PDA

View Full Version : Saw the new movie "Wimbledon" tonight - my comment


BreakPoint
09-17-2004, 11:23 PM
A few comments:

1. The 4th round of the men's draw somehow no longer exists at Wimbledon.

2. The tennis rallies are computer generated and are, therefore, unnatural looking, e.g., the ball would sometimes go up, down, or sideways at acute angles in mid-air. Very bizarre!

3. Everyone's strokes and movement seem forced and unnatural. The way some of them were swinging at the ball, the ball should have gone 10 feet out.

4. I thought most of the umpires at Wimbledon were British, no?

5. The hero in the movie uses an i.Prestige paintjob. Shouldn't he have been using a LM Prestige paintjob like every other pro on the tour?

6. Is the guy he plays at the end suppose to be Andy Roddick?

7. This "Roddick"-like guy he played used a PS 6.0 85 WITHOUT A PAINTJOB! Why wasn't it painted like a Tour 90 (like the ones sold recently on TW) or like an nCode? He also hit 144mph serves with this PS 6.0 85. Is that possible? I thought you could only do that with a Pure Drive's Woofer system.

8. It seemed like all the tennis players in the movie were actors and not real tennis players. Couldn't they have just found some guys that play tennis and put them in the movie since most of these guys had non-speaking roles anyway? They did that for the hockey movie "Miracle" and these real hockey players actually had to learn how to act and had many, many speaking lines in that movie.

9. Couldn't they have gotten Hewitt and Federer to be in a few on court scenes playing whoever? They did mention their names but did not show them. How about even Henman? In the 1979 movie "Players", they actually got Vilas and McEnroe in the movie. Although Vilas was in the Wimbledon final which was pretty unrealistic.

10.. It's been mentioned here, but the semis on an outside court? Come on!

11. It was mentioned that he lost to Tommy Haas at the Lipton last year. Two problems: 1). It's been called the Nasdaq-100 Open the last several years, and 2.) Haas did not play a single tour match at all last year. They should have just said he lost to Federer or Agassi or Roddick or somebody else.

Anyway, overall a pretty entertaining movie. A standard romantic comedy with a tennis setting. Most tennis fans should enjoy it. I'm just being nit-picky here (obviously). At least McEnore doesn't make a fool of himself in the movie. :D

Deuce
09-17-2004, 11:56 PM
I've not seen the movie, and, as with any Hollywood movie, I do not plan to see it.

But I'll add to your list, if I may...

I read that in the movie, the woman is playing Wimbledon for the first time - yet she is the #1 player in the world. If this is indeed true, it doesn't seem very plausible that a player would reach #1 without ever playing Wimbledon. Perhaps it was done once or twice in history (Lendl?), but they could have come up with a better scenario for the movie, I think.

As well, I agree that the players' strokes are far more 'club player' caliber than pro player caliber, based on what I've seen in highlights. It seems that those in charge of the movie don't know very much about tennis beyond the basics.

thehustler
09-17-2004, 11:56 PM
Hollywood be accurate? Doubtful. I'm guessing they watched a few minutes of tennis on ESPN or googled the word tennis and just put in this movie whatever they found. Didn't matter if it was accurate or not, just as long as they break even or make some money on it. I mean heck Wimbledon only happens once a year for quite some time. The tourney even has a website. But this is Hollywood. Why be accurate when making up stuff is so much easier to do?

Datacipher
09-18-2004, 12:07 AM
I haven't seen the movie yet, but in the few clips I saw of tennis strokes they looked frickin awful considering they did not have to hit a real ball. I had read Pat Cash crowing about he had gotten these actors to look like real tennis players so i expected a lot better shadow tennis than what I've seen and what you seem to be saying having seen the movie. Nice going Cashie. I think given a few days I could train a young person to shadow swing a few semi realistic pro strokes. Not a problem when you don't have to worry about functionality at all!

Fat Boy
09-18-2004, 12:37 AM
Why anyone would pay Pat Cash to do anything I don't know. The guy is a complete w*nker, and regularly ruins the BBC Wimbledon coverage with his big mouth and useless opinions.

The best one was of course his prediction that Federer would go out in the first round of 2004 Aus Open because he had no coach and he was dominated by his girlfriend.

Then there was his claim that Philippoussis lost in Davis Cup because he'd been getting too friendly with Delta Goodrem the night before. Apparently Flip threatened to kill him. Pity .....

But anyway, at least Kirsten Dunst looks well hot.

Kaptain Karl
09-18-2004, 06:24 AM
The best non-real-life tennis I've seen depicted on the screen ... was in a beer commercial during the US Open. I even commented to my wife, "Finally! They're depicting people who actually know how to play tennis."

I saw some sort of "infomercial" about the making of the movie, Wimbledon. I'm not planning to see it. (Also, Dunst -- like Stiller -- plays the very same character in every movie. it's called "poor acting." I am so tired of her.)

- KK

garland
09-18-2004, 07:59 AM
Ya know guys, I'm sure this makes me sound like an old fart of an English professor (which I am minus the old fart bit), but sometimes you just have to let of adherence to reality. Coleridge called it "willing suspension of disbelief." I'd wager that if you can believe that Kirsten Dunst is a real tennis player, the rest of the movie falls rather neatly into line ....

garland
09-18-2004, 08:00 AM
Oops. This is what happens when I forget to edit messages. It should be "let go" in the above message.

OnyxZ28
09-18-2004, 11:08 AM
Bah, that's Hollywood, just like the TFATF depicting 1/4 mile races that lasted a minute :eek:, hell, I can pedal my bike down the quarter in 1 minute. :shock:

Chanchai
09-18-2004, 11:33 AM
I dunno... I liked Dunst's performance in Interview with the Vampire. But yes, these days, she's virtually typecast. The only variables are whether she's a sweetie or a beeyotch; waiting around or running around.

And yet... Dunst seems upset that the Mary Jane character isn't strong enough in the Raimi "Spiderman" films, and she's declared that she'll no longer carry the role beyond Spiderman 3. But maybe.. that has to do with an early screenplay she read--and as much as that wouldn't surprise me, I doubt it.

While I deeply admire the breadth and depth of some actors who challenge themselves (and pull it off flawlessly or at least about as excellent as they'll get)... I admit and accept that there's a place, in virtually all acting realms, for character actors.

But if the people behind Wimbledon make all of their films too Notting Hillish... I'd kinda feel bad for Notting Hill. It was a cute movie with some nice characters, following a generally cute formula. And even though the music spelled things out way too much (Down Under music video anyone?), I enjoyed the songs themselves. Eh.... even if it's bad, it's probably the best "Tennis film" ever? Unless you count some films with very minor tennis like "Annie Hall" (excellent film) :)

-Chanchai

Datacipher
09-18-2004, 12:36 PM
but sometimes you just have to let of adherence to reality. Coleridge called it "willing suspension of disbelief." I'd wager that if you can believe that Kirsten Dunst is a real tennis player, the rest of the movie falls rather neatly into line ....

Yeah, that's fine Garland. I have no problem with that. I haven't seen a Hollywood action movie in 10 years that didn't have silly looking CGI and comic book physics. BUT:

1.Pat Cash was bragging about how he took unathletic, non tennis players and made them look world class

2.They didnt' have to hit real balls...so looking world class is a reasonably attainable goal.

3.If I go see this movie, it will be because of the tennis connection, not to see a silly looking romantic comedy with Dunst.

That's why I have trouble cutting it slack in this area.

BankOfDad
09-18-2004, 01:12 PM
Garland is right. From my experience, any time you know a lot about a subject that Hollywood decides to use as the backdrop to a movie you end up frustrated. They don't care about the details, just the story and how it looks to the 98 percent of the audience that only notices the racquet is red (if that). When I worked at Circle Track magazine the entire industry was appalled at Days Of Thunder. You know, it was a fun movie that DID increase interest in NASCAR racing. When Top Gun was out my fighter pilot friend groaned. He went into infinite detail about how none of those things could EVER happen in real life. So what, I liked the movie. When Dances With Wolves came out my friend at a gun magazine said it was all ruined for him because they were shooting the buffalo from the back's of horses using guns that would literally blow the shooter off the horse from the kickback. It simply couldn't happen in real life. Again, the other 98 percent of us loved the movie. So, last night my daughter's high school tennis team went to Wimbledon together and they loved the "chick flick" (as they called it). Two percent of us will notice and complain about minor details but Hollywood doesn't care because it simply doesn't matter in their grand scheme of things. Hopefully, it IS a decent movie (I haven't gone yet) and maybe more people will be interested in tennis.

pound cat
09-18-2004, 01:47 PM
Look out everyone. I hear Disney is producing a children's tennis movie starring Andy Roddick. He will perform his own stunts, Patrick McEnroe ands Mary Carillo will play the part of his parents, and Cliff Drysdale will be the doting uncle. Minor roles to many tennis personalities who will be cast as characters who will appeal to children .

Aus Mosis
09-18-2004, 02:15 PM
OH ffs Breakpoint, THIS IS A MOVIE!!! About 0.5% of the general population knows what an i prestige or a pure drive or whatever is. GOD. Get a life man.

david aames
09-18-2004, 02:27 PM
Pat Cash and Murphy Jensen, are you listening?

Jeez, another one of your ignorant rants. The director is british, the producers are british and french, the male lead is british and it was shot on location. It's no Hollywood, dude.

It seems that those in charge of the movie don't know very much about tennis beyond the basics.

Datacipher
09-18-2004, 06:07 PM
Look out everyone. I hear Disney is producing a children's tennis movie starring Andy Roddick. He will perform his own stunts, .

I just hope he stays away from CGI stunts. I don't need to see him leap up 25 feet and hit 5 consecutive overheads while spining around before landing....;-)

BreakPoint
09-18-2004, 06:27 PM
OH ffs Breakpoint, THIS IS A MOVIE!!! About 0.5% of the general population knows what an i prestige or a pure drive or whatever is. GOD. Get a life man.

Yes, you are absolutely correct!! That's why I didn't leave my comments in Yahoo Movies or some other movie or entertainment website but on a TENNIS website read by many tennis aficionados and gearheads! Believe me, people on this board can tell the difference between an i.Prestige and a Pure Drive. Why don't you go and see the movie first before telling others to get a life? Perhaps you don't get out much? :roll:

JohnThomas1
09-18-2004, 10:01 PM
The thing about this movie is it's probably not aimed at tennis fantics such as us. No doubt we can see thru the flaws and technical faults in our sleep. Most people won't tho. My g/f and i are actually waiting for this movie to come to town. I'm sure despite the tennis faults it will be quite ok for us, from the shorts it looks like fun :)

JohnThomas1
09-18-2004, 10:16 PM
@Data, i could just imagine Cash stuffing up the training to lol. Did you realise that Hopper (The jailed one) is his partner? It is the Cash-Hopper International Tennis Academy. I'd say you would have heard that bit on the news or read it. I was actually 2 meters from Hopper here in rocky at a junior masters tourney 11 months ago. He looked to be copying NB with the crappy tan and sleeveless shirt. Bleached blonde hair to lol. I thought he was sleazy then, now look at him. From all accounts he was a good coach and trainer tho. Doesn't mean much now.

Datacipher
09-19-2004, 01:08 AM
[quote="JohnThomas1. He looked to be copying NB with the crappy tan and sleeveless shirt. Bleached blonde hair to lol. I thought he was sleazy then, now look at him. From all accounts he was a good coach and trainer tho. Doesn't mean much now.[/quote]

Yep, I actually started that thread a while back about that news John, though I haven't heard anything since. Yeah, Hopper's plight didn't HELP my opinion of Cash....lol. Don't want to guilt by association but from what I've read, Hopper didn't exactly hide his activities.

It's funny you say he looked sleazy lol. I never met or saw Hopper in person, the one and only personal account came from 2 junior girls who had been training in the US and had some indirect contact with Hopper at tournaments casually told me they thought Hopper was "creepy" and that he had allegedly "screwed up" some junior players with some weird ideas he had on the forehand that had caused injuries in the arms of some players. I made a note of the forehand comment as something I'd be curious about if I ever came across more info but the "creepy" thing, I just laughed off until I read the news reports!

I am encouraged by your post that an extreme tennis fanatic can have a girlfriend! lol! I have lost many to tennis over the years....I first knew this was a problem when around 19, I failed to pick up a rather attractive girl for the movie I had promised...I tried to phone(and later found out she was WAITING at the end of the long unmarked driveway for me!). All this because a practice was going particularly well(as in Zone well!) and I just wanted to get an extra 1/2 hour which turned into 1 hour which turned into....;-)

JohnThomas1
09-19-2004, 01:28 AM
Oh god hahaha, ya brat!!! NEVER keep a gal waiting, especially an attractive one!!! hehehe

I remembered you starting the thread for sure, that 's why i commented. I should have full well realised you would have known his connection with Cash. Good to catch you around again :)

irishbanger
09-19-2004, 09:53 AM
My big problem with the movie was the lack of chemistry between the two leads. Plus, Dusnst's character is totally unlikeable.

Camilio Pascual
09-20-2004, 03:49 AM
My daughter's fiancee is getting out of watching this (your Dad plays tennis all the time, he'll love it), so this old man will be going to see it. Especially since Lara had her first tennis class of the indoor season. Hope Kirsten Dunst is enough to carry me through the dreaded love story. Seriously, I got dragged to "Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion" and liked it a lot. If you count Annie Hall as a tennis movie, then "The Garden of the Finzi-Continis" is the best "tennis" movie ever made. "Blow Up" has to be up there, too.

Tim Tiger Henman
09-20-2004, 03:50 AM
First people are complaining about the physics. Then the chemistry. I'm wondering if any biological errors were commited.

BreakPoint
09-20-2004, 11:42 AM
First people are complaining about the physics. Then the chemistry. I'm wondering if any biological errors were commited.

Yes, I feel that the female lead was mis-cast with Kirsten Dunst, so I guess you can consider that a "biological error".

Reese Witherspoon, Scarlett Johansson (already has the right last name for a tennis player :D ) or even Cameron Diaz (originally considered for the lead along with Hugh Grant) would have been better IMHO.

VamosRafa
09-20-2004, 12:33 PM
I think you all should start another thread for folks who have actually seen the movie. The comments would be easier to follow.

I agree with this comment:

Anyway, overall a pretty entertaining movie. A standard romantic comedy with a tennis setting. Most tennis fans should enjoy it. I'm just being nit-picky here (obviously). At least McEnore doesn't make a fool of himself in the movie.

As I said before, I thought McEnroe did a great job.

Yes, there's lots of tennis errors, but it still is a pretty good romantic comedy. Not as good as Notting Hill, IMO, but still pretty good.

The supporting cast does a great job, and the leads do the best they can with what they got. And it isn't bad.

If Hugh Grant were 10 years younger, he would have made it a huge hit!

@wright
09-20-2004, 12:48 PM
Pat Cash sucks. I've seen the trailer, and the tennis sucks. The ball performs the way you would want it to in a perfect world, but it lacks gravitational influence. Cheezy as hell, pat cash, you knave!

Tim Tiger Henman
09-20-2004, 01:02 PM
The ball performs the way you would want it to in a perfect world, but it lacks gravitational influence.

Could it be that this is a Special version of the film, and they are hoping to unveil a General version of the film in a few years time - incorporating gravity??

david aames
09-20-2004, 06:26 PM
This movie stinks. The film equivalent of Coria -- ugly as hell and very predictable. Steroids anyone?...

But they got it right actually when it comes to the racquet licenses -- the action is supposed to take place a few years ago since the final scene show them with a kid in NY with the voiceover mentioning that she did win Wimbledon and the US Open twice...


5. The hero in the movie uses an i.Prestige paintjob. Shouldn't he have been using a LM Prestige paintjob like every other pro on the tour?

7. This "Roddick"-like guy he played used a PS 6.0 85 WITHOUT A PAINTJOB! Why wasn't it painted like a Tour 90 (like the ones sold recently on TW) or like an nCode?

11. It was mentioned that he lost to Tommy Haas at the Lipton last year. Two problems: 1). It's been called the Nasdaq-100 Open the last several years, and 2.) Haas did not play a single tour match at all last year. They should have just said he lost to Federer or Agassi or Roddick or somebody else.

Joe Average
09-20-2004, 07:37 PM
I can't recommend this movie. I don't think it's very good. There's no real reason the Paul Bettany, Peter, character is rejuvenated (he fell in love?), and his love for the Kirsten Dunst, Lizzie, character seems misplaced. There were stronger feelings between the Peter and Dieter characters, but that's another story (or how about Peter and the ball boy? -- sorry, tasteless NAMBLA joke). And there was no sense that he was changed. For a veteran player, Peter demonstrated no real wisdom. I learned more about horse racing from watching "Seabiscuit" than I did tennis from watching "Wimbledon." There was no glimpse ... credible glimpse into the world of tennis. And I'm not saying that as a tennis lover, but as a moviegoer. "Two bounces and he's going to the body"??? NO! That's not probable. That's not wisdom.

As for the tennis ... the technique really isn't that bad. But the ball looks to be computer generated. It's moving improbably. Some groundstrokes are moving too fast and some overhead smashes too slow. And can you really volley an overhead smash and keep the ball in the court? Try it. For a #1 player, Lizzie did not have an entourage, not even a coach other than her father. Trainer? No. This may sound nitpicky, but the movie didn't create a credible tennis "world." All in all, this is a love story where the love is neither transforming nor all that convincing.

Max G.
09-20-2004, 07:40 PM
The ball performs the way you would want it to in a perfect world, but it lacks gravitational influence.

Could it be that this is a Special version of the film, and they are hoping to unveil a General version of the film in a few years time - incorporating gravity??

LOL @ Tiger, that's hilarious!

BreakPoint
09-20-2004, 07:48 PM
There were stronger feelings between the "Peter" and "Dieter" characters, but that's another story (or how about Peter and the ball boy?).

I agree that they should have explored his relationship with that one ball boy as his good luck charm further. They showed the ball boy at his matches but never mentioned that he may have been bringing Peter good luck and perhaps one of the reasons he kept winning.

I also agree that the "love" between Peter and Lizzie was not really believable.

ssjkyle31
09-24-2004, 07:04 PM
One thing, the tennis companies will probably making a killing on sales. I see several couples after the movie run down to your at your Wal Mart/Target and pro shop to buy racquets and balls.

I told my wife that I like to see it with her. I won't get caught watching it by myself since I consider it a chick flick.

AndyC
09-25-2004, 04:25 PM
Can't really recommend this movie either having seen it tonite.

From a tennis perspective, the shots (as has been mentioned) are improbable. The technique is okay but I'd struggle to believe that they were world class players. Too much diving around. I know this is grass and people do throw themselves around more.. but it looks like they are throwing themself around 10x/match which isn't really accurate. Some of the rallies (especially the dinky ones around the net) look like stuff the over 45s play for fun points. Definitely not what I have ever seen in a final of any event much less Wimbledon.

But tennis aside the movie falls on it's cardboard characters. Recent british romcoms (Notting Hill/Bridget Jones/Love Actually) are all too shallow. There is nothing that is particularly believable in the characterisation of the main protagonists. The grand daddy that spawned them all (4 Weddings) is the best of the lot in this respect.

It's not a bad film. Rather enjoyable fluff but it's a formula that's starting to get old and nothing you won't have seen before if u've seen british/french collaborations from Studio Canal.