Match Point is a deeply bitter and cynical film about privileged, upper class members of society behaving badly and getting away with their transgressions. There is no moral to the story and the thesis that Allen is working with is that there is no rhyme or reason for what happens in this thing called life. It's all based on luck and chance. It sounds like a complete downer of a film, but Allen makes it smart, entertaining and ultimately riveting.… Expand

Hmm hard one to mark. Its in the black and white mystery , adulterous genre. Its an Oscar Wilde thriller if you may. Its good and has a nice twist but its the journey that's makes it enjoyable. Plant an old black and white film complete with English fog and place it in modern London and you have this film.

I really liked this movie. Woody Allen finally hits the **** tone where Cassandra's Dream missed horribly.

Match Point has a good balance of character, plot, unexpected surprises, and the substance to the story was handled well. The middle act of the film does start to drag a little but the 3rd act becomes intense and interesting. The actors do a great job with their rolls, I felt as if I knew the characters after the movie.I have thought about this movie a bit over the years, about its horrible protagonist and the events that play out. I find this movie's story and its take on life very interesting. Recommended.… Expand

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 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

Match.com is a SCAM!

I signed up for a 30 day membership and they attempted to charge my credit card for a six month membership. When I requested a refund (less my 30 day membership) they refused and were rude throughout the process. I had to take them to small claims court for a measly $99 refund. The only good news was that I prevailed in court.

That said, once you are on Match.com it's basically the same old same old. Match does very little to actually introduce interested singles, they just post the usual inane self-serving comments, a few photos and charge a fee. Watch out for their BAIT & SWITCH TACTICS.… Expand

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.

Great movie!! But people already said that. It's beautiful how a certain thing which is seen at the beginning of the movie turns out to be most important. Yu've got to watch it to understand what I'm talking about.

This movie draws you in. It works on all its levels - acting, plot, emotion. It proves itself to be sharp and well-crafted. Though I haven't seen many Woody Allen films, if he's had good and bad films, Match Point is definitely among the good.

I was enthralled by this movie. The suspense was incredible and all the actors were perfect, as was the wonderful operatic background music. Hurrah for Woody Allen.

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.

The color palatte was so incredibly dull. The pretentious tone of the film made me giggle more than once.

Allen's best film since "Crimes."

That I've seen - only Capote and Tristram Shandy were finer films in 2006. Woody Allen has created a riveting story based on the premise that life hangs in the balance -- using the wonderful opening tennis ball suspended in the air above the net metaphor --ultimately of things beyond our control. [***SPOILERS***]A dark commentary on the human soul as the main character -- who is aruable noble, not rotten as others surmise -- is corrupted by $$$. Familiar you say ? Yes, but very un-Hollywood. Briliant dialogue and supporting cast --- Allen rivets, inspires and crushes with finality. Brilliant film-making and terrific performances.… Expand

It was so boring we couldn't get past the 15-minute mark. Calling it banal would be high praise.

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.

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.

Dark and atmospheric, "Match Point" is also, especially with those operatic insertions, just too pretentious for its own good. I found hard to believe what the Jonathan Rhys-Meyers character does to get out of his predicament. A different Allen movie doesn't necessarily translate into a very good one..

This film is just excelent, and scarlet Johannson, just the most beatifull person in all the entire world.

This film is generally well made, but why make it? We have seen this story and these characters so many times! [***SPOILERS***] OK: liars, cheats and murderers are horrible and they sometimes win in life. What's new Woody? The ending here is also ridiculous. The murderer tries to throw away evidence of his crime (a wedding ring), but it happens to be found by another criminal, who then happens to commit another murder, which happens to occur in the same area, which happens to occur in the same time-frame, and the second killer happens to have the evidence (ring) of the first killing in his possession. The police then conclude this second killer also commited the first murder, and the anit-hero escapes charges. The odds of this happening are roughly the same as the odds of being struck by lightening five times in the same day. No wonder Woody is such a cynic! The critics let him get away with this .… Expand

Easily the best movie I have seen in 2006. It has a great story, excellent acting and it really stays with you, long after the final credits have rolled. Scarlett Johansson and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers are amazing in this film!

Honestly, I think the movie had immense potential. However, I found the lack of chemistry between the lead characters (Mortimer, Johansson & Rhys Meyers) to be.. well, extremely difficult to endure. That being said, it's rather surprisingly that I still quite liked the movie despite that massive fundamental flaw. Normally, I quite like Scarlett Johansson, but I didn't find her to be at all believable in this role and I think that she was horribly mis-cast. Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Emily Mortimer's performances were only mediocre, and as I stated earlier, they entirely lacked chemistry. In fact, I think the only person I found to be completely believable is Mathew Goode. I think he made really creative decisions and added personality to a relatively small role. Overall, the movie lacked a lot, some of which it made up for in other areas. Basically, any way you look at it, it can only really average out as mediocre. I also found it to be a bit desultory.… Expand

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.

Nothing is sadder than disparaging a movie because the main character is unsympathetic. How narrow-minded! God forbid a movie actually try to challenge one's notions of primal human desires like greed and lust rather than fall into the same cookie-cutter cliches as most Hollywood movies. If this movie made you feel uncomfortable, guess what? That means you are actually feeling feelings and some of us consider that a key to life. If you are not one of those people, just stick to movies like Charlie's Angels and Wedding Crashers and save the sophisticated, thought-provoking, artful, intense, intelligent films for the rest of us.… Expand

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

A dragging, boring, predictable movie without any high points - disappointing.

This movie was so boring. How did anyone get entertained by this?

Chilling, intensely fascinating nail-biter. You'll want to watch it again just to pick up on all the nuances. One of those layered classics you can discuss for hours afterward.

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.

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

Not enjoyable. Seems to tread much the same ground as Closer, just not as effectively or bravely. Shame.

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�39;t normally postulate about a person's sexual orientation, but Jonathan Rhys Meyers' appeared to be in an AWFUL lot of pain, there.… Expand

The first two-thirds of this film drolls through the conventional love triangle/backstabbing melodrama that is put out by so many nameless directors. If Allen is going to break his mold, he shouldn't go so far into someone else's. Granted the last third of the film saves it from total drudgery, but still it retains a sense of pretentiousness. If Allen is going to give us an operatic backdrop and intricate allusions, he should also not beat us over the head with redundant metaphors.… Expand

I really enjoyed this movie! Lots of twists & turns. Engendered feelings and emotions like anxiety, disgust and disbelief. Unlike most from Woody Allen, there wasn't any real humor. But like life, sometimes dumb luck and blind justice saves the day.

Although the pace is often maddeningly slow, the plot is intriguing enough though not entirely original. Allen's still got it, and he proves that by staying away from his trademark wit and humor, instead providing a tense and troubling film.

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

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

This is a good movie but very painful to watch. You can admire it but not because it is enjoyable.

One of the best movies I've seen this year. The performances are thrilling. Rarely have I been so involved and so nervous about the twists and turns of an unfolding plot. A masterpiece.

Grating performances, unengaging characters for whom i felt no empathy whatsoever from beginning to end.

So many people revert to hyperbole when reviewing so I figured I'd give an honest scoe. 8 1/2 is probably more accurate. A very solid and thought provoking film. The person who gave the movie a 0 and said the characters get away with their misdeeds is obviously not intelligent enough to intepret beyond dialogue. The last scene, and I won't spoil it, shows that none of the characters, particulalry the male lead, "get away with it".… Expand

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

This movie should NOT be rated R. I looooved it so much, but there is no nudity or language. There is one sex scene that doesnt show anything...a lot less graphic than PG-13 Titanic. There are a bunch of scenes leading up to sex but we never really get there. R! Come on! Amazing film though.

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.

A terrific film that should have you guessing until the very end.

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.

The characters in this movie are flat and pretentious. It's not that they are unlikeable or evil as Roger Ebert would have it. They are just boring and uninteresting. Homer Simpson is more fully rounded than most of the characters in this film. He's also a lot more interesting. The characters in this movie seem more like parodies of rich people out of the Simpsons than real flesh and blood people. It is no wonder that we don't feel too saddened or shocked when someone finally gets killed. We all know that it was just a cartoon character (and a boring one at that) getting killed, not a real person. To call this film a thriller is only possible if you have slept throught he first two thirds of the film which is certainly possible. The plot twists and philosophical questions that arise near the end of the film are interesting. All in all this would have made a fine half hour Twilight Zone episode, but, as a two hour movie, it is really overwrought.… Expand

Absolutely fantastic. Impeccably crafted and superbly written. Hitchcockian pacing works wonders for Woody.

If I hadn't known that this was a Woody Allen movie, I never would have guessed it. It's not like any of his previous movies that I have seen -- except for being very good. It's true that the pacing is a bit too slow and deliberate in the beginning, but that allows it to slowly build to a stunning crescendo. I loved the ending. I also loved the always good Scarlett Johansson. I find it ironic that it took Woody Allen to cast her primarily for being Smoking Hot for once, instead of her usual roles where she just happens to be good looking. Whenever she was on screen the sexual tension was palpable. How some of the raters could say that this movie was flat or that she was boring is beyond me.… Expand

Good movie. Scarlett Johansson is excellent (as always). But someone should've told me that I was going to watch "Another crimes and misdemeanors". Is this movie really necessary? I don't know.

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.

Woody Allen constructed this movie about one conceit, that of the net point in tennis. He demonstrates that there must be luck involved which determines if the ball will bounce your way or not. If you boil the movie down to this, you might just see it as a long dark joke with an eventual punchline (call it irony). What I think makes the movie work is that it is played out in an English class-based world and it portrays a type of story of greed, lust, and duplicity one might expect to find there. On the whole then, the movie is well crafted and acted. I would say the one weakness is the criminal investigation. It really only makes sense if the crime had taken place 50 years ago when fingerprints were still considered the state of the art technique. I've watched enough TV criminal shows to know that any of the detectives there, including even Monk, should have been able to solve this crime. Perhaps Woody Allen saw the movie originally as a period piece in which case the crime fits in perfectly. On the other hand, if you stick to just the "what is luck?" aspect of the story and not question the detective work, the movie is very effective indeed as a character study where each character is driven by his/her own well-defined motives.… Expand

Good film.The first half an hour was awkward in both dialogue and acting.When Chris and his future broher-in-law were sitting by the tennis court at the start of the film, discussing opera in their posh voices,I wanted to get sick.But it improves tremendously.Maybe the finale was too convenient and the theme shoved in our faces, but by the end I was hooked.Johansson was superb; being careful to stay away from being both likeable and unlikeable.Where's the Oscar nomination?… Expand

I am surprised to see such mixed reader reviews of this film. I was engaged throughout the story and felt (as I rarely feel) a delicious uncertainty of where the characters were headed. I was delighted at the crispness and realness the dialogue emoted. When Johanssen finally lashes out at Rhys-Meyers, I felt vindicated, and when the crushing ending arrives, I thought Allen provided a satisfying conclusion to an otherwise easy to follow yet captivating tale of fate, luck, and constructed destiny. I am a mild fan of Allen's work, but hands down, his decisions to let the camera watch the actors is essential to the success of the film. At times Johanssen lost my immediate attention, but Emily Mortimer was exceptionally consistent in her performance. The entire ensemble proved to be up to the delightfull challenge of Allen's stationary scenes and continual shots of interiors and exteriors. I was engaged, carried, and given a well thought out film. I appreciate it, and thank you Mr. Allen.… Expand

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

Amazing film! Don't pay attention to negative reviews!

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.

Story could have been better. The script is uneven. The characters are two dimensional and with the exception of Scarlett Johansson are not very interesting. The third act was completely overblown and unbelievable. I think it's just lazy on the filmmaker's part to start the movie with the saying about being lucky rather than being good and then proceeded to make a film with 9;surprise' twists. I want the film to be good not just hoping to be lucky. Too bad, the editing was a bit jumbled and thoroughly wasted beautifully filmed scenes. Woody took a big step back in this one.… Expand

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

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

Facile comparisons to Patricia Highsmith are offbase (and demeaning to Woody Allen's genius). Highsmith's protagonists are indifferent to evil and enjoy good conscience after their crimes. Not so Chris in Match Point. The key to this movie is that when Nola appears in Chris's night kitchen, Chris is not frightened. So it's not a bad dream, it's a transcendent level of reality that owes more to Cocteau than to Hitchcock. Chris is on trial; he defends himself by quoting Sophocles and referring to a larger scheme beyond morality, but Nola tells him to prepare for paying the price, which at this point, because of Allen's marvelous coup de cinema with the wedding ring, we think means the cops will get him. No. The price Chris plays... is to suffer lifelong retribution from his own internal furies. In the movie's last frame, Chris is in hell.… 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!!!

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

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

The last 30 minutes made it an 8, early in the show a 4, and throughout, a 6.6. In my eyes Nola (Scarlett Johanssen) is simply a modern day starlet, I could watch her forever, so my review is biased by her movements. The whole movie is a bit of a bore, probably better the 2nd time around, a fairly large disconnect on how, when, why Chris (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) actually got Nola interested, I must of been asleep when she started to fall for him. So to cut to the chase, and to sum up the whole movie: Never Forget... LUCK plays a large part in LIFE... and no LUCK for Nola is to be found. Could this be based on a true story? Only LUCK will ever know sure :)… Expand

This is an outstanding movie! I went into this with an open mind and was truly blown away. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers was excellent and really had his character down pat. I have seen Brokeback Mountain and Walk the Line and Jonathan holds his own for the Oscar in my opinion. Also, what a walk this guy has, LORD. He is so intense. . . Scarlett Johansson was as sexy and alluring as I have ever seen her and she has certainly cemented herself, in my eyes, as one of America's brightest young actresses. She did a very good job, bravo. But I am not going to say this movie was seamless because the dialogue was a bit absurd at times. However, in addition to the acting being very very well done the movie was beautiful. The locations used for shooting were just out of this world. In the end I left the movie totally disturbed by what I had just seen and I am positive that was Woody Allen's goal. I have been thinking about the movie every minute since because there is just so much tension left in my muscles. I find myself rethinking many of the scenes, which will prompt me to rent and/or buy the movie when it goes on sale. To Woody, I think you are as weird as they come, but brilliant at what you do. Cheers for Match Point!… Expand

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

The storyline is absolutely brilliant. It really keeps you grasped throughout the entire film. A very good comeback for Woody Allen. I don't usually like his movies, but this was different...It was good.

Well crafted, but utterly soul-less. A movie that only a critic could love. For a far superior rendering of the same themes, see Woody Allen's earlier movie, "Crimes and Misdemeanors"

I believe one of the elements of a great film is if it can stimulate strong emotion and conflict in the viewers-regardless of whether that emotion is directed toward the characters in the film, the viewers' own lives, or some larger all-encompassing issue or value. Match Point depicts a number of issues with which viewers can empathize. First, there is the issue of fidelity. Then, the question arises of whether one should commit to a relationship that is secure and content but unfulfilled, or one that is full of passion and excitement but doomed to fail. Another prominent theme was the debilatating effects of guilt, which not so subtly mimics "Crime and Punishment" (we see the main character reading this book in the beginning of the film) Quick summary: Set in London, Chris, a penniless tennis instructor is befriended by affluent Tom, who has a cluelessly happy and rich little sister, Chloe. Chloe falls in love with Chris, and Chris devlops an attraction toward Nola, Tom's American girlfriend. I won't give anything else away. It is captivating to watch how the main characters' flaws and vile actions lead to their demise. But somehow, Allen makes you empathize with them as well, producing a provacative, mentally-stimulating film.… Expand

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

The critical and commercial success of Woody Allen's latest but generally quite uncharacteristic venture, a dark, London-based tale of social climbing, adultery and other sins--and the primacy of fate--is ironic on two counts. It's clearly and by far his best movie since 1989's Crimes and Misdemeanors, but the irony stems from its frequent thematic similarities to that masterpiece...and that as entertaining and effective as Match Point often is, it can't hold a candle to it. For one thing, the story of Chris (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), a tennis pro who marries into a rich family with all kinds of business connections, but lusts after Nola (Scarlett Johansson), an American would-be actress who's his brother-in-law's fiancee, is icy-cold throughout. As good as Rhys-Meyers is at fulfilling Allen's conception of the role, his petulance and poutiness is no match for the soulfulness and world-weariness that mades his Crimes and Misdemeanors parallel, wonderfully played by Martin Landau, a character for the ages. And thank God that Emily Mortimer is on hand to warm up the screen as Chloe, Chris's spunky, abundantly sweet and almost totally clueless wife; with the exception of a minor character who figures in the film's central action to her detriment, there's simply nobody else to care about here: all the other people in this movie are either priggish, whiny, completely conscience-free, utterly self-centered or a total nonentity. As a commentary on the capriciousness of blind, random luck, both this and Crimes make me wonder if, while the music of the great jazz masters and the films of Ingmar Bergman are major influences on Woody's life and art, the wildly cynical 1940s Chuck Jones-directed Looney Tune, "Fresh Airedale", isn't by chance a minor but highly significant one. In any event, Woody is apparently being given a very wide berth by critics and audiences (and maybe Oscar voters?) because this is infinitely superior to the heretofore seemingly endless run of increasingly lame, repetitious comedies (Hollywood Ending, Anything Else, Melinda and Melinda) he's been cranking out as of late, but let's be honest: once you've experienced for the first time Allen's exceedingly clever final twist (and the equally ingenious way he builds it on a red herring founded on a total inversion of expectations), how much of a "rewatchability factor" does Match Point truly have? Nowhere near the level of not only Crimes, but also Manhattan, Interiors, Hannah and her Sisters and Annie Hall, that's for sure!… Expand

I guess it's a backhanded compliment (no pun intended) to say that this is best Woody Allen movie he's made in a long time precisely because it's the LEAST Woody Allen-like movie he's made in a long time. But so what? A good movie's a good movie.

This film was well written and, for the most part, well acted. Don't go to this film expecting the "typical" Woody Allen movie - there's not much in the way of levity. The film was pretty intense, yet engrossing with a somewhat surprising ending.

It captures, it intrigues; it keeps me in confrontation and in perpectual interaction with the actions and feelings of the characters. Definitely a thought-provoking film that mesmerizes and keeps the audience from falling asleep...

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!

I did like this movie; I thought it was set in reality until the "plot turn," and that's what made the last 30 or so minutes of this movie unbearable to me. To some reviewers that think that negative reviewers didn't see the same movie, yes, there are plot holes; you probably were too engrossed in the story to actually see them. Personally, I was thinking that maybe there would have been some forensic scientists in England, but in Woody Allen's England, forensic scientists must not exist. The movie covers up its plot holes, flat characters and bad dialogue with opera metaphors and the theme of "luck over goodness." Apparently the metaphors and themes are what most people see in Match Point instead of the shortcomings of this movie. I must have caught a lot of the shortcomings.… Expand

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

It's very interesting to see the fan reviews for this movie. It seems people either loved or hated this movie. I for one loved it but it's pretty much amazing how many people hated this. WARNING nothing EXPLODES in this movie, if you have ADHD you may need to pop a few ritalins to sit in one place and enjoy this one. The theater I watched it in was completely spellbound. The rich layers of metaphor and inuendo are probably lost on those giving this a red review. To me this was a better film than any i saw in 2005. This film makes no apologies that its not reality television, and it doesn't need to. Films are stories they are not real life get over it!… Expand

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.

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

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!

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

Appauling acting. Laughable dialogue. This film feels like it was cobbled together in 10 mins by an amateur dramatics society. Rubbish.

What? A shotgun goes off twice in a tight apartment building and no one hears it? Nobody does fingerprints in London? No one knew she was pregnant? How is it that he's an Irish Tennis player with an English accent? And the London Police have Irish accents? Too many holes to fill to be believable. Sorry.

A great surprise from Woody Allen. Of all the terrific movies this year, Munich, Brokeback, Good Night and Good Luck, Capote, Match Point has succeeded where these others have only come very close - and that is accomplishing with great finesse what it sets out to do. All the others stumble on occasion. Not here.

Ingtriguing twist on an age old dilemma, well played, thoroughly Woddy Allen, made me tearfully think about the hardest conversation I ever had with my ex-wife.

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

One of my Allen's favorites movies. A suspense and sensuality reflexion on the luck and opportunities. Brilliant!

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.

The film is immensely enjoyable.It succeeds both as a morality tale and a crime thriller. It has a glossy cinematography of the affluent side of london. The actors give good performances and the love scenes are effective.

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

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.

One of the best films of the year. Not for those with IQ of a body temperature, though.

Plain old stupid luck explains away all of the plot holes. That is what makes this all so enticing. Why was any of the characters a super genius? Of course not. Just that the family had everything go its way. As for the unlucky American Sexy Beauty, nothing ever went right for her. Wrong place at the wrong time. And that is what life is about. Now do you get it?

Only reason this isn't lower is because Scarlett Johansson looks great, but even she is unappealing and whiny throughout. The dialogue in this film is laughably poor.

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.