Match Point

User Score
8.4

Universal acclaim- based on 512 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 51 out of 512

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Apr 4, 2014
    0
    I just can't believe how awful this film is and yet it reviewed so well by many. I think this is a case of people focusing on Allens excellent back catalogue of former glories and not treating this as a standalone film. The script is so bad, that it made me hate it despite the normally likeable leads.
  2. MaryS.
    Jan 20, 2006
    3
    Appalling. The acting is fine, the filmmaking is skilled, yes; but this movie is essentially just "Crimes and Misdemeanors" all over again. There was no need to make this movie; Mr. Konigsberg already said what he had to say in that earlier film. And all he has to say is that he is perfectly justified in having lived his selfish, amoral life. It's more of the same garbage the John Appalling. The acting is fine, the filmmaking is skilled, yes; but this movie is essentially just "Crimes and Misdemeanors" all over again. There was no need to make this movie; Mr. Konigsberg already said what he had to say in that earlier film. And all he has to say is that he is perfectly justified in having lived his selfish, amoral life. It's more of the same garbage the John Cusack author-stand-in-character spewed in "Bullets Over Broadway": artists are special, artists don't have to behave morally, artists can do whatever they want, including screwing and marrying the daughters of their wives and the sisters of their children. Please. Spare me. Expand
  3. SoozieW.
    Jan 19, 2006
    1
    Am I the only person who hated this film?!?! It feels like Woody Allen had 2 bottles of Shiraz and decided to write a little film! As my friend said "this is Woody Allen's burp" The acting is laughable, the script is awful and since when does it not rain in London?!?! just because there were 3 mini coopers in one scene doesnt mean its London! Awful awful awful!
  4. MarkC.
    Jan 7, 2006
    2
    Absolute drudgery!
  5. RlhR.
    Feb 20, 2006
    0
    Following two painfully slow and pointless hours viewing his latest, I'm still nowhere on the road to appreciation of Allen films -- one-dimensional women and men who are jerks and get away with in -- all in a faux upper class setting -- not so clever, insightful, or fabulous in my opinion.
  6. NickP
    Jan 11, 2006
    2
    Hugely disappointing. Movie is shallow, characters are flat. I was expecting to see plot and characters that would move me in similar way as Closer, but I was totally turned off. Woody Allen fails to unleash the potential of the characters, which act mechanically. Scarlett Johansson's monotonous role hugely fails to leverage her talent. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers' role gave him Hugely disappointing. Movie is shallow, characters are flat. I was expecting to see plot and characters that would move me in similar way as Closer, but I was totally turned off. Woody Allen fails to unleash the potential of the characters, which act mechanically. Scarlett Johansson's monotonous role hugely fails to leverage her talent. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers' role gave him potential to shine but he fails to deliver the goods. Only Emily Mortimer as Chloe seems to perform consistently and with some sentimental background. Shame. Expand
  7. B.Bremer
    Jan 20, 2006
    0
    I realize that I am going against the grain here, but I really, really, hated this movie. If I hadn't had to write a review for the school paper, I would have walked out, which I had never done. If you want to see how bad Closer would be without Clive Owen, then Match Point is the movie for you. It is completely irredeemable.
  8. KathleenG.
    Jan 27, 2006
    0
    most uncomfortable movie i have ever seen - felt like it lasted 5 hours instead of two.
  9. Jonathan
    Jan 29, 2006
    0
    Without doubt the worst film I've ever paid to see. It's odd how critical acclaim seems to be divided across the Atlantic. Generally, the American papers loved it, the British papers loathed it. As a Londoner who's been happily settled in San Francisco for many years, I'm ASTONISHED by the fact that this film has garnered any favourable reviews at all. It is a risible Without doubt the worst film I've ever paid to see. It's odd how critical acclaim seems to be divided across the Atlantic. Generally, the American papers loved it, the British papers loathed it. As a Londoner who's been happily settled in San Francisco for many years, I'm ASTONISHED by the fact that this film has garnered any favourable reviews at all. It is a risible movie. The script is absurd, the location/accents inauthentic, the plot ridiculous, the acting appalling - Jonathan whats-his-name is just unbearable....and while Scarlett looks lovely, she has nothing to play with here... I estimate that a third of the audience walked out when I saw this last Saturday. I did stay to the end - happily heckling, laughing and sympathising with the remaining audience. Utter sh.t. Go see it - you'll be as astonished as i was. Expand
  10. HeatherW.
    Jan 30, 2006
    0
    I don't usually give movies "10s" or "0s" - but if it's deserved, it's deserved. I'm not even sure where to start with this movie: the writing was *ghastly*, cliched, pompous, heavy-handed. I ended up loathing every character - not that I have to like characters to like a movie, but there has to be *something* that makes the whole thing worth your time. The characters I don't usually give movies "10s" or "0s" - but if it's deserved, it's deserved. I'm not even sure where to start with this movie: the writing was *ghastly*, cliched, pompous, heavy-handed. I ended up loathing every character - not that I have to like characters to like a movie, but there has to be *something* that makes the whole thing worth your time. The characters were too shallow to permit any kind of understanding of the "human condition." I lived in England for a little while and *cringed* at all the blatant and ridiculous stereotypes. And to top it all off, it was *boring*! I was looking at my watch only a half-an-hour in. By the time the third or fourth false ending rolled along, I was literally groaning in my seat. The ghosts/guilty apparitions in the kitchen?? The ridiculous dialog between the police detectives?? The convenient fact that a heroin addict found the ring?? And *yes* I get that it's a movie about luck (had that theme pretty much crammed in my ear within the first few minutes), but that's just **bad** writing. UGH. The acting was all right, given what the poor actors had to work with. The sex was cliched, uninteresting. There wasn't a single new or interesting or provocative image or message in this whole overly-long movie. Really and truly bad. I can't believe the critics like it. Full of literary/musical/cultural allusions, yes, aren't we all smart? But relentlessly superficial and banal, and, no, I don't think *that's* the point. The movie took itself far too seriously for that to have been the point. That's it. I'm officially done with Woody Allen. Collapse
  11. CharlesRB.
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    Woody Allen has always been a bore. And still is a bore!
  12. Mr.Ozo
    Feb 4, 2006
    1
    I have just returned from the cinema and have to warn you all out there to wait until this movie appears on your television sets on a Sunday afternoon, just so you have the option to turn the channel over. It was so boring that it could have easily been a 2 part drama on television, and a pretty average one at that. I totally agree with the comments made by Heather W so I'm not going I have just returned from the cinema and have to warn you all out there to wait until this movie appears on your television sets on a Sunday afternoon, just so you have the option to turn the channel over. It was so boring that it could have easily been a 2 part drama on television, and a pretty average one at that. I totally agree with the comments made by Heather W so I'm not going to be repetative and just point you in the direction of her post. (Apart from the not liking Woody Allen anymore, But word of advice, Stick to comedy Woody). Expand
  13. c4logic
    May 28, 2006
    0
    I am shocked at the grotesque judgement of professional critics who have given good reviews. It is almost as bad as the worst film of all time, 'Breaking the Waters.' Forget that it is contrived in the cheapest way, Dostoevski's Crime and Punishment, the crooning of Caruso, the lame tennis metaphors, the acting is horrible, and their is nothing to redeem the wast of time. I am shocked at the grotesque judgement of professional critics who have given good reviews. It is almost as bad as the worst film of all time, 'Breaking the Waters.' Forget that it is contrived in the cheapest way, Dostoevski's Crime and Punishment, the crooning of Caruso, the lame tennis metaphors, the acting is horrible, and their is nothing to redeem the wast of time. Films like this makeme want to demand my money back. They are a fraud. Reviewers who compared it to Robert Altman's, The Player, are out of their mind. Let's note some differences. The lead character was sympathetic, his dead protagonist unsympathetic, his death propelled by accidental rage and passion. Here we have an unsympathetic character who coldly plots the murder of his pregant girlfriend and carries it out. Why was this set in England? It is An American Tragedy merged with A Place in the Sun, inspired by Crime and Punishment, with a single twist that let's Liz Taylor and Montgomery Clift drive off into the sunset together. In the opening of this dirty little film, my wife's first reaction was that the lead character reminded her of Montgomery Clift. And we knew nothing in advance about the story. I felt unclean after watching it. Simply awful. Expand
  14. TGordon
    Jun 3, 2006
    3
    This film was appalling. The characters' motives were unclear, there was very little chemistry, and Scarlette Johansson's acting was atrocious. It left me with a sick feeling in my stomach.
  15. EspenA.
    Aug 9, 2006
    2
    Great wrapping, shame about the plot. If you consider yourself an above average intelligent person with an appreciation , then stay away from this one, because you will be disappointed. And if you're not, then you're not, and your reaction to this movie is proof. It wasn't even funny! Sic transit gloria Woody. And pity the actors and crew; this is a waste of talent.
  16. GaborA.
    Sep 4, 2006
    2
    So predictable, and that's because it was so unoriginal. You can't blame the actors for acting poorly in this film(for signing on maybe) when the dialogue is this pretentious with zero subtlety. Every scene is either a waste of time gap filler or based on ideas we've seen a hundred times. I never was a huge fan of Allen but this movie is a joke. Best Picture nominee, dear god.
  17. RitaP.
    Jan 12, 2007
    2
    Hugely overrated film. Was so disappointed with it in so many ways. No character was believable or well-developed, the dialogue was rubbish, the plot seemed to have been hatched by a 6 year old and Scarlett Johanssen was completely wasted. She is too good for this banal crap.
  18. SunilR
    Jan 11, 2006
    1
    What a bore and a drag. too long too predictable dont waste u r money. Better off being packaged as a Channel 5 movie (UK) or a BBC multi part drama.
  19. Impytherap
    Jan 1, 2006
    2
    Please. Moronic melodrama, laughable dialogue, ludicrous situations. A string of coincidences flimsily held together by a forced overarching theme of "luck." Fraudulent and a sad testament to fall of a great artist. Don't believe the hype. This film is the definition of "smoke and mirrors."
  20. CatherineB.
    Jan 15, 2006
    3
    What would movitate Woody Allen to make this inferior retread of Crimes and Misdemeanors again? Obviously the theme of getting away with murder interests him, and my guess is he's still grappling with a "murder" of his own; seducing a young girl, his wife's own daughter, and not only getting away with it but thriving. For a man of any conscience, this must be constantly on his mind.
  21. SpencerH.
    Jan 17, 2006
    2
    Appauling acting. Laughable dialogue. This film feels like it was cobbled together in 10 mins by an amateur dramatics society. Rubbish.
  22. NathanH.
    Jan 22, 2006
    2
    Should have been 'made for TV', could have seen the same drivel any night of the week. The story line was so concieved you could see it coming before you even walked into the cinema!
  23. MauraC.
    Jan 30, 2006
    0
    Horrid, horrid movie. I had very high expectations for this film, but found it to be tedious and extremely unoriginal. I was reminded of The Talented Mr. Ripley, which has been one of my least favorite movies of all time... until now. I would not recommend wasting time or money on this film, despite all of the acclaim. The only positive side? Beatiful cinematography. The scenes were often Horrid, horrid movie. I had very high expectations for this film, but found it to be tedious and extremely unoriginal. I was reminded of The Talented Mr. Ripley, which has been one of my least favorite movies of all time... until now. I would not recommend wasting time or money on this film, despite all of the acclaim. The only positive side? Beatiful cinematography. The scenes were often breathtaking. Perhaps watching it without sound would be worth a try. Expand
  24. LieraD.
    Jan 6, 2006
    2
    This was a laughably bad film, literally - we were in hysterics at the woefully delivered lines, the embarrasing dialogue (the foppish English thing works for Hugh Grant, but was terrible here..), the sex scenes, the overdoing of everything "English," the unconvincing acting, and especially the ridiculous murder scene. I can't understand how anyone could have even vaguely liked this This was a laughably bad film, literally - we were in hysterics at the woefully delivered lines, the embarrasing dialogue (the foppish English thing works for Hugh Grant, but was terrible here..), the sex scenes, the overdoing of everything "English," the unconvincing acting, and especially the ridiculous murder scene. I can't understand how anyone could have even vaguely liked this film. Perhaps the previous reviewer was right; being British might be some help in detecting the sheer aburdness of it all. A point in case being the murder scene and its aftermath, in which the pacing and acting resembled that of a silent movie. Seriously. [melodrama]I fear that non-British people who see this movie will think that we all talk in such a ridiculous and stilted manner, and I will now be afraid to speak in an English accent in public.[/melodrama] Expand
  25. MarcusD.
    Jan 7, 2006
    0
    Garbage. Though only January 7th this may be the worst film of this year and quite possibly 2007 as well. To the lemmings who love this "film". A few questions: In England women don't check their husbands' cell phones? Crime victims don't get autopsies? No one checks ballistics? Fingerprints? Phone records? Oh, and what about those pesky video cameras all over the city of Garbage. Though only January 7th this may be the worst film of this year and quite possibly 2007 as well. To the lemmings who love this "film". A few questions: In England women don't check their husbands' cell phones? Crime victims don't get autopsies? No one checks ballistics? Fingerprints? Phone records? Oh, and what about those pesky video cameras all over the city of london? Clearly, Mr. Allen has lived in a hole for the past few years and this dreck is the result. The one good thing about this movie is that it has supplied the world with a handy metric by which to measure the intelligence of others. Expand
  26. CarolynL
    Jan 9, 2006
    3
    Frighteningly misogynistic, psuedo philosophical, unimaginative and uninspired, I almost laughed out loud at the "hot sex" (tight t-shirt--ripped off!)and "sophistication" (dog-eared Dostoyevsky). A two dimensional remake of Crimes & Misd.- without the legandary talent or comedic subplot. I miss you, Woody. The fact that you are still fixated on this theme (men can do all kinds of Frighteningly misogynistic, psuedo philosophical, unimaginative and uninspired, I almost laughed out loud at the "hot sex" (tight t-shirt--ripped off!)and "sophistication" (dog-eared Dostoyevsky). A two dimensional remake of Crimes & Misd.- without the legandary talent or comedic subplot. I miss you, Woody. The fact that you are still fixated on this theme (men can do all kinds of terrible things and get away with it!) bodes poorly for you and all of us. Perhaps denying old sins does come at a cost after all-- the curse of making bad movies. Expand
  27. SteveB.
    Feb 11, 2006
    0
    Refer to previous posts. This is Woody Allen at his absolute worst. The only bright spot was the guy who played Spud in Trainspotting playing a cop talking about heroin addict criminals. That was good for a reminiscent laugh. Otherwise, absolutely awful picture.
  28. PeterC.
    Mar 12, 2006
    1
    One of the worst movies I have seen in a long time. I am usually very forgiving of Woody Allen-- even if a movie is bad, if there is one funny line, then I enjoy myself. I can't think of any-- not a single-- moving or interesting or funny line in this movie. what happened to his writing? didn't we see this in Crimes? and how come he can't get SJ to act? Why does it seem One of the worst movies I have seen in a long time. I am usually very forgiving of Woody Allen-- even if a movie is bad, if there is one funny line, then I enjoy myself. I can't think of any-- not a single-- moving or interesting or funny line in this movie. what happened to his writing? didn't we see this in Crimes? and how come he can't get SJ to act? Why does it seem like she is reading a cereal box? How did she turn into the girl on that seventies show? Is this the end of her reign? I would have walked out if I didn't know that it was raining outside. Expand
  29. NicoO.
    Mar 23, 2006
    2
    Grating performances, unengaging characters for whom i felt no empathy whatsoever from beginning to end.
  30. sharonR
    May 13, 2006
    0
    Have just paused this movie - came online to find out how much more i have to endure - and just HAD to vote here! would like to second every sentiment in johnathan's posting (above), this is one of the worst films i have seen in years! am v disappointed as a woody fan, hannah and her sisters a long-time favourite.
  31. TylerC
    May 15, 2006
    0
    This movie was so boring. How did anyone get entertained by this?
  32. DrewF.
    May 2, 2006
    2
    It's amazing to see how divided folks are on this film. Maybe it really is a barometer to filter out the intelligent from the pretenders. Most of what i would nitpick (laughable police work, ridiculously contrived situations) have been mentioned, so i'll just add the complete lack of chemistry between the two leads. I have NEVER seen more AWKWARD love scenes in my life. I It's amazing to see how divided folks are on this film. Maybe it really is a barometer to filter out the intelligent from the pretenders. Most of what i would nitpick (laughable police work, ridiculously contrived situations) have been mentioned, so i'll just add the complete lack of chemistry between the two leads. I have NEVER seen more AWKWARD love scenes in my life. I don't normally postulate about a person's sexual orientation, but Jonathan Rhys Meyers' appeared to be in an AWFUL lot of pain, there. Expand
  33. Ellis
    May 24, 2006
    3
    A dragging, boring, predictable movie without any high points - disappointing.
  34. LeeF.
    Sep 7, 2006
    1
    It was so boring we couldn't get past the 15-minute mark. Calling it banal would be high praise.
  35. JonathanH.
    Dec 31, 2005
    0
    Perhaps you'd have to be British to recognise just how crass and unconvincing the film Match Point is. The main characters are a nauseating collection of upper crust twits and to call the dialogue cardboard would be an insult to cardboard.To read the positive reviews one begins to suspect some weird conspiracy amongst the stale and tired aristocracy of movieland. A final point on the Perhaps you'd have to be British to recognise just how crass and unconvincing the film Match Point is. The main characters are a nauseating collection of upper crust twits and to call the dialogue cardboard would be an insult to cardboard.To read the positive reviews one begins to suspect some weird conspiracy amongst the stale and tired aristocracy of movieland. A final point on the subject of bouncing tennis balls - it's not luck but physics that decides a balls trajectory. Please refer to Newtons laws on motion. And so what if luck plays an important part in our lives? Oooh deep! PATHETIC! Expand
  36. TheresaH
    Dec 29, 2006
    1
    The color palatte was so incredibly dull. The pretentious tone of the film made me giggle more than once.
  37. EvieB.
    Jan 23, 2006
    0
    Woody, it is now offically over between us. I thought maybe you could redeem yourself for the last 10+ years of cinematic atrocities, but I was wrong. This movie is awful. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers's character is a total reptile; Scarlett Johanssen's is a shrieking nightmare. The sex is icky and embarrassing, the whole "morality issue" is sophomoric, and all anyone does is talk about Woody, it is now offically over between us. I thought maybe you could redeem yourself for the last 10+ years of cinematic atrocities, but I was wrong. This movie is awful. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers's character is a total reptile; Scarlett Johanssen's is a shrieking nightmare. The sex is icky and embarrassing, the whole "morality issue" is sophomoric, and all anyone does is talk about money. I hated Match Point. HATED it. The comment posted earlier about its suckiness being equal to that of Closer minus Clive Owen is right on! Expand
  38. Tom
    May 12, 2006
    3
    How is this new? It's just 1/2 the plot from Crimes and Misdemeanors with less interesting charactersand a much, much less believable ending. (Or maybe british police are just really really stupid.) I can say the film did generate one bit of irony. In a movie supossedly about radomness and chance the ending as as forced and contrived as possible. The script works so hard to be How is this new? It's just 1/2 the plot from Crimes and Misdemeanors with less interesting charactersand a much, much less believable ending. (Or maybe british police are just really really stupid.) I can say the film did generate one bit of irony. In a movie supossedly about radomness and chance the ending as as forced and contrived as possible. The script works so hard to be "about" the random nature of life that the author's pattern becomes clearly visible. It's a joke of a film, but not in the good way that Allen's older movies were jokes. Expand
  39. TashaR.
    Jan 26, 2008
    1
    This film was a ridiculous pastiche of upper class England. 'Irish' was a grossly unbelievable character to say nothing of his awful accent, plot shallower than a sorority sister, dialogue unbelievable, we sat there wondering why we were wasting our lives watching it. Complete waste of a good cast. Disappointed in Allen, who usually pulls it off. This was dreadful.
  40. R.Moore
    Dec 31, 2005
    1
    This movie was spectacularly moronic. I spent half of the film with my face in my hands embarrassed for the actors. Return to form? What and insult to the genuinely excellent films Allen made 30 years ago. This film is a mess of illogic and senseless tone changes. The unlikeable, uninteresting characters behave with no regard to motivation or plausibility. Did I mention that the dialogue This movie was spectacularly moronic. I spent half of the film with my face in my hands embarrassed for the actors. Return to form? What and insult to the genuinely excellent films Allen made 30 years ago. This film is a mess of illogic and senseless tone changes. The unlikeable, uninteresting characters behave with no regard to motivation or plausibility. Did I mention that the dialogue was painfully embarrassing? I want my 2 hours back. Expand
  41. Aug 30, 2011
    1
    Very poor. Pretentious with poor acting, ubiquitous cringe moments, forced philosophical preachings. Characters are shallow, and non developed and provide no explanations for their actions, they just seem to do things to follow allen's plot. Characters are portrayed one way, and then their actions later on in the film don't conform, but forcibly go to where allen's plot wants. Johanson isVery poor. Pretentious with poor acting, ubiquitous cringe moments, forced philosophical preachings. Characters are shallow, and non developed and provide no explanations for their actions, they just seem to do things to follow allen's plot. Characters are portrayed one way, and then their actions later on in the film don't conform, but forcibly go to where allen's plot wants. Johanson is gorgeous but her lines and the parts that she has to play are rubbish. Poor girl such a great actor yet such a bad movie. This movies is like someone having to make up a story on the spot with no preparation, they drivvle, drivvle drivvle, find out that they they've just spoke for a long time with nothing important or interesting, no plot or character and then threw in something bad in the last 5 seconds at the end to try and make it interesting. Expand
Metascore
72

Generally favorable reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 32 out of 40
  2. Negative: 0 out of 40
  1. 88
    Not only could one argue that this is the best "serious" work the director has ever attempted, but it's presented in a way that even the most seasoned Allen fan will have difficulty recognizing the iconic filmmaker's fingerprints.
  2. Rhys-Meyers and Johansson work well together - they both know how to project glossiness and guile.
  3. Reviewed by: Peter Debruge
    88
    Woody's a master wordsmith, and here he's crafted a bit of audience-friendly fare that's smart without feeling exclusionary. It's a portrait of elite society--and the hangers-on who wish to penetrate it--made in an surprisingly accessible way.