The problem with An Unifished Life is that it was shelved, shelved films rarely if ever do well...plus J.Lo has become toxic to films.

Agreed on Rhys-Myers, he was pitch perfect.

I thought Rhys-Myers gave the poorest performance out of the whole cast.

Kinda agree, getluv. He got better as it went on, but for the most part, I thought he wasn't great.

A "fuller" review:

Match Point unexpectedly takes a biting turn in its third-quarter and becomes one of those movies that remains in one's mind days after seeing it. It's cynical, it's depressing, and it's somewhat didactic.

While Match Point may seem like a relationship drama at first, it transitions into a thriller in its second act. Perhaps what's most commendable about Woody Allen's direction (outside of the obvious improvement between Match Point and the, well, lacking movies he's been making for over a decade now) is how successful he is at transitioning between these two opposites. Much is due to the realism he maintains throughought the film. Match Point takes sharp turns, but the movie never seems particularly far-fetched.

Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, as the conflicted Chris Wilton, is convincing. Rhys-Meyers effectively conveys Wilton's changing moods and vocal inflections, without relying on over-acting (*cough* Sean Penn *cough*) or being extremely showy. Scarlett Johansson is also strong as Nola (what'd you expect me to say, really?!) - it becomes easy to see why Chris is glued to her in the first place. She's attractive. She's wily. And, she's a challenge. I won't say what happens (you have to see it!), but when she's no longer a challenge to Chris (basically, she's no longer sticking to the "but I can't do this" card, which isn't long), he's getting himself in a shitload of trouble...

The movie isn't that artistic, but the sex scenes are sublime. It's kinda disgusting that I'm even mentioning that part, though...and I suppose it's also kind of nasty that one of Allen's sparks in this movie is being able to film Scarlett and Jonathan on top of each other in the rain, on the bed (with oil added in!), and against the wall...I almost didn't want the camera to leave the frame (haha, I'm sure Kypade, Libs, and Gunslinger don't agree with me on this one).

Many people have brought up the idea of luck. In this theme, Match Point is pretty damn straightfoward, which might pose a problem for a few viewers who don't like movies being clear-cut with themes. One of the most beautiful things about the movie is how Allen weaves the very first scene, with a voiceover about luck, with the last ten minutes. Luck is, indeed, powerful.

A

Yup, but doesn't change the fact that Redford was great in it : )

Woooo... didactic!

...wrong word?

Meh.

One of Woody Allen's finest films. A-

No, it's a fine word - I'm just being goofy...

I think there's an implication in there somewhere, but I'll just say I certainly don't disagree with you. (Though if your wish had come true it would kinda yknow, bring the movie to a bit of a halt.)

This film didn't grab me at all. And I don't know why. I enjoyed how it played out at the end, but aside from that, I don't think it was great. Good, but not great. And this sucks, because there are a lot of big movies lately that are getting rave reviews that I just thought were okay (Brokeback, Narnia, etc.).

Grade: C+

A. Excellent movie with an accurate insight on human interactions and motives. One of the few movies that keeps getting better and better while watching it.

I watched this about a week ago on my computer, but I just got around to seeing in a theater. I wanted to wait to give it a review until after I saw it in a good condition.

Anywho, it's a good film. I stress good because in no way is it a great film like some would have you believe. Allen's script is fantastic (not only is the dialogue interesting and natural, but the film takes many unexpected turns that never feel forced), and his direction is definitely much improved over his recent work. The theme of luck running throughout the film is intriguing, and the way Allen wraps the beginning frames of the film into the climax of the film is brilliant. The final twenty minutes are among the best i've seen in a film all year. Everything is executed perfectly. The acting is fairly strong, with the only weak spot (and it being a huge weak spot) in Johansson. She is absolutely terrible in this film and she single handedly ruins several scenes that call on her to display a wide range of emotions. There are points when she is simply unbearable to watch. It's one of the films few missteps, but it's so huge and glaring that it drags the entire piece down. Johansson's character is simply too important to the film to have it so thoroughly butchered.

B+

Ouch.

I thought Johansson was good. The only "bad acting" that sticks out to me is the whole "You're a LIAR!!!!" part. It kind of reminds me of a certain actress in Closer...

You didn't just go there, torrino. Tell me you didn't.

"Slap me, fucker! Slap me! That's what you want, isn't it?"

I kid. I love Portman.

You're trying to compare Portman's turn in Closer with Johansson's abomination in Match Point?

HA! Don't make me laugh.

I already did, yo.

Nah, I agree that Portman was stronger than Johansson, but I'm not saying she was perfect, either...

The mere suggestion that Natalie is less than perfect in anything is enough to lead to your untimely demise, Ross.

REVENGE OF THE SITH???!!!???

Now, it wasn't exactly her fault, given the screenplay, but...

Hold your tongue, boy. Hold your tongue.

Okay, you're right.

Ah, I completely agree with you on this one, my grade is just slightly lower because I didn't find myself interested at all in the first half of the film.

The screenplay is just great and would easily be my vote for the best original screenplay of the year, if it wasn't for the gem of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. The direction was good, but I have seen better last year.

The finale is simply brilliant and elevates the whole thing. Especially the way all things play out in the end - amazing.

Johansson is really relatively weak. The thing is, I have seen her better before which is why I was irritated. Johnathan Rhys-Meyers, however, delivered a great and overlooked performance.

Meh.

An entirely dissapointing film on nearly every level. It isn't a disaster but it is far from a masterpiece. The characters are each unlikeable and unredeemed in the end, especially Rhyes-Myers. The screenplay plods along at an insanely slow pace and when the final resolution is to take place there is little to no explanation for why the characters do what they set out to do.

The actors themselves are all fairly decent, with the exception of Johannson who once again displays she really has no talents whatsoever. Rhyes-Myers is decent, but far from great. Matthew Goode was one of the better actors along with a great performance by Emily Mortimor as Chloe.

Overall, it is a very dissapointing film. The only saving grace is an above average screenplay with some great dialogue from time to time. Even with that, the characters are so hollow and so utterly shallow that they just come across as inhuman in many respects. The ending, while brilliant as it is, just leaves too much to be desired and a few too many questions left unanswered. Perhaps it is better that way, as at least it leaves a little more up for discussion.

C

I did not like it.