So bad, it's unintentionally hilarious. T.U.R.K.E.Y
-
-
dombrewer — 15 years ago(February 23, 2011 05:49 PM)
Me three. Absolutely dreadful. Can't believe the high rating the acting and the writing were appalling. And couldn't they have hired an accent coach for Rhys Meyers? He couldn't even say aspirin properly.
-
getup2k — 15 years ago(February 23, 2011 06:36 PM)
Just saw it as well, I'm suprised it got quite such a high score on here but I definitely enjoyed it - it was quite odd in how it went from being a realistic and almost charming drama about a guy forced to choose between a very comfortable life with a devoted other and scarlett bleeding johansson, and therein asking how faithful would a man in his position remain in the name of that which a man fears most - commitment; to a tale almost darker than American Psycho after the shootings occur, considering the absence of even any clue that his character was capable of such a thing, and indeed change in perception you are forced to make when you realise things aren't as pristine as you first thought - the people in this film are now capable of killing, not just having lovely dinners together and bank holidays in the garden under the sun.
At first I was suprised to see that woody allen directed this film after coming on this site, but actually it kind of makes sense when I consider it would have somehow been a more fitting story set in america - at least less suprising. Not to cause offence to americans but the shooting in this film had absolutely no build up to it whatsoever and came completely out of the blue - something that I personally have never seen in a 'british' movie involving the middle classes, but I honestly wouldnt be overwhelmingly surprised seeing in an american movie. So maybe the inclusion of the shooting that seemingly arrived with no internal emotional debate for the main character, of any real significance anyway, was just the result of the movie having a traditionally american director/writer.
There certainly is no forceful message in there as he does seem to express some remorse, but really not enough for us to feel comfortable with, especially since the level of acting in my opinion was of a high standard - at least enough to let us know that, as viewers, we would be informed of any and all emotional conflicts the characters go through.
The fact that Chris got away with it, with such explicit luck, makes it tough for me to find any real meaning behind the film, and actually makes it come across as a kind of black comedy - although it really doesnt seem to have been made with that in mind. It's like the film is saying 'you can try as hard as you like, but sometimes people just have to die for a family to grow'. The fact it is glossed over with style we are these days used to seeing in english period dramas makes it all the darker, and unique, to watch.
Im not sure whether Allen intended this or not, but if not he has spent a lot of time and effort writing and directing a film that, to me, has very little obvious substance to it, other than a tacked on reference to luck because he got away with it. Considering his experience though I doubt this is the case, and perhaps he is very deserving of the score after all.. -
johnwilky53 — 15 years ago(February 24, 2011 03:47 AM)
Really enjoyed the film,gave it an 8 (probably a 7.8)reminded us of Hannah and her Sisters,Woody Allen at his best.Thought the dialogue and the shots of London with the landed gentry were a piss take and done brilliantly by Woody.Scarlet WOW Johannson was superb as was her co stars.
A tongue in cheek movie by Woody ,obviously lost on some,highly watchable,beautifully filmed,recommended by us. -
ladin — 14 years ago(August 11, 2011 05:34 AM)
Woody Allen tries to tell us that a man like that could kill 2 people in order to conceal his affair with SJ. That is why JRM is reading Crime and Punishment in the beggining of the movie. And afterwards JRM says to the old lady next door that the innocent sometimes die to clear the way for greater plans. This very well refers to Dostoevskii's novel.
-
Concise_Statement — 15 years ago(February 24, 2011 06:06 AM)
High sevens? uck sake.
It really is quite atrocious. The idea that the whole of London is still stuck in that kind of class system is what makes it feel so condescending. (Like Stephen Fry pointed out to Clive James, if you really wanna see a class system in play, go to the best hotels in New York where they have bellboys and porters carrying luggage - or the gratuitousness of The Hamptons - cos we're actually crap at that kind of thing.) Sure, we still have a problem with the haves and the have nots like any society, but you'd think half the city was related to the royal family by this crap. "Mummy says", "Daddy says" - oh gimme a break, they'd all have told their parents to uck off if they carried on like that. Even at the wealthier end of the spectrum, I happen to think that overall we have a relatively liberal, laid back population - a modern, typically European one. The portrayal here feels oppressive and Victorian. Guys, it's really not that bad here.
Setting aside the sheer 'Americanness' of this car crash, there's no way around saying the script is hilariously bad. And no, I don't think that's postmodern irony - I think it's a case of the writing being so shocking, so full of crowbarred exposition, that the perfectly respectable cast are unable to deliver it in any manner that doesn't come off as wooden. (Like the Star Wars prequels.) Example : "
Just in time. I'm almost starting to show.
" Like you'd say
that
at your own wedding! At the bloody altar nonetheless - and to the person who would be the first to already know that information! And how do we know they're adept at scrutinising art? "
Those brush strokes are really intense, aren't they?
" Quick Kirsty! Book them for The Review Show. Before they get away!
James Nesbitt appears at the end as someone who acts and moves like they're an organic life form as opposed to a cyborg, occupying a space recognisably on Planet Earth vis--vis a humble police station. It's a nice gentle relief from the carnage, but at that
point
, I wanted to strike a
match
and set myself on fire. A case of too little too late.
I did not like the film.
"
I've already let the right one in. Why would I let you in?
" -
Uneken — 15 years ago(March 20, 2011 01:09 PM)
Completely agree. I had to FORCE myself to see the entire film, gagging all the time at being fed this thick nonsense. Fatal attraction set in British Upper Class. Complete failure of a movie and I too, am a Woody Allen fan. ummm
FotoFilmVideo
Production Services in Spain -
PurpleProseOfCairo — 14 years ago(April 10, 2011 01:22 PM)
I liked it, but I agree with every negative comment here! As I say elsewhere, I just find Woody's films watchable, even when they contain some execrably bad elements, as this does.
Listening to the stilted dialogue I began to wonder whether it was a deliberate stylistic device - like our friend above I actually WAS reminded of Acorn Antiques at times, the way someone would deliver the equivalent of twenty pages of script's worth of information while simply pouring someone a cup of tea - "Oh yes, you remember him dear, he was the astronaut who walked with a limp. Had that unfortunate business with the zookeeper. Sugar?"
The coincidences and plotholes were legion, not to mention the "London" cliches - I wouldn't have batted an eyelid if Dick Van Dyke had come skipping across the rooftops pursued by a gang of Oliver Twist-style street urchins.
Woody swears by it apparently - I'd love to hear him discuss it and tell us exactly what was going through his mind.
Awight we're The Daamned we're a punk baand and this is called Carn't Be Appy T'day! -
howtragic — 14 years ago(May 29, 2011 07:57 AM)
I just watched this last night. The guy I am subletting from had this DVD on his bookcase, and I had never heard of the movie before and did not even realize it was a Woody Allen film. Based upon the title of the movie, and the DVD cover of SJ and JRM snuggling and holding a ping pong paddle, I honestly thought it was going to be a romantic comedy. I mean, "Match Point?" Anyway, after viewing it I have decided that SJ is one of the worst actresses working today. She never once seemed like she was in love or angry. She was just "there." The scene where the two cops discuss the case was one of the most poorly written scenes I have ever seen in a movie. It looked like something a high school kid making a movie for a class project would have come up with. But then again, ALL the dialogue in the movie was terrible. I have never seen so much expository dialogue in a film before. Not to mention, NO ONE talks in real life like the people in this movie do. I mean, NO ONE. I cannot believe the high rating it got here.
-
keithruth — 14 years ago(December 12, 2011 12:49 AM)
This is probably the most idiotic review I have ever read on IMDB. The first tip is that you cite Annie Hall and Play it Again, Sam as your favorites of Allen, the latter being a stage play that was filmed by another director, Herbert Ross. That you resort to the amateur's game of looking for "goofs" and "anachronisms" rather than content is the second. I've no idea how spotless the streets are or aren't in London, but when I enjoy a first-rate thriller such as this that's usually not what I'm looking for.
-
Bozohead — 14 years ago(December 17, 2011 02:53 PM)
The film contains every cheesy London cliche in the book - spotless streets, strictly white, plummy voiced people only, meetings at the Tate Modern, Thameside luxury apartments overlooking the Houses of Parliament
So you're saying theres no Tate Modern? No luxury apartments overlooking the Houses of parliament? That every single street, even in the rich areas, are dirty? Theres no rich white people living in London?
The movie never claimed that this was all there is to London. Should Woody have gone and filmed the slumier sides of London and just randomly inserted the footage into the movie to make people like you happy? -
hugh1971 — 13 years ago(May 30, 2012 07:21 AM)
Quite right. Whenever any film is set in Britain, good old British inverted snobbery rears its ugly head and people start complaining. How DARE they set a film in the 'unreal' world of the upper middle class, and not in a council flat in Dagenham where all the REAL people live?
I come from London and believe me, people like those in the film exist. In fact,I know people in London who are MUCH posher and MUCH plummier!
(I did think the use of the word 'poppa' was a bit weird. Britons of that class would say 'daddy' or 'father' or perhaps even Papa, but not 'poppa'. They also wouldn't say 'come to our country house', they would say something like 'come to our place in Berkshire')
But that's not the main pointthe problem with this film is the weird, zombie like acting. OK the film is meant to have a slightly otherworldly feel to it, what with the Dostoesvsky themes etc, but if that was the intention, it didn't come across well, it just looked like bad acting. Everybody seemed to be stiff as if they were in a period drama. -
The_BIFTAs — 13 years ago(October 21, 2012 10:51 AM)
Totally agree with the OP. Such cliched drivel - we were literally gasping out loud throughout at how bad it was.
The script could have been written by an immature 12-year-old, and the acting was abysmal.
"I'll have a baked potato - yum yum!" Who on earth says "yum yum"?
Worst film I've ever seen. Diabolical.
Films from a Parallel Universe -
http://www.biftas.co.uk -
Mher-arabian — 13 years ago(January 11, 2013 01:17 PM)
Old post but whatever. Match Point is my favorite Woody Allen film. To me, a film's resemblance to reality is not as important as other aspects of filmmaking, such as the directing, acting, writing etc. This film is highly entertaining. I don't really care whether it's realistic or not. It's a good film.
-
futurehaker — 12 years ago(September 19, 2013 11:47 AM)
I agree. This was a pretty good flick. At first I didn't think so but as I kept watching (and I do admit some scenes, especially with the music playing, are a bit too long and boring) I started enjoying it more and more.
And I don't know why everyone thinks it's so unrealistic. I thought it was if you just ask yourself "can this happen to anyone?" My answer to that is a definite YES. Now, in terms of police work, I will agree that it wasn't very believable but that's only right at the end of the movie so it didn't bother me that much. Otherwise I too hate unrealistic movies if it's all throughout. But again in this case I thought it was very realistic up until the end.
At the same time you have to consider the luck factor which I think was the main point of the film. The director tried to portray how luck is important in how our lives turn out. I think he accomplished that perfectly when he tossed the ring and it didn't fall in the waterwhich at first I thought was bad for him.
In any case we're entitled to our own opinions and had I just went by the comments made here I'd have missed a pretty good movie. I decided to watch it anyway to see if it's really worth the 7.7 rating and I think it's right up there. I'd give it a 7.5 -
futurehaker — 12 years ago(September 26, 2013 05:15 AM)
I agree. This was a pretty good flick. At first I didn't think so but as I kept watching (and I do admit some scenes, especially with the music playing, are a bit too long and boring) I started enjoying it more and more.
And I don't know why everyone thinks it's so unrealistic. I thought it was if you just ask yourself "can this happen to anyone?" My answer to that is a definite YES. Now, in terms of police work, I will agree that it wasn't very believable but that's only right at the end of the movie so it didn't bother me that much. Otherwise I too hate unrealistic movies if it's all throughout. But again in this case I thought it was very realistic up until the end.
At the same time you have to consider the luck factor which I think was the main point of the film. The director tried to portray how luck is important in how our lives turn out. I think he accomplished that perfectly when he tossed the ring and it didn't fall in the waterwhich at first I thought was bad for him.
In any case we're entitled to our own opinions and had I just went by the comments made here I'd have missed a pretty good movie. I decided to watch it anyway to see if it's really worth the 7.7 rating and I think it's right up there. I'd give it a 7.5