INFO
REVIEWS
MAP
OPEN FORUM
PHOTO ALBUM
 Chris' Review: Hey, it has Kirsten Dunst in it... how bad can it be? Yeah, it's a cheesy romantic comedy. It's even a cheesy romantic comedy about sports... but I liked it. The key to Wimbledon is it's formula. Seriously, you've seen this movie before. If you're going to see Wimbledon to be surprised or shocked... to be pummeled with emotion or to learn anything.... you're going to be disappointed. The movie is named on the paragon of tennis competitions... it's the friggin' SuperBowl for people in white shorts/skirts.... and tennis is in the background most of the time. No surprises, you can see everything coming a mile away. Again, formulaic... the thing is, it's a formula that works. The overall plot was so full of holes that you could drive a Porsche Roadster through it... the thing is, it was SOOO drowning in sugary sweetness, that you didn't really care. You knew what was going to happen, you knew that it was a very basic formula, you knew that certain occurrences were unrealistic, you knew that Lizzie would not DARE eat pizza the night before a big match... but you let it slide because you're enjoying the taste it's leaving in your mouth. Like cotton candy, no substance, mostly air, but boy oh boy, does it taste yummy. Then there is the tennis substory... (which should have been the primary, but this is a romantic comedy... enjoy the sugar.) I know nothing about tennis, I barely know the rules. I would have loved it if they'd punched up the tennis part just a bit so I could have learned something about the sport. Here is their big chance to create a new fanbase for tennis, and they fluff it. I wanted something along the lines of Any Given Sunday... giving a really gritty look, something that can give you the feel of what it's like to be playing the game. Nothing was offered here. Some internal dialogue by Peter... but even that was full of comedic shots. Even with a Tootsie-Pop, you still have the question of how many licks it takes... I just wanted to learn SOMETHING about tennis. Paul Bettany is pretty good in this. I never questioned his acting ability. During the whole movie, I just never doubted that I was watching Peter Colt on the screen. I also didn't notice how great he was... because he wasn't. He was passable. He was just there. He was wallpaper. You hope, in a movie like this, that you're going to get leads that light up the stage with their charisma... it just wasn't the case. Good, but not great. As much as I love Kirsten Dunst, she's the same type of actor. There were just no spotlights forming. Hollywood is looking for the next Julia and Kirsten is not even attempting to take that spot. If you ask me, that's a good thing. Although she really didn't sparkle with charisma, I did notice a spark of another kind. They make a big deal out of Lizzie Bradbury's (Dunst) fiery temper, and have more than one occasion for her to show it off. I'd love to see Dunst take that to the next level. I'd love to see her in a movie where she could use that fire... because she portrayed it so well. The big reason that I'm not tearing into the acting is that I've always thought highly of Sam Neill, who plays Lizzie's father. Man, either he was phoning it in or the rest of the cast was a lot better than I give them credit for. So, I'm choosing the latter. I'm pretty sure most of the onscreen tennis playing was CGI, so I'm not going to mention how great they looked in the action shots. The really sad part, is that this is a romantic comedy and there is just no heat between the leads. You believe that Peter and Lizzie are in love...maybe... but you never get that electric spark... no on screen chemistry... it's as if both of them are holding back. This would have been a fabulous movie if there had been something between them, but there wasn't. So I was entertained, but it wasn't anything that pulled at my heartstrings. So "it's entertaining" is the best I can say for the movie. No substance, no genius hiding in the editing, no Rembrandt behind the camera shots. It was a basic Hollywood production that entertained me, took me away from my problems for a while and got me lost in the story. So it did it's job. You can ask for more, but for a $1.00... doing it's job is acceptable. I give it 3 thumbs up. Don't ask to borrow the DVD... I won't have a copy.   Jim's Review: Baby Formula: Dehydrated powder that, when reconstituted and served, provides a warm, comforting, nourishing, not-challenging-to-digest meal that babies lap up and feel good about. Hollywood Formula: Hackneyed, overdone storylines that, when reconstituted and served, provide a warm, comforting, nourishing, not-challenging-to-digest movie that audiences lap up and feel good about. I wonder which is named after the other? "Wimbledon" is as unprovocative and straightforward as they come. You know the words, sing along! Boy (Paul Bettany) meets girl (Kirsten Dunst). Boy falls for girl. Girl's controlling father disapproves. Conflict! This time, instead of being set in Verona, or New York, let's call it...Wimbledon! And let's have them be...Tennis players! Cozy, comfy, and thoroughly predictable. It's literally a story that we've all seen fifty times. This year. But, that's not to say it's not perfectly fine. Like all formula fare, it works BECAUSE it's so familiar. It IS the broken-in, favorite shirt that we pull reliably out of the closet in order to zone out and feel secure in our happy place. And, in this role, it performs reliably, as we know it will before we even open the closet door. If nothing else, Bettany is engaging. He brings a deeper-than-the-script warmth to his performance of the role of aging former tennis great Peter Colt that the material scarcely warrants. After being the best thing about duds like "Master and Commander" and "Knight's Tale", he demonstrates his ability to carry a picture. Sure, the load he's been charged to carry may be meringue-light, but he handles it ably, and with charm. Leading lady Dunst fares less well as up-and-coming women's champ Lizzie Bradbury. I'll confess...I've never really understood her appeal. Don't misunderstand...she's perfectly serviceable, and always has been. She just (to me at least) has always lacked the megawatt-star quality that most of the rest of Hollywood seems to enjoy effortlessly. She reminds me of the kinda-cute and medium-perky but largely unremarkable girl who sat next to you in English class. You know, the one who seemed destined to manage a Baskin-Robbins, yet somehow got a free pass to an ivy-league university seemingly apropos of nothing? Truthfully, at least since "Interview With The Vampire", I've not seen Dunst in a role she has truly owned. Anything she's done could've been done just as well or better by Julia Stiles, Brittany Murphy, Kate Hudson, Katie Holmes, or any of a number of inoffensive, interchangeable mostly-blondes. How sad that she seems to have peaked at twelve. So, in this instance, I suppose I ought to be praising her and her performance for being no better than the film deserves. She's as plain and middle-of-the-road vanilla as it is, and is thus is likely a good choice. She just does nothing for me. At least they didn't waste a full-on star on mediocre material. Even the subplots about Bettany's dysfunctional family, his court rivals, and his male-bonding relationship with his German practice partner (a, you guessed it, bland and safely-soft Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) seem scheduled and obligatory. It's all just so much cinematic, mashed-potatoes and gravy fluff. The primary, front-page "user comment" about "Wimbledon" on the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com) simply says "A nice little movie." And that just about sums it up. It's a nice little movie. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether that's damning with faint praise or a recommendation depends not just on whether you're a glass-half-full-er or glass-half-empty-er, but also on your mindset when standing in front of a rental rack. If this is the sort of film you'd be into, then you'd be into this sort of film. I'm going to give "Wimbledon" two thumbs up. And both thumbs are pointed straight at Bettany, who may have gotten a free pass on his first lead, but who makes the most of it regardless. He's truly the only reason to even bother with the film at all. After all, It's the mark of a true professional to give the best you can when it isn't required of you (I'm talking to YOU, Sam Neill.)
BackHome - Info - Reviews - Map - Message Board - Photo Album |
|
IMDB.com answer all your movie questions! RottenTomatoes.com Get more reviews here! Hollywood.com Find showtimes at your local theatre, order tickets online! |