The result is a light-hearted look inside the world’s best tennis tournament. We don’t see its underbelly – the rampant promiscuity, addiction and big-money deals that are said to thwart the sport – but we hear what a player like Peter might be thinking as he serves, volleys and races to the net. And, we get an inkling about just how nervous players really are, even when they appear as cool as Wimbledon’s trademark strawberries and cream.
Like most romantic comedies, “Wimbledon” follows the boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-wins-girl-back formula, so the plot has a predictable feel that, combined with another movie recipe (athlete-underdog overcomes great odds on his path to sports greatness), never leaves us wondering what’s going to happen next. The tennis angle is a nice deviation for both. However, it’s not enough to overcome the uninspired dialogue and clichés that include a first-date music montage and even a shooting star (comet).
The greatest failings of the script, however, are its characters. Bettany handles his role well, projecting the right combination of vulnerability and strength, although he doesn’t have the charisma or stunning good looks of Hugh Grant – who was reportedly first choice for the role. Dunst does a fair job, but the script has weaknesses that no acting can overcome. Lizzie’s no female McEnroe, which the film wants us to believe. We see only one, mostly mild, temper tantrum that Dunst doesn’t quite pull off. She also gives in far too easily to Daddy’s bullying for a headstrong, anger-driven tennis star and only child. Also, with just one boyfriend in the background, she’s hardly a love-‘em-and-leave-‘em commitment-phobe, especially since she falls so easily for Peter. The actors that really stand out are Favreau, who offers a hilarious performance as Peter’s slimy agent, and James McAvoy, Peter’s morally-challenged brother.
Casual sex plays a significant role in this film, not only creating the set-up but propelling the plot along, and it’s clear that the filmmakers want us to believe that this is the norm for singles. Lizzie puts the moves on a guy she hardly knows, which has them in bed on the first date – and every date thereafter. Although their tennis connection is obvious, you can’t help but wonder if it’s lust more than love that keeps this match going, thus underscoring the film’s romantic worldview where emotions drive reality. What a shame that more time isn’t spent developing a real relationship that might go the distance.
The other scenes, where Peter’s brother watches pornography and hangs out naked with his friend and their girlfriends, seems to have been added for the younger male audience. Unfortunately, the message is that this sort of behavior is normal. On the other hand (spoiler ahead), Peter and Lizzie end up married with kids, and it’s delightful that Peter’s loving but headstrong parents, who have been estranged for years, find reconciliation. So the movie does offer two very positive and commendable images about marriage, even if it forces us to listen to vociferous sounds of lovemaking – something I find incredibly annoying – in the process.
There’s nothing particularly memorable here, but for adults, “Wimbledon” is a mildly entertaining, romantic peak into the world of professional tennis.
OBJECTIONABLE CONTENT