|
|
Post by mj on Oct 15, 2005 22:23:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 16, 2005 4:23:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Jan 27, 2006 9:58:06 GMT -5
Match Point is ACTUALLY showing in Tulsa! I heart AMC theaters oh so very much.  AMC Southroads 20 showtimes: 1:35, 4:35, 7:35, 10:20 In the Oklahoma City/Norman area, you can see it at the AMC Quail Springs Theater: 1:30 4:20 7:10 10:00 The power couple in Boston have several theater options (hopefully, one of these is near by): Loews Theatres Boston Common175 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 11:00 2:00 5:00 8:00 11:00 Kendall Square Cinema1 Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA 1:30 4:05 5:00 7:10 9:45 AMC Fenway 13401 Park Drive Ste. 7, Boston, MA - Map 1:15 4:15 7:15 10:15 Circle Cinemas399 Chestnut Hill Avenue, Brookline, MA - Map 12:40 3:50 7:05 10:05 AMC Burlington Cinema 1020 South Ave., Burlington, MA 1:45 4:50 7:45 10:20 Hollywood Hits7 Hutchinson Drive, Danvers, MA 1:45 4:30 7:15 9:00 9:50 AMC Framingham 1622 Flutie Pass, Framingham, MA 1:05 4:05 7:05 9:55 Sadly, I could not find any showtimes in McAllen.. But, it could just be me. I suck at internet searches. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest Justin on Jan 29, 2006 10:28:21 GMT -5
So, we went to see it last night. I gotta say, if I were to rank it purely on its own, as if I just fell off the turnip wagon into the theater, then I'd give it an A-. But it's SOOOOOOOOO much like "C&M," that if I were to give it a grade based on my knowledge and appreciation of Woody's other works, it's no better than a B. Maybe a B-. It's really just a very focused, very intense version of "C&M," but set in Britain with a younger cast and little to no comic relief. So, in that way, it's very dark, whereas the first film is only half dark. And it's quite a tense film. At one point, Mandy looked over at me and said, "I think I'm going to throw up," to which I replied, "I can't watch this anymore." But it's definitely worth viewing. Many of Woody's familiar themes: The ascent into wealth and priviledge, adultery, secrecy, Dostoevsky, art museums, boozy parties, hot man on man action, a police shootout, tennis, and some killer car crashes...
|
|
|
|
Post by jtmx1 on Apr 7, 2006 23:17:46 GMT -5
Notes on Woody Allen’s “Match Point”:
Woody sounds completely at home in an English accent, maybe even better than his New York Jew stammer.
Emily Mortimer is so beautiful and natural, and Scarlet Johansson is so overrated… but I digress.
I don’t think this movie is Crimes and Misdemeanors redone, even so it isn’t as good. It only approximates the former film if one ignores the wonderful first third of the film, up to the kiss. The second act is all but inevitable, which is strange since the theme of the film is supposed to be luck. The final third is the ball (or the ring) bouncing above the net: Anything could happen. But we know there are really only two possibilities.
It’s the second act that I keep thinking about. I knew exactly what was going to happen. There was going to be a marriage and some subsequent violence, but who would be the victim? Again, this choice seems almost arbitrary, but the fact of a dichotomy seems written in stone. Would Chris get away with it? That is a strange kind of question, and I think it is worthwhile to think about the possibilities it denies. How many laws of physics are taken for granted just to get the ball to hover above the net? How much film did it take Woody Allen to get that shot?
It’s hard to make a film about luck when drama requires inexorability. The second act is necessarily about Chris and Nola meeting again. The only question is how. The how is the luck. The event is not in question. 02079460996…luck and no luck. Can we distinguish between the event and the arc? Does the same hold true about life itself? Are the structures inevitable even if the events are unpredictable? Is this a religious question or a scientific one? Just pattern recognition and projection.
The third act is about the crime: Either he is going to get away with it or he isn’t. But look at how many possibilities are lost in that dichotomy. Is this a film about luck? It is hard to say so.
“Slacker” also claimed to be a film about luck. And of course, it was one of the most contrived pieces of filmmaking I’ve ever seen. As I watched the last 15 minutes of Match Point I settled into the conviction that however it ended, it would be likewise contrived. Why? Why? Because events were not warring, merely structures: Is this a religious thought or a scientific one?
Does the Stoa subsume the Stage or vice versa? God bless and keep that old atheist, Woody Allen.
Jeff
|
|
