Homoerotic undertones from underwear model lookalikes are my favorite! Despite this mediocre review, now I will DEFINITELY be seeing Match Point. Thanks, Ms. Zacharek!

There isn't much point in ever reading a Woody Allen review for the past 10 yrs or so, because reviews always fall in these two categories:

1. Woody Allen triumphantly returns to form!

2. Not so fast--this newest work is a pale, derivative mockery of what Allen once was.

Clearly this reviewer is aware of this pattern, so she attempts to subvert it by saying "yes, a return to form, but should it be?" Rather than trying to play with the Woody ALlen Review Conventions in this way (by straddling options 1 &2) I wish she had abandoned this useless template altogether. Can't there be another way of considering Allen? Must every comment on Allen's film be comparative? Woody Allen reviews have become such a specialized form that it seems all they can do now is talk to one another. They are utterly stock, and utterly predictable, whichever option they choose. Allen may count it as a triumph that his films, whatever their quality, stupify critics into exposing their lack of imagintion.

Mcfawn

www.mcfawn.blogspot.com

I don't know why I bother to read any reviews by Stephanie Zacharek, especially her reviews of Mr. Allen's movies. Or should I say, her reviews of Mr. Allen, for that is what they really are. And she clearly dislikes the man. Stephanie Zacharek does not critique, she snipes, sneers and reveals her fears and prejudices. I am not interested in a reviewers personal baggage, nor do I want to read a polemic pretending to be a critical review of a film.

It's a fantastic film. Entertaining, morally perplexing, well acted, beautifully photographed and leaves you, in the end, wanting and hungry in the best way: for art that makes you think and feel about yourself and the world around you. One might not agree with the vision put forth here, they might find it morally depressing and dark, but one simply cannot deny that the vision is whole and very, very real.

The psychoanalysis of Woody Allen might be an amusing game for reviewers to play; it only seems to add to Mr. Allen's notoriety, but, Ms. Zacharek, you are a film reviewer and not a psychoanalyst. The fact that one has to remind you of this is quite upsetting. Do you even have an editor to remind you of this fact?

After seeing "Match Point" I can only ask you to review the film again and not the man, otherwise, if I wer you, I'd give back my paycheck for the week.

The thing I love about Steph's reviews: they always leave me with a line that seems like something I have, or could have, or would have, written. This time it was this one: 'Each of us knows that we can't be the center of the universe, but naturally, each of us wants to be the center of our own universe.' Way to go, Steph! So what if they won't let me write like you. At least they'll let you write like me. Love it. And your take on Woody then and Woody now. Cheers.

After unanimously favorable reviews in France (I think there's a law that requires them)when this film came out several months ago, I wrote this for a product-review website (English follows):

Après de nombreuses déceptions de Woody Allen, notamment les dernières comédies, je m'étais résolu à ne plus l'encourager dans ses entreprises cinématographiques regrettables. Mais en lisant des critiques unanimement favorables à "Match Point", je me suis laissé convaincre. Déjà j'ai un faible pour Scarlett Johannson, l'affiche était plaisante et promettait un ton léger, même pour un sujet grave... j'y vais.

Après une séance interminable (deux heures qui font comme trois), après un film qui n'est pas désagréable à regarder (il y a Scarlett, de toute façon, de beaux décors, etc.), je ne peux que conclure que les critiques ont parlé d'un film qu'ils auraient aimé voir, et non pas du film pondu par notre Woody quasi-national. Aucune profondeur de ces personnages ou rien n'est montré, et tout est dit, ou plutôt répété, sans qu'on ne puisse comprendre pourquoi (le leitmotiv du joueur de tennis qui s'est forgé une vie malgré ses conditions modestes, son ambition brûlante dont on ne verra même pas la fumée…). Il nous gave de son regard superficiel sur des personnages artificiels, malgré la peine… parfois visible… de comédiens tous très doués. La vision de Woody Allen sur le monde des affaires (on n'est quand même plus aux jours où un jeune intelligent peut débarquer dans une position de responsabilité sans expérience ni formation et monter aussitôt en grade du seul fait de son beau père patron) ou celui de la police (débats entre enquêteurs tellement lamentables qu'on ne les verrait pas dans Arabesque)… Les grincements d'une intrigue invraisemblable ne sauve rien.

On pourrait en rajouter, notamment sur la conception de la condition modeste chez Woody Allen (sans travailler le héros semble pouvoir se payer un appart à 9000 francs par mois à Londres), ou bien sur l'absence totale de sens du temps qui passe, et des occasions ratées à le montrer (par exemple l'enfant invisible du beau frère du héros).

Woody voulait faire son "Crime et châtiment"… je vous conseille le livre, voire son propre "Crimes et délits". En revanche, pour qui veut voir Londres dans un film sur le poids de la chance dans la vie, je vous conseille plutôt le film "Sliding Doors".

---

After many disappointments from Woody Allen, in particular his latest comedies, I had resolved not to encourage him in his regrettable cinematic endeavors. But after reading the unanimously favorable (French) reviews for "Match Point", I let myself by persuaded. I had a weak spot for Scarlett Johannson, the poster was pleasing, and promised a light tone, even for a serious subject... I went to see it.

After an interminable screening (two hours that seem like three), after a film that is not unpleasant to watch (there's Scarlett, after all, and beautiful sets, etc.), I can only conclude that the critics were speaking of a movie they would have liked to see, and not the film pushed out by Woody, our (French) national hero. No depth to these characters where nothing is shown and everything said, or rather repeated, without us being able to understand why (the leitmotiv of the tennis player who has built a successful life despite his humble origins, his burning ambition which leaves no smoke, let alone fire…). Woody crams his superficial viewpoint on artificial characters, despite the sometimes visible pain of his otherwise talented actors. Allen's vision of the world of business (are we still in the days wen a bright young man with no experience or training can be given a position of responsibility and immediately rise the ranks with the sole benefit of his father-in-law's backing?) or that of the police (discussions between investigators that are so pathetic that you would never see them in the worst episode of "Murder She Wrote")… The squeaking gears of an implausible plot save nothing.

We could pile on, in particular on the very special Woody Allen conception of humble means (without working the hero seems to be able to pay a 900 pound-a-month flat in London), or even the total absence of the sense of passing time, despite the easily available opportunities to do so (the invisible child of the hero's brother-in-law, for example).

Woody wanted to do his "Crime and Punishment"… you should read the book, or even his own "Crimes and Misdemeanors". If, on the other hand, you want to see London in a film on the weight of chance in life, go see "Sliding Doors".