I loved "Match Point" and thought "Scoop" was completely ridiculous (though Allen himself had a few funny lines). And Tom Wilkinson as an actor is "solid enough"? Good god, woman, what does it take to impress you?

I think I'll stay home and watch McCabe and Mrs. Miller on DVD.

I honestly didn't think Colin Farrell still acted and Ewan McG - well he's just creepy.

I totally disagree about Match Point--it was his best movie in many years, a quietly dazzling new take on An American Tragedy. Perfect cast, perfect use of London and the Tate Modern, and it has one of the best scenes he's ever done: the "recognition scene" where the two emotional con artists share a drink and survey each other's drive and shallowness. I've seen Match Point three times and my admiration for what Allen accomplished in terms of narrative grows each time. I'm a novelist and watch his films as a writer--the writing in Match Point is flat-out superb.

Stephanie Zacharek pans a Woody Allen movie. Who would have expected that?

I still go to Woody Allen movies, and I'll bet money that in ten years Match Point will hold up better than ninety-five percent of the crap churned out by Hollywood that is raved about in Salon. Yes, his dialogue can be awkward now, but I would rather deal with some expository dialogue than two hours of Will Ferrell any day.

The prosecution rests.

The only thing more tedious than a recent Allen film is a meticulous review of same.

For many of us, Pauline Kael is the film critic who mattered the most . We may have read "Reeling" or "Deeper into Movies" or we may have picked up a copy of the New Yorker with one of her four thousand reviews and we may have thought, "this is how I want to think, and this is how I want to write." Reading Kael was always a thrill -- her prose was too dynamic for her to be anything but exciting -- but it was more than that, and those who think of Kael as a mere entertainer are only seeing half the picture. She was an entertainer allright, but an entertainer with a deep knowledge of her medium, its history and its possibilities. No wonder she influenced filmmakers (Tarantino for one). And no wonder she influenced so many film critics -- i.e. Ms. Zacharek, who often seems to be channeling Pauline Kael, both in her writing and in her thinking. Zacharek is a fine critic when she thinks for herself. But sometimes reading Zacharek, we may get a bit woozy, wondering why she has to sneak a McCabe and Mrs. Miller reference into a Woody Allen review. Is it really relevant to mention it in this review? Or is she just nodding to Pauline? Some of us may wonder. Those of us who remember how Kael turned against Woody Allen after he stopped making his early funny films, may wonder if Zacharek is really watching the screen when she watches Allen. Reading Kael has fogged her vision. It's the real Shadows and Fog -- and Kael, whose ego was enormous, somewhere is laughing.

. . . wha?

Ever since Allen married his stepdaughter I have not seen an Allen film. And won't until he dies. This may be a Jewish-Wagner thing, but I consider him a child molester and won't see his films.

I know he has made some fine movies in the past, but I am getting along quite well without him. Thanks for letting me know that I am not missing anything.

I wonder if Allen's moralistic tone in this film is some kind of response to the fierce criticism he has gotten over his private life. At any rate, it seems rather hypocritical for a man with his history to use ethics as a principal subject of a movie.

Anonymous: writers can't judge someone else's writing? That's a good one. I guess that means reviewers can't, either, since they're writers. Time to shut down the reviews here.

Yeah, Stephanie Zacharek prefers movies like I Am Legend over stuff like Match Point.

And did you see the hack job she did on Brokeback Mountain?

So let's see, she disliked Brokeback Mountain, she panned There Will Be Blood, which I still can't believe, but she likes shit like I Am Legend.

Her taste in movies seems utterly random. It avoids consensus, yet still doesn't seem to be tied to quality in any discernible way. What is that doing for anyone?

Ms. Zacharek may benefit from a scientific approach, perhaps an attempt to control for things having nothing to do with the movie. Only then can we figure out what causes her to like or dislike a movie. Is it the freshness of the popcorn, the flatness of the soda, or the air temperature of the theater? Maybe it's something more simple, such as the general mood with which she wakes up on a given morning, or the day of the week. We'll probably never know.

Like Woody Allen's annual, tired exercise, Stephanie Zacharek is adding nothing to the discussion. She's just there.

How do reviewers like this hold down jobs?

The only Woody Allen films that are really great are the ones in which he stars, except Sweet and Low Down (which he is in briefly).

As Ms. Zacharek said, Woody Allen continues to make movies, and I will continue to avoid them like the plague. I wish he'd just go away, live happily with the wife and kids, and for the love of God, quit making movies.

Especially considering that he got it RIGHT with "Crimes and Misdemeanors?"

"Match Point" was a pale imitation of that better piece and this one sounds paler still.

So, what are you trying to tell us, Woody? Who should be worried that you're going to off them and get away with it?

So are you saying you don't like the movie?

I can't believe nobody's mentioned the London setting. What's up with Woody Allen and London? I mean, I'm well aware by now that Allen can make an absolutely shitty movie set right on his beloved Upper East Side or back in his beloved Forties, but when he steps off the island of Manhattan he totally loses his bearings. Everything either has a Berlitz accent -- i.e., is incapable of operating idiomatically -- or degenerates into caricature just a little more refined than the deliberately broad strokes with which he painted LA in Annie Hall. London? It's like Faulkner setting a novel in Detroit.