On the original quiz I got 23, though I call it into question since there are only 3 movies #27 could be and none of them (nor any alternates of the titles) got a green result.

Matt, the answer is the name of the trilogy as a whole.

I tried that when I was taking the quiz and it didn't work.

The string it's looking for is "the lord of the rings"

You probably left out the article.

I just saw Match Point. You would never guess it was a Woody Allen film; it's quite a departure from everything else I've seen of his (I haven't seen Crimes and Misdemeanors ). Well crafted and artfully done, but I'm not sure what I think about it.

I was intrigued by the way it was shot, though. It gives the impression that the camera is just eavesdropping on these people's lives. I thought about how hard it must be to consciously shoot like that without...making it look consciously shot.

Man I loved that movie.

It gives the impression that the camera is just eavesdropping on these people's lives. I thought about how hard it must be to consciously shoot like that without...making it look consciously shot.

That's how The Office and Arrested Development are shot.

I see those as more of the documentary style where the camera is a character. In Match Point, the camera is just kind of there, not making any sort of comment. The editing is part of it, too, the way you get short scenes that don't really have anything to do with anything but are just a snapshot of what the character is doing at a particular time. It's a technique that irritated me in Lost in Translation for some reason but worked for me here. I could get into the slow burn much more easily. I'm not sure what it is. I'm more fascinated by the filmmaking than the film itself.

I really liked Ebert's review. He does acknowledge that the movie is short on character development, which I noticed as well. He also quite astutely points out that it's basically a noir flick.

I loved Match Point. It's the first movie I can recall that I went into knowing absolutely nothing about it, not even what kind of movie it was. Though I was told at the opening that it was Woody Allen, so I wasn't waiting for the spaceships, at least.

I loved the way it was shot, and the lack of character development seemed absolutely right; it was about people who don't ever develop any character and basically never change. And I totally loved that he got away with it, completely. No repercussions, only the briefest battle with guilt, no suspicion, nothing. It's so rare that a movie's "moral" point is, sometimes you get away with it, even when you don't deserve to. Loved how the voiceover at the beginning with the tennis ball going back and forth and tipping off the net was echoed later in the ring tipping off the fence, and how it didn't mean what I thought it did. And how the movie's structure gives no hint that he won't, in fact, finally get away with it all. What you, P.-C., said about the "narratorless" way it was shot, the camera giving no comment, makes me think, now, that that style was chosen to give the feeling that there was no external moral POV, that there was no all-seeing observer with an opinion, no God, in essence, who would make it all work out "right". As the friend said, sometimes you're just lucky.

In conclusion, let's go make out at the movies.

I agree with everything you just said. Well, almost. I do now, I think. At first, the fact that he got away with it so completely left me feeling cold and slightly angry. But as I read more discussions of the movie, I realize that's totally the point, and it's exactly what should happen. I also loved that the ring, which was used as the marketing tool, didn't mean what the audience would obviously assume it would mean. I mean, can you believe his luck?!

About the lack of character development, I think the characters weren't that fleshed out to begin with. It left me confused about their motivations.