The movie was full of great ideas only half-baked. I thought I would love it shortly into it, but I barely made it to the end. Woody Allen needs someone on his team to take care of the details. I was aggravated by the waste of the potential this movie had.

Woody Allen's huge return to form (not). Well crafted but predictable, almost totally lacking in the sharp humour that distinguishes the best Allen scripts. Johannson looks uncomfortable throughout with her daggy and dreary role, and the final Sophoclean cameo doesn't mend things. Time to prefer younger directors, evidently Allen is no Bunuel or Huston who is going to hold his nerve and pull off that very late masterpiece.… Expand

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

Woody allen is definitely back. Great film and acting. absorbing.all characters played their roles well!!a real woody allen ending./ we are not always dealt the best of cards!!!

It's like night and day from some of his recent films. It's entertaining, brilliant, interesting, and perfectly cast. The reviewers are way underrating this film. Woody-prejudice abounds. But this film is not a Woody Allen film--it's just a really good film....great storytelling, classic and modern with a palpable tension. It's a model film.

The best one I've seen for months.

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!

In tennis, if the ball drops forward - you win, if it drops backwards - you don't. In Woody Allen's new film, it drops forward - Game, Set, Match. I, for one, have never thought Mr. Allens career was ever in a slump. Any film written and directed by Woody Allen has been worthy of my 10 dollar admission, but in Matchpoint, he's left the comedy in Manhattan and moved his setting to London and once again made a movie that I'll drop another 10 bucks on to see it again! The critics are all saying Woody is back, well he's not back, He has just moved up another rung on his cinematic ladder. Imagine, a New Yorker making movies in London, I seem to remember that it worked for Kubrick too, but we don't have to wait 7 years for the next Woody Allen film!! Yes Virginia, there is a Woody Allen.… Expand

Do not spend a single minute considering MATCH POINT. It's Woody Allen (by Woody Allen) for Dummies. One A-Plot and no anything else-plots as not to confuse anyone (possibly and especially him and his obviously depleted sensibility). There are direct lifts of dialogue from C & M, no foolin' ("You mean if I won't leave my wife, you'll go to her and tell her..." crap like that). It crosses that delicate line from tension to tedium at nearly every opportunity. With a THEME (capitals, mine) (Luck Over Greatness) that's boring, obscure and meaningless to anyone who ever grew intellectually under his tutelege. Woody is so squeamish about depicting sex (pants on, blankets up to the neckline) and so it cripples him from accurately and genuinely portraying the mania that accompanies it. The lovers end up looking like they've had too many Starbucks mocha grandes or some such.… Expand

Absolute drudgery!

An excellent return to the crime & punishment theme Allen first visited in Crimes and Misdemeaners. Here the plot is simplified and laid bare, though with a sinister atmosphere that lurks even in the "happy" corners of the film. The acting is top notch and the denoument works perfectly.

A Must see. All the people that are giving low ratings don't have the brain power, nor the culture to Understand Woody Allen's Genius. I'm still thinking about this movie...truly a great work.

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.

Provocative and entertaining. Although I don't necessarily agree with director/writer Woody Allen's point of view on matters of fate and morality, I appreciate his ability to ask thought-provoking questions on the nature of life.

Much better than average adult movie. Not many out there any more!

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

Any half-way literate person will love this movie. The entire second half or so is a wonderfully done modernization of Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment," with some interesting twists and turns. Actually of the people I know who disliked this film, none of them had read "Crime and Punishment"--so maybe being intelligent makes this film more enjoyable.

Luck has everything to do with it as does sexual passion.

Although I disagree with Dr. Suess (the poster) that having read "Crime and Punishment" makes you intelligent, I did find it quite a nice surprise to see how the classic found its way into the movie. It was very satisfying. I do find it curious that hardly any of the other critics (the official ones) noted it, but overall it was a great movie, however a little broken in two, which wasn�39;t all that bad.… Expand

Brilliantly captures British upper class. Well written, provocative storyline, well acted. Defintely very very good with moments where the insights make it great.

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.

most uncomfortable movie i have ever seen - felt like it lasted 5 hours instead of two.

Nudity would've been right for this movie. Ludivine Sagnier, if she could learn an American accent, would've been the right girl. During the filming of "The Island", it was reported that Scarlett Johansson volunteered to go topless, but Michael Bay needed to pull in a PG-13 rating. The love scenes between Chris(Jonathan Rhys Meyer) and Nola end just before things get interesting. We need to see what Chris sees, but the hiding of Johansson's birthday suit puts lust and greed on unequal footing, so the decision made between these two powerful emotions seems like the plausible one to make if you're a sociopath. "Match Point" is a good film, but it's no better or worse than "Melinda and Melinda" and "Sweet and Lowdown".… Expand

Like with most recent Woody Allen movies, proven actors are maddeningly wasted in two-dimensional supporting roles bringing the kind of character depth you'd find in a Banana Republic Holiday Story. The excellent above the line actors (including Brian Cox, Emily Mortimer, Matthew Goode and Penelope Wilton) are immaculately dressed and filmed with absolutely nothing original to do or say. In Allen's world, the obscenely wealthy Hewett clan just sip G&Ts, play polo and go to the opera - evoking unintentional laughs in this Serious Woody Allen Film. Maybe it's the director's commentary to paint the British upper class so broadly, but the problem with gutting the family of character is the viewer is forced to wade through strings of unbelievably hollow and inconsequential scenes and chatter to reach the mildly interesting parts. Allen effectively zeroes in on the film… Expand

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

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.… Expand

A truly Awesome film......Great acting....The writing is superb. This is a must see film. If you hate Woody Allen; You'll love him now..

Woody Allen's most brilliant work in many a year. Unlike the ridiculous King Kong, this film had actors with real dialogue and a director with outstanding skills. Although it starts slowly, it builds until it actually grasps its audience in conflict. You find yourself unsure how to resolve the conflict until a desparate act is committed. From this point, you finally realize that in life, it doesn't matter how good you truly are? All it takes is a luck and being in the right place at the right time; or sometimes, unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time. Woody Allen dispells the notion that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. Luck can be both good and bad. Absolutely thought provoking? Worth the watch if you stay with it.… Expand