La batalla de los sexos

This is a very interesting movie especially because of the real life subject. The movie has taken a few minor liberties to the original story but it is still extremely eye-opening. The struggle for women is real and the hustle even tougher. The direction has a lot of heart and pretty no non-sense.

Few things made less sense than the battle of Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King. What exactly is proved by middled-aged man winning or losing to a young tennis champion? And yet, this was a big deal at the time, as showman and huckster Riggs somehow persuaded the world that such a contest would prove something.

According to the movie, Billie Jean knew it was nonsense. Her perfectly reasonable position was that women tennis stars should be paid as much as the men because they sold as many tickets. But sometimes you have to take the symbolic fight you are offered rather than the one you want.

Steve Carrel is terrific as Riggs, with an obnoxious, breezy charm that is pretty much what I remember from the time (when I was a kid with no interest in sports). Emma Stone has the less interesting task of playing a noble hero, but her gentle steeliness and sexual awakening make her a sympathetic and terrible likable protagonist. The rest of the cast is terrific as well, and full of familiar faces.

It's not a great movie, but it's a cute, perpetually entertaining one that tells an interesting story in an engaging manner.

Battle of the Sexes is a an enjoyable retelling of the famous 1973 tennis match between 29-year-old Billie Jean King and 55-year-old Bobby Riggs. It was the match that sparked the women's movement in sport and planted King's status as the greatest tennis player in the world. We witness the personal journey she went though as she fought for equal rights in sports and society.

Emma Stone portrays Billie Jean King as a shy and reserved opportunist who's looking to make the best of her current situation. She's a true trailblazer that's pushing for equal rights for women in sports. Steve Carell as Bobby Riggs could not be more opposite from King. He's a retired tennis champion who can't stop gambling, which frustrates his wife to the point of no return. He's also a male chauvinist who believes in the superiority of men and how women should stay in the kitchen. It couldn't be a better battle between polar opposite personalities and motives.

The film follows the parallel journeys King and Riggs go through to get to their famous match. King struggles to gain equal pay for women tennis players, which eventually leads to the creation of her own women's tennis league. While traveling for matches, she discovers her homosexuality with her hairdresser, Marilyn. She's torn between her new desires and the life she already has with her husband, Larry. Riggs meanwhile is stuck in a midlife crisis and feels that his life has been missing something since he retired. He's passing his time through gambling and wants to plan a major comeback in the tennis world. Eventually their paths cross and results in one of the biggest and important sporting events in history.

Clocking in at 121 minutes, the film takes its sweet time to build up King and Riggs' story. While it's interesting to see their stories unfold, it goes on for too long and drags in the middle parts just before the climactic match. The sharing of screen time is also very lopsided towards King while Riggs is treated almost like a supporting character for the first hour.

Directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris use their skills from Little Miss Sunshine to create a personal and emotional film. The tone of the film is pretty lighthearted and never gets too serious about the whole situation of equal rights among genders. It allows for a more feel-good sports film that is enjoyable to watch.

Shot in 70's style makes the film feel closer to a television documentary than a Hollywood production. There's a grab bag of awkward close-ups, grainy images, and off-balance shots that make the film feel more authentic and grounded in reality. The famous match is recreated with stunning detail and the biggest highlight of the film.

The acting is the saving grace of the film as Stone and Carell do an exceptional job portraying the real players. Golden Globe nominations will come for each of them and maybe even an Academy Award nomination for Stone. Sarah Silverman also shines as the rough and confident manager, Gladys. She plays well off Stone in the small amount of time she gets. Andrea Riseborough is solid as King's lover, Marilyn, who opens up King's hidden secrets and is the leading contributor to the emotional arc. Bill Pullman is the only person who doesn't pull of their role, as his sexist boss character is very one dimensional and almost cartoonish by the end.

Battle of the Sexes is a well acted and uplifting sports film that suffers from being too slow and too long. It doesn't run as smoothly as it should, but is enjoyable enough to rank among the better sports films out there, and definitely the best tennis film.

Directed by Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton, the film brings to life the famous 1973 tennis match between Billie Jean King, portrayed by Emma Stone, and Bobby Riggs, played by Steve Carell.

The film takes us back to a time when women's sports struggled for recognition and respect, and Billie Jean King emerges as a formidable figure fighting for gender equality both on and off the tennis court. Emma Stone captured King's determination, resilience, and internal struggle as she grapples with her own personal journey while championing the cause of equal pay and equal rights.

Steve Carell shines in his portrayal of Bobby Riggs, a charismatic and self-proclaimed male chauvinist who challenges King to a highly publicized match. Carell brings both humor and depth to the character, capturing Riggs' larger-than-life personality while also highlighting the underlying insecurities and complexities that drove him.

Beyond the tennis match itself, "Battle of the Sexes" explores the broader social and cultural context of the time. The film portrays the struggles faced by women in the sports industry and the larger feminist movement of the 1970s. It delves into the personal lives of the characters, shedding light on the challenges they faced in their relationships and their efforts to navigate societal expectations.

The themes presented in this film are still relevant and have merit. With that said, I want to add that ever since Ibsen wrote "A Doll's House," it's very rare to get a film (or play for that matter) that is charged with the theme of gender equality and presents it in a way that truly resonates. What do I mean? In films that aim to give a message or present an issues, such as when the writer wants to say something about the relevant society, more often than not, the writer portrays those characters in simple categorizations of good and bad. That may work in a superhero film, but in a piece of realism, where character development and relationships are key elements to the storytelling, simple good and bad just won't do. That's my issue with this film. The screenplay simplifies a few integral characters too much, in favor of hoisting up its protagonist.

To get this out of the way, the performances are fantastic. Emma Stone and Steve Carell lead the cast well, and the cast doesn't have a weak link in it. In particular, a lot of credit has to be given to Steve Carell. He took a character that was underwritten and perhaps even misrepresented and makes him sympathetic and someone to root for. Andrea Riseborough also delivers a very affecting performance and really gives us some great scene work with Emma Stone.

The directing is swift, well paced and well filmed. Kudos to the cinematographer who really has a wonderful grasp on stillness to promote an essential moment and exerts great uses of soft and hard focus to portray dramatic moments and internalize character feelings. The editing also deserves a shout out for some wonderful pacing and really effectively switching between the grainy, 70s like cinematography and more clear cinematography.

Now, back to the screenplay. What made and still makes "A Doll's House" the ultimate gender-equality script is that every character can be sympathized with. We learn more about the human condition and evils of society, rather than placing blame and anger on individual groups. There are only two men that can be rooted for without hesitation and that's our protagonist's husband and father. Every other guy is completely unlikable and has no arc, and Steve Carell's character can be questioned. Carell's character, who is a vital part of this story, isn't written very well or thoroughly. It's always hard to have two protagonists in a film, especially at a reasonable and well paced time. Carell's character is both an antagonist and protagonist or, at least attempts to be so. Carell's character opposes Emma Stone's. It's a man versus women ordeal and their tennis match is the crisis and climax of the film. But, here's the issue. Carell's character is NOT the antagonist. It's society! So why is Carell's character's standing within the realm of the film so questionable? Why doesn't he get his own arc? Every major character in "A Doll's House" takes a journey. That's what makes us empathize with them and come away disliking their society, and not the products of that society. The same would work with this film. But instead, there is a co- protagonist / antagonist that is not written for people to care about or even empathize with. He gets no arc, no change. He's unaffected. He may as well have been a smaller part.

Why is this an issue? Because Emma Stone's character is a catalyst. She's the driving force and vehicle used within the film to represent the affects of an unjust era and to showcase the positive effects that a change in this society would have. Unfortunately, because Carell's character and the real antagonists (the sexists who sit atop the societal ladder) don't change, because we only see them as unlikable, this story turns into something simple and ultimately un-fulfilling. Stone's character merely wins the battle within the film and we come away knowing that and are momentarily happy. However, that soon goes away, which makes this entertaining dramedy perhaps a little forgettable. Had the writing been more substantial and caring to all its characters, and forgiving to all its characters and condemned society instead, we'd come away with a more profound understanding of where issues lie and are issued from. That's a memorable film. I suppose the cinematic world is still chasing Ibsen.

I give this film 3 out of 5 stars for its entertainment value and performances and recommend it for ages 13 to 18. Reviewed by Willie J., KIDS FIRST! Film Critic.