All I can say is. "Matchpoint" (Woody Allen, 2006) really kept my heart beating. The plot was the most riveting part of this movie. The similarities to other recent Allen films were limited in number. However, I can say, in depth, they were quite....deep.
I think you would be happy to know that the awkwardness made another appearance in the next product of the Allen production lines. "Matchpoint" surely mocks "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" (or would it be the other way around..?) with its vivid sex scenes. One absolute; both movies star Scarlett Johansson. The awkward dialogue found in VCB is not found as commonly here.
Cinematography-wise, this movie was quite flat. Most, if not 99.99% of the shots were medium-long shots. I counted the exact amount of close-up shots in the movie... grand total: 3! All of these emotionally raw accounts were centered on Chris (the tennis-player/instructor turned adulterer to his super-rich wife, whom cannot conceive a baby). This sadly, left me wanting more!!! I could barely make out the acting on most of the faces of people in most of the shots. Perhaps this, dare I say, is an attempt to mask bad acting? Though I doubt this very much, who knows. Thoughts? haha.
Character development isn't as deep as I would have liked, but it was more multi-dimensional than the cinematography... ouch! Scarlett's character, Nola, seems to make a serious turn of thought when she is suddenly the one in the affair between she and Chris that needs the other. Even MORE surprising is the fact that Chris commits DOUBLE HOMICIDE!!!! (WHAT?!?!?) I know.. Kind of caught you off guard, right? But it's true! This was truly just weird. I mean, this was not in his characteristic physche at ALL. I am quite disappointed by this seemingly cheap plot-driven prostitute of a ploy! :( :( :(
As you can see. I am sad. Plus, it's hard for me to deal with such suspenseful movies. I think it will give me heart disease!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
ohh ian. suspense will give you heart disease? never heard that one before! haha.. ok so i'm going to intentionally ignore everything you said in your post and make a connection that freaked me out. SO, i'm not sure if either of you have read Crime and Punishment (if not, the basic plot is this man murders two innocent women who are pawnbrokers, he steals some jewelry but can't hold on to it so he thinks about throwing it into the river but ends up burying it under a rock. the head inspector eventually figures out what happens but ppl don't really believe him, eventually he confesses himself) so the connection to the movie this: a seemingly innocent/good man (Chris) loses it and murders an innocent old woman and the woman he's having an affair with, he throws jewelry into the river, he is questioned hardcore by the detective but is not found out, the detective then reaches the correct conclusion but Chris remains innocent (until proven guilty?). This is a really random post I know but this connection has really bugged me. So yea... i really didn't like this movie. the plot was suspenseful but really cheapened by the ending. AND scarlett bugs me. I just saw "he's just not that into you" and yet AGAIN she played the stupid little temptress (however in this movie she isn't killed-but a part of me kind of wished she would have been..) i mean seriously? is she really that one-dimensional? why does allen just reuse her/her character? he should really switch it up a bit...Comparing Match Point to VCB I've realized just how similar the outlines of each characters are... Has Allen run out of ideas or something?... ok yea. good luck finding anything to work off of in this post. sorry it's so random...
Katie! Great connection! I never thought of that... And thinking back to the movie, an innocent man is said to have killed the two after he dies in a drug related crime (the original motive thought of by the police to as why Scarlett was killed) because the old woman's wedding ring was in his pocket. Absurd!
If "He's Just Not That Into You" was directed by Allen, than yes, i would say that he/she are both one-dimensional. However, I think that he enjoys using her in that role because of what she brings to those characters.
I still can't believe Chris actually committed DOUBLE HOMICIDE!! I just wish that there was more validity in this plot twist, because honestly, NO ONE has ever or ever will see this coming!!!
Charlotte...where you at?
Thanks Ian. I appreciate the support in my comment (since I actually COMMENT CHARLOTTE). Anyway, looking back at the way the incident post-murders was set up it seems to be quite obvious he wasn't going to get caught. The fact that the camera did an extreme close-up/slow motion on the wedding ring emphasizes a great amount of importance and acts as foreshadowing. Also, although the scene with Chris being interrogated by the detectives is supposed to be high-stress (and he does a horrible job at covering up what he has done) it is too clear the movie is not going to end with him being caught.. WHICH IS SO ANNOYING!! this is just like VCB where the movie ends exactly how you don't want it to. SO FRUSTRATING. Woody Allen thanks for your work.. but I'm calling it quits for you. Sorry.. CHARLOTTE YOU'RE SLOW!!!!!
Ok guys I'm here. Don't get your knickers in a twist. So to be Devil's advocate: I kind of like the twist at the end. The rest of the movie is weird enough that the twist isn't that unexpected. And what else would you expect form a Woody Allen movie? But I think Chris killing the two women has really shown what a spiral his character has taken. He started out as a poor boy living in Ireland (by the way, if he grew up in Ireland, where is his irish accent??), but he still had morals and ethics. I think he said something to the point of his father taught him about morals or something? i might just be making that up. But he goes from somewhat respectable tennis player to being shamed out of that because he couldn't handle it, which incidentally shows weakness and cowardice on his part (something that continues to come up in the movie), to being the loser fiancee of a rich woman whose father gives him a job simply because he is engaged to his daughter. Then he gets into a tangle with his best friend's fiance. He has a chance to redeem himself after his obsession with Scarlet but he chooses not to. This is just another example of his weakness. He can't get over his obsession with Scarlett, so when he sees her again, after marrying his fiancee and living with her for awhile, he must see her again. I honestly have no sympathy for this character, so when he ends up killing these two women, I wasn't surprised. There was nowhere else for this character to go but down. The fact that Chris got away with this is evidence that bad people prosper. It sucks, but it's a reality in this world. I commend Allen on giving us two movies that effectively portray real life (I'm completely disregarding Sleeper). Although the actual plot of the two movies are completely different, they are both good examples of what can happen to real people. Real people cheat on their spouses, real people obsess over things they can't have, and real people kill people. I liked this plot twist.
As for Scarlett, I actually like her. I think she is a very talented actress and I can see why Allen uses her so much. Also, the wedding ring thing reminded me a little of rear window... no? I have a question for you, Ian, since Katie has already filled her obligation. Why do you think Allen used such limited cinematography? I think it might have to do with the fact that he didn't want to be too "artistic" with his shots because, at least with most of his newer movies (ehem SLEEPER SUCKS) he is very organic with his shots, though I did notice there was still less going on here than in VCB. Just wondering. LOVE YOU BOTH :)
I would have to say because this story is much more about the inner conflict of Chris. Allen is required to do a lot more "telling" in this movie because it is hard enough to put images into words that "showing" could have just been not as effective, y'know? As for liking Scarlett, I said I did as well (in real life anyways)!
Perhaps this whole "telling" thing does have to do with age. I mean, in class we talked about Akira Kurosawa becoming much more reserved with his cinematography as he grew older. Who knows, maybe Woody Allen is going through the same phase...?
Post a Comment