|
Directed by: Richard Loncraine Starring: Paul Bettany, Kirsten Dunst, Sam Neill Plot summary: Paul Bettany is Peter Colt, formerly one of the highest-ranked tennis players in the world, but now in his early thirties, he's sunk to rank 119 and is planning to quit professional tennis after competing in one last Wimbledon tournament. On the eve of the first match, he meets Lizzie Bradbury (Kirsten Dunst), a rising tennis star who inspires him to play better than he has in years, despite constant efforts by her father (Sam Neill) to keep the two apart so as not to compromise Lizzie's focus on her game. "Wimbledon" is a fairly mediocre romantic comedy with a few nice touches. Very few of the jokes really take off, and most feel like we've seen them countless times before. Usually, it would be the case that the best moments are all in the trailer, but that's not even accurate, because I don't think that any of the cute parts of the trailer are actually in the movie at all. The scenes are present, but the intonations of the dialogue and camera shots are significantly different. This isn't that rare in moderation, but it doesn't help to breed much affection towards a film when even the moments you thought you could count on are all clumsier and duller than you were expecting. The plot starts out as a vague cliche, but with lots of directions in which to stretch; it doesn't. As the story moves along, it manages to hew closer and closer to the strict lines we all know by heart. Instead of suspense rising as the climax draws nearer, it gradually ebbs as the possibilities dim for the film to surprise us with something imaginative or intriguing. Characters that initially showed promise as potentially thoughtful or multi-layered are directed in their actions by the plot, not by any shade of their personality. There is, I believe, one cliche which the film willfully manages to avoid. We have all seen the film about the underdog, up against immense competition, who somehow manages to hang in there until the very last round, or shot, or basket, or heat, or whatever. Usually, this contest begins with the enemy throttling the underdog a few times, then the protagonist gets in a lucky shot, and then we cut (after a quick montage) to that fatal moment that will Decide It All. It's never explained or depicted how the apparently woefully underskilled player holds his own up until that point against the other guy, who is invariably supposed to be the best player around; however, it's a necessary leap to get to the point where we actually care what happens. "Wimbledon," however, has decided to smash that mold, by showing us what feels like every single moment in Peter's ascent to that final match. And what's worse, it actually attempts to build suspense around each point: "This serve is crucial to Colt's comeback!" the announcers declare. Two minutes later, "Colt needs to make this point to have a chance at winning." And et cetera. Doesn't this movie understand that we KNOW Peter won't be going out of the tournament before the film ends? And does it also not realize that a lot of people in the audience, myself included, don't have the faintest idea how tennis scoring works, and so don't even really understand what all these accumulating points signify except that he doesn't have the trophy yet? The play-by-play manages to be so ever-present it gets annoying, while avoiding almost any useful information for the uneducated viewer. (By the way, John McEnroe plays himself as one of the announcers; it probably says something about the mindset of the filmmakers that they went to the trouble of hiring a former tennis star who has become famous for his wackiness and then gave him the blandest role imaginable.) The stars are servicable but uninspired. Sam Neill is a plot motivation, not a character. As Peter's agent, Jon Favreau is annoying, but not in an amusing way. Whoever played Peter's best friend, a German tennis star, was exceedingly unmemorable. Paul Bettany, of "A Beautiful Mind" and "Master and Commander," tries hard, and could probably be pretty funny in a better movie. Kirsten Dunst, though, just seems wrong. I can never buy her when she's playing what's supposed to be a real modern person, or a film version of a real modern person. I don't think she can pull it off; she's better when she's in movies with more of an epic or fairy-tale quality, where we're not supposed to feel as if we could pass her on the street. But perhaps I'm just plain tired of looking at her eyelids; she always looks bored and tired. It should be noted that there is some neat camera work, particularly in the tournament scenes, although the director seems to return to the same neat tricks over and over. It's definitely not worth going to the movie for, but if you do go, it's a little bonus. This isn't the sort of film where you'll feel like stabbing out your eyeballs by the third act, but you're also not likely to walk out feeling especially fulfilled. RATING: 2.5 PROS: Generally inoffensive, some moments of nice cinematography CONS: Not very funny or interesting ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360201/
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2004 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
My girlfriend dragged me to see this against my will on Friday (why we couldn't have gone to see Punisher or Hero I'll never know  ) and I thought this film sucked. It was completely predictable even down to the omg! the rival for the Kirsten Dunst's affections is the guy Peter has to play in the final.It's like someone bought the writer a "Romantic Comedy Creation Kit" for christmas and this steaming pile of sheep poo poo is what he came out with. All the standard bits are in there, the unexpected meeting and attraction of two people, the getting along a-ok phase, the shocking break up before the final getting back together again, it's all in there. The only thing that would have made this film worse is if they'd actually got Hugh Grant to play the main character like they originally intended, although at least then it would have actually been funny, I think i laughed once, but that may have been because my girlfriend managed to somehow spill popcorn on the annoying couple in front of us. I am ashamed to be British.  1/5 (but only because it's not as bad as The Core)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2004 22:40
|
|
|
idiot
Somebody fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Sep 28, 2004 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2004 05:54
|
|
|
I saw this movie, it was everything I expected it to be. I give it a 2.5 as well. It wasn't anything unique.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2004 03:19
|
|
