BEFORE: This might seem a bit out of place here, as it will end up right between two big sci-fi blockbusters of 2018. But when I put this chain together, I realized I would have to delay my "Avengers: Infinity War" review because it was one of the very few films on my list that could serve as my lead-in for "Solo: A Star Wars Story", which I'm going to see on its first day of release. So, yeah, after today I'll be on a five-day break to prepare for "Solo". At this point it's difficult for me to go more than one day without seeing a new movie, so imagine me after five (or the 10-20 days I take off at the end of the year, but at least then I'm busy with the holidays...).
"Avengers" to "Solo" - as originally planned, those films were supposed to share TWO actors, but then I guess they re-edited "Avengers" and changed the IMDB listings, and there was no room for Happy Hogan in that very loaded comic-book film. But I had Paul Bettany as a back-up, so the chain kept going. But both of those "Solo" actors (unless something else has changed) are also in THIS film. So it fits neatly between the two big blockbusters.
Now, I've got more Kirsten Dunst coming up in June, so I COULD have saved this for next month. But the real-life Wimbledon Championship is in July, so there was no chance of me hitting that spot-on. And the whole world's eyes are on the U.K. this weekend, because of the Royal Wedding (I just flew back from there myself...for all you know...) so I thought maybe stick with the original plan and play something set in the U.K. for the occasion.
I don't know much about the new Duchess of Sussex - Meghan Markle just hasn't turned up in my countdown much, except for small roles in "Horrible Bosses" and "Get Him to the Greek" - and maybe I saw her on a couple "CSI" episodes, but that's it. I certainly couldn't be expected to run a film today with her in it, that wasn't in the cards. But I wish her well, and with everything I know about the royal family, I think it's another one of those Princess Di situations, where the royalty is getting the better of the deal. But again, not an expert.
THE PLOT: A pro tennis player who has lost his ambition and fallen in rank meets a young player on the women's circuit who helps him recapture his focus for Wimbledon.
AFTER: I played some tennis when I was a kid, so there's a tiny bit of my brain that still remembers the rules and the weird scoring system. (And of course, you can count on a tennis-based romance film to point out that "Love means nothing in tennis." Ugh, how predictable.) But I was still hoping for something here that would give some insight into tennis strategies or gameplay - I assure you that was does come through here is minimal. Why should a screenwriter's lack of understanding of a sport (or relationships, for that matter) prevent them from writing a script about it? I don't know, maybe devote a day or two, or even a couple hours, to researching the game? Just a suggestion.
Instead, we're led to believe that tennis is somehow a mental game, and as long as a player can clear his or her mind of negative thoughts, then he'll keep winning the points. Which is a way to go, if you can't be bothered to do the research, or if you feel like any physical tips won't translate to the audience. But I'm left with just as many questions as I have after a typical boxing film. When should a player charge the net? When should he hit the ball hard, and when should he just tap it? Is fifty percent of the game "all mental"?
The bits of technical advice that the film does offer don't seem to be very useful - "Just keep winning!" is the advice that Lizzie Bradbury offers to her boyfriend/casual sex partner Peter Colt, who's rapidly aging out of the program. Oh, sure, why didn't he think of that, just keep winning... Care to get a little more specific on how to bring this "winning" about? Another element is brought over from the boxing films, the debate over whether a player should have sex before a big game. Most training film say no, but Lizzie clearly believes otherwise, and wants to make this part of her routine, despite her father's best efforts to keep all men away from her - so it seems they disagree about what her training should cover.
I should point out that Peter does determine that one of his opponents has a "tell", where if that guy leans back on his foot a certain way, he's going to hit a serve hard and deep, but this barely qualifies as strategy, because 1) I don't believe that tennis functions like poker, 2) aren't ALL tennis serves made hard and deep? 3) this info comes from Lizzie, who once slept with his opponent and I don't see how you learn this about someone from sleeping with them and 4) if Peter is such a good tennis player, why didn't he ever try analyzing his opponents' serves before?
Another thing we learn about tennis players, they're deeply superstitious, so if they do something and then win the next day, they have to do exactly the same things before the next time they play. (Apparently this works better than exercise or eating right.). So this perhaps explains why Lizzie wants to have sex with people she barely knows, because she must have done it once and won a game shortly after. I can't decide if this is a step forward for feminism or not. Because clearly a woman can be in charge of her sexual history, but this also puts her on a par with men who treat women as disposable sexual objects and avoid long-term relationships. I guess it's a wash?
Peter Colt, on the other hand, enjoys a fling with Lizzie, but then nearly loses the next day. So having sex before a match is bad, except then he wins on a DQ, so perhaps it's good? Clearly more research is required - so he seeks out Lizzie to repeat the "training ritual", and goes on to make the semi-finals. Ah, so he's on to something - but then her father shows up to bring her back to her regular training routine, and then he's got to go to greater "comic" lengths to hook up with her again - tracking down her secret address, climbing up a trellis, and other near-devolutions into slapstick comedy.
Meanwhile, he ignores the other superstitions that usually get him through a match - like keeping his parents and brother from attending. For most of the film, they stick to this routine, since apparently he's never won with his parents and brother in attendance. Clearly there are some issues there. So then WHY would he reverse course and give them tickets to the finals? You don't follow a superstition 99% of the way to a championship, right? And the brother's got the best deal of all, betting against his brother - if he wins the bet, he gets paid and if he loses the bet, he gets laid. (Because his brother is a tennis champ, and apparently he can parlay this into some luck with the ladies.). So he's a cagey bettor, but a terrible brother.
Look, there's obviously some connection between an athlete's personal life and how they play on the field, but I just don't think it can be this cut and dry. Success in one arena can't possibly mean success in the other - the Tiger Woods scandal not withstanding, of course. Because if the game is all about clearing one's mind of all outside influences in order to perform, then that includes the personal life. This film wants to have it both ways, and that just can't be. Surely there have been tennis champions who were able to separate their romantic entanglements, or lack thereof, from their performance on the courts, right?
I've still got "Battle of the Sexes" on my list (as an Academy screener, but I'm sure cable will run it eventually). Perhaps I'll get some more understanding on the mechanics of tennis then.
Also starring Kirsten Dunst (last seen in "Midnight Special"), Sam Neill (last seen in "Thor: Ragnarok"), James McAvoy (last seen in "Atonement"), Bernard Hill (last seen in "True Crime"), Eleanor Bron (last seen in "Alfie" (1966)), Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (last seen in "Gods of Egypt"), Celia Imrie (last seen in "Bridget Jones's Baby"), Austin Nichols, Jon Favreau (last seen in "People Like Us"), John McGlynn, Jonathan Timmins, Barry Jackson, Robert Lindsay, Martin Wimbush, Cecilia Dazzi, Murphy Jensen, Alun Jones, John McEnroe (last seen in "You Don't Mess With the Zohan"), Chris Evert, Vikas Punna, Mary Carillo, John Barrett.
RATING: 5 out of 10 endorsement deals
No comments:
Post a Comment