I absolutely loved it. I agree that it's a frustrating and difficult film (and I know people who hate it with the white-hot burning passion of a thousand suns, and that's a totally valid response too), but I think if the viewer is able to stop overthinking it and just live with it and experience it as it's happening, it will reward you with something. And then once it's over you can go back to overthinking it and arguing over what the burning house was supposed to mean and how much of it really happened and WTF was [insert just about anything here] about??? And burbling about how marvelous Emily Watson was showing up at just that moment, and so forth.

I watched it twice back-to-back and bawled my damn eyes out both times. I spent the first 30 minutes or so wondering when the movie was going to get started, and then realized that like Cotard, I was focusing on things that were not right in front of my eyes. I love how time kept slipping away throughout the movie. I love how some characters aged while others didn't. I love how Death Of A Salesman looms so large over the rest of the movie. Hell, I think it may be the most important American movie of the last decade. I can only think of a couple of others with comparable amounts of ambition and beauty and skill.

But, like Jessica, I understand why some people do not like it, like I understand why some people don't care for Faulkner or Henry James or Pynchon or Chris Marker or some of the other thorny artists I love.

Holy shit. I kept putting off seeing that in the theater, until, well, I didn't. I guess I will need to catch it on DVD now. Charlie Kaufman's mind works in seriously mysterious ways, doesn't it?

Without going into details, are there any of those OMG hilarious moments, like when Malkovich goes inside his own head? Those help mitigate the sadness (which has been a true Kaufman hallmark in all his scripts).

Yes, it's hilarious at times. And maddening at times.

So, Match Point. Not so much? Or is it just that it pales in comparison to Synechdoche, NY ? Dan Savage used Match Point as an example of how fucked up people can create great art and I remembered I'd had it from Netflix for ages and still not watched it so I plugged it in. I liked it but I'm not sure it qualifies as Great Art.

Never saw it. As much as I loved (I just surprised myself with the past tense on that) Woody's earlier movies, I'm afraid I've sorta lost interest in him as he's gotten grumpier. I guess I figure that Bergman's later films are hard on me, even though I love his earlier work, and Allen's later films sound like Late Bergman Lite.

Laga,

I did not like Match Point. I am not a Woody Allen fan, and I am reminded of this every time I see a WA movie. I did like Hannah and Her Sisters. I think that might be the only WA I've liked. But I'd have to think about it.

I definitely disagree with Dan Savage as far as using that particularly example. There are other WA works that are far far better.

I used to be a WA fan but when Ewen Bremner showed up and D said, "hey, it's Mullet!" I said, "oh lord and he was pretty high up in the credits. I hope that's not indicative of how much movie we have left." I liked how it came around at the end with the whole net ball thing but I felt there was far too much filler in between that idea being introduced and it paying off.

I enjoyed Match Point but would not call it Great Art. I would call it Surprisingly Good For A Woody Allen Movie Made In The Last 15 Years.

(But because it was impressive mostly due to how un-Woody-Allen-ish it was, I'm not sure how it would hold up if you weren't expecting it to completely suck.)

(But because it was impressive mostly due to how un-Woody-Allen-ish it was, I'm not sure how it would hold up if you weren't expecting it to completely suck.)

I enjoyed it, but then I got a fair amount of mileage out of the Crime and Punishment references.