems to come from Jane Austen's time. Actually it's quite offputting.
There are some big question marks about the basic premise: Chris, the lead guy, is supposed to be from Ireland, but has a cut-glass English accent. And he acts like he's never been to London before. Like he's from another planet.
The locations are all weird, perhaps partly because of the lack of 'on location' background noise. This is a very quiet London Allen's found. If only it was like that.
What all this does is give the movie a very inauthentic feel.
It's not helped by the the young lead, whose acting is wooden and unconvincing. It's possible he was floundering with the terrible script, but some of the other actors managed well enough. He though, more than anything else, makes the story hard to believe. You find yourself watching actors instead of getting involved in the story.
The bits of opera thrown in at melodramatic moments are rather ridiculous too.
But as mentioned, the script is perhaps the worst thing. It really does seem like some terrible Mills and Boon story at times, and you just can't avoid thinking about it, all through the movie.
Bravo, I guess, to WA for doing something a little bit different, though as one friend commented, it's really just 'Crimes and Misdemeanors' without the laughs.

Woody Allen inspires passionate discussion, mind-boggling intellectualization, expert opinion, and unfettered ranting. You could spend the rest of your life studying his films - I believe I saw that someone is researching a Ph.D. thesis on the use of opera in "Match Point." Someone, somewhere, is preparing the definitive comparison of "Match Point" with "Crimes and Misdemeanors," and will hopefully put all related questions to rest. And don't even mention New York vs London.

Well, I have seen a few Woody Allen films, enjoyed many of them, and have largely forgotten most since "The Purple Rose of Cairo." I wouldn't be a very respected member of the discussion circle. But I enjoyed this film a lot. Among other things, I think it is well-written, well-acted, and has a lot of techniques that remind me of the Woody Allen films I enjoyed so much. Like when Chris, the protagonist, encounters someone he knows on the street and starts talking to them - but you don't see them until they walk into the camera's range. Little things like that. The film doesn't have a traditional Hollywood ending, in my opinion, and I thought it was very fitting that opera played such a key role. The few opera librettos that I have seen are really very simple as stories, and don't demand a lot of thinking on the part of the listeners/viewers. The film revolves around the role of chance, or luck, in certain key events of life, and - on an individual basis - I think it's an interesting point. And a bonus: now I know why the Italian custodians at school used to listen to opera all night while cleaning the classrooms. That alone makes the film worth seeing.

I found a few things a little stretch in credibility: I don't think a ruling class family as wealthy and established as the Hewitts would be quite so susceptible to the intrusion of "lower-class" outsiders. But warning: everything I know about the personal behavior of rich people I learned from watching The Gilmore Girls. And I found Nola, the character played by Scarlet Johanssen, to be a little hard to believe. She morphs from a self-confident flirt at the beginning to a desperate victim at the end, without any clear line of development, although the ping-pong game foretells how the relationship will proceed. Nola is such a key player, but I find her somewhat unconvincing, perhaps more due to ellipses in the script than to problems with her acting. But it's an opera - the story is superficial, there are dramatic clashes, big emotions, ruling class figures, sex and passion. Just like the online discussion about the movie. Funny, Yogi, but I don't remember if a fat lady sings at the end or not. Oh well, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Wait - wrong metaphor.

After several decades of shooting intriguing comedies, dramas, and mutations of the two, Woody Allen has eventually reached the point where he again reinvents himself. His newest film, Match Point, might be one of his very best, as it definitely is his best within the last decade. Despite its similar application of interpersonal tension as his Interiors (1978) and September (1987), the film provides a distinctly different atmosphere compared to his other films. Allen allows the audience to venture into the psyche of Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) in a beguiling cerebral drama that dissects the philosophical importance of mere luck.

By appearance, it is rather obvious that Woody Allen never had a chance to reach stardom in athletics with the exception of being a jockey. Nonetheless, he has repeatedly displayed his intellect in regards to athletics and sports in a thoughtfully intelligent manner. Sure, on occasion, he has even made fun of the sports, but it has never been tactless. In Annie Hall (1977), his character Alvy Singer told Annie (Diane Keaton) in the theater line that those who cannot become teachers with the exception of physical education teachers. Almost two decades later Allen returns to point out the importance of athletics in the Western society, as the former tennis pro Wilton attempts to seek his fortune among the London aristocrats by using his skills in tennis and quaint discourse.

Match Point begins by planting a seed in the audience's mind by letting a tennis ball strike the top of the net and then freeze in mid air while Rhys-Meyers' voice points out the importance of luck needed for a ball to continue over the net. It is an intriguing notion that luck often has decisive power of a situation such as it can determine the outcome of a tennis game. However, Allen takes the notion even a step further by applying it to the path of people's lives. The existential determination based on luck is rather obvious in the beginning of the film when Wilton finds employment, as a tennis coach in an extraordinarily exclusive tennis club. Wilton, once born into Irish poverty, has now been fortunate to make ends meet through tennis while many of the people in his working environment have the privilege to enjoy the birthright of wealth and social status.

The initial illustration of luck determined through birth eventually diffuses, as Wilton's actions bring him in a desired direction. He befriends the rich Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode) by becoming his coaching tennis partner, and eventually Wilton finds himself invited to an opera. Wilton nurtures the friendship by never taking advantage of the situation, or his new friend by insisting on paying for himself despite his meager salary. Through Wilton's new friendship, he also encounters Tom's sister Chloe (Emily Mortimer) who he begins to court, after she shows interest in him. Even the parents of Hewett family performed by Brian Cox and Penelope Wilton take liking to him. It is evident that luck alone does not make things happen, however, luck still is the decisive factor of new encounters.

As the film unfolds, Allen also allows luck to collide from two different directions - wealth and love. It all begins when Wilton meets Nola (Scarlett Johansson) who is Tom's fiancé. Nola is much like Wilton, who is raised in poverty who tries to find her way out of her misfortunate situation, and Tom has fortunately crossed her path like a knight in shining armor with his deep bank account. Through Wilton, the audience realizes that he cannot acquire both, as he either must remain true to Chloe to secure his future, or pursue Nola for love. It leaves him with a deep personal predicament, as he must confront his own greed and lust, which he begins to rationalize in his own favor.

It is in the conflict between love and wealth that the story's treasure rests, as Allen rises several existential questions such as is it wrong to wish oneself riches and can love provide everything necessary in life? To increase the complexity within the story Allen pushes boundaries beyond what he has ever done previously in a ghastly manner. The film also has a slight tone of Robert Bresson with its unique minimalist approach, which augments the minute actions and incidents within the story. Allen never says what is right or wrong through the film, he simply lets the camera capture the truth. It is both refreshing and horrid, as the minimalism enhances the offensive nature of the story and compels the audience to ponder the morality of Wilton's situation.

The convergence between the notions of fortunate happenstance and morality ushers the audience into a thoughtful mode while following the intriguing rationalization of Wilton and his actions. The film also provides an interesting perspective of how luck ambiguously affects people's lives, as Allen exhaustively presents an emotional drama that intentionally keeps its distance to the audience in order for the viewer to dwell on the concepts presented. However, it leaves the audience disturbed on a very intellectual level, as it purposely stirs the very foundation of moral development. The film does not allow the audience to feel neutral to the topic, as it presents a very dark tale, which can be summed up by Wilton's statement, "I'd rather be lucky than good."

First I want to offer something of a disclosure. I don't quite understand all this talk of "Match Point" being considered Woody Allen's "comeback". Woody Allen never went away. I, in complete contradiction to the American public, have actually found that I have enjoyed Allen's recent efforts. I like "Melinda and Melinda", "Anything Else", and "Small Time Crooks". I've enjoyed all of Allen's films to various degrees. So, while I'm glad the public and the critics are finally starting to wake up and appreciate Allen's latest film, to me it is not a "comeback".

"Match Point", as has been so aptly pointed out by critics and the lucky few whom have managed to see advance screening has a completely different look from Allen's previous films, but this different look is only because Allen has shot this movie in London instead of his beloved New York, but everything else about this picture is pure Woody Allen. We are dealing with the same themes, we are getting the same view of middle to upper class society, and the same bits of dialogue as characters enjoy the high arts and quote literature to one another. And I'm not saying this as a fault. I'm glad the movie isn't as different as some people are letting on. I did after all pay to see a "Woody Allen picture".

What makes "Match Point" though different from previous Allen films is first of all this one is a pure drama, not a half drama like "Melinda and Melinda". And it's also not a Bergmanesque drama in the tradition of "Interiors" or "September". It resembles, if anything, "Crimes and Misdemeanors".

But there is more to the movie than strictly the drama. To my surprise Allen showcases a great ability at being able to create suspense. And I mean he does it really well. We're talking about Hitchcock level here.

As far as the plot goes, I'm sorry but I can't tell you anything major. I walked into the movie cold. I went out of my way to avoid hearing anything about the movie. For a Woody Allen film there was certainly a lot of buzz floating around the picture. And I want your experience to be the same as mine. To discover the plot secrets right there in the theater was amazing. Had I known everything in advance the effect of the movie may very well have been different.

"Match Point" stars Jonathan Rhys Meyers as a former tennis pro, Chris Wilton, who is now reduced to teaching instead of playing. But all is well, or least it will be. Chris meets Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode) who he gives lessons to. The two instantly hit it off and become good friends, they both even share a love of opera. It is when Chris is invited to attend with Tom he meets Chloe (Emily Mortimer), Tom's sister. Chloe also takes an instant liking to Chris and soon things get complicated and my description of the movie will have to stop there.

The two best performances in the movie I feel belong to Mortimer and Scarlett Johansson, who has already received a Golden Globe nomination for her performance. Hopefully both ladies will receive Oscar nominations for Best Supporting Actress. But between the two I must admit I do prefer Mortimer. It also helps she is given more screen time so we have more opportunities to care about her character.

Now is "Match Point" really Allen's best film in a decade as some critics are saying? Probably. But isn't it odd for us to say Allen's best movie is a drama? Here is a man whom we usually identify with comedies. But "Match Point" is a movie that will not have cross over appeal. I have said it before and I will say it again, Woody Allen will no longer make any new fans. People who say they don't like him simply don't like him and will never give any of his films a chance, they simply walk in with a bad attitude, so no matter how good the movie may be they will always be disappointed. For the rest of us though "Match Point" is one of Allen's bravest films to date and one of 2005's best films.

Bottom-line: Woody Allen's most complex, daring films in years. One of the year's best.

In "Match Point," Woody Allen serves up a quiet, yet powerful, morality tale. Directed without flair and with little music, the story pulls us along by the strength of its intrigue.

When a tennis pro begins dating a woman with British class and money, he sees a life of ease and luxury ahead. And yet, he is drawn to the wild and unpredictable side of an aspiring American actress who is also dating a wealthy Brit. By turns slow and inexorable, the characters make choices that push them into ever-deepening trouble. The final decisions will change their lives in unexpected ways. Irony and justice play their hands alongside tragedy.

Told with great restraint, "Match Point" never glorifies the characters' poor decisions. In fact, I see no reason for the R rating. Through wonderful acting and sublime direction, this movie makes its point and lets us mull the consequences.