I am not a Woody Allen fan. I did enjoy Sweet and Lowdown, but all of the other Allen films I've attempted to watch have just been attempts, usually resulting in me waiting for it to be over or me getting up and leaving the room half way through. But not with Match Point. I thought the cast was superb, the plot original, at least the twists (the connection between luck and the tennis ball on the net being connected to the ring he tries to throw in the lake which gets picked up by a homeless man - nice), and the acting was not bad. I can understand to a degree why someone would think the acting was bad. But only to a small degree. Compared to other Allen movies I think this has phenomenal acting. Usually Allen writes the script almost as if he wants to get such and such a point across and doesnt care how believable or realistic the lines are to get there. Melinda and Melinda, for example, felt like it could and should have been a play. As a movie it felt very staged and so hard to believe. Realism is just a given for today's movies. Say what you want about that. But for a movie to work, at least for me, the lines have to be said naturally and believably. A lot has to do with the writing, but there's the actor and the director there as well. I can see these actors in an Allen movie reading the script and thinking, "How am I going to say that?" So they get to the shoot, they simply say the line, somewhat expository, and Allen is like "Great, yeah that's umm, great. Ok the next shot..." Because he seems to me more concerned with themes and points then delivery of lines.

All that being said, see Match Point. It's filmed in the UK, but doesn't feel like it was made by an American. The theme is a good one, touching on Love vs. Lust and murder and Luck, and the acting is actually very good. Some friends of mine (Megan and Mat) think the acting was horrible. I just don't know what they were thinking. I guess people are entitled to their opinions. I mean, I suppose they are.