IMDb रेटिंग
6.7/10
62 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
दुनिया के नंबर एक Billie Jean King और पूर्व चैंपियन और सीरियल हसलर Bobby Riggs के बीच 1973 के टेनिस मैच की सच्ची कहानी।दुनिया के नंबर एक Billie Jean King और पूर्व चैंपियन और सीरियल हसलर Bobby Riggs के बीच 1973 के टेनिस मैच की सच्ची कहानी।दुनिया के नंबर एक Billie Jean King और पूर्व चैंपियन और सीरियल हसलर Bobby Riggs के बीच 1973 के टेनिस मैच की सच्ची कहानी।
- पुरस्कार
- 3 जीत और कुल 24 नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Whilst Emma Stone puts down her marker for a possible third Oscar nomination the film as a whole left me slightly cold. But then, when did you last see a GREAT tennis movie. That's right. You didn't.
But this potentially offered more because it appeared multi layered and could have been more nuanced than it is.
It tackles two themes simultaneously. First, Billie Jean King's lesbian relationship with her hairdresser Marilyn Barnett (Andrea Riseborough) that eventually ended in controversy as she was publicly outed by her lover when they split in 1981. Throughout King remained married to her first love Larry (played sympathetically but a little limply by Austin Stowell). This is handled very tastefully and, for me, was the better part of the whole.
Second, and the source of the title, the movie explores sexism in the women's tennis game that led to her breaking away from the WTA and its sexist president, Jack Kramer (in an unconvincing performance by Bill Pullman), and taking on a challenge billed as THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES with 55 year old ex tennis champion and self proclaimed Male Chauvinist, Bobby Riggs (Steve Carrell).
I disliked Carell's part greatly, not because he didn't perform it well but that it is written to make him out to be a complete idiot (which no doubt he was). He becomes a character of himself quickly and I neither liked nor disliked him (I was annoyed by him though). It all makes for a strange mix of comedy, politics, sexuality and revolt.
And the revolt was all too gentlemanly for me - despite the subject matter and the ire it must have stirred nobody really ever loses the plot and so the film lacks edge and dramatic tension.
What's more, it's 30 minutes too long and the overwrought soundtrack (Nicholas Britell - it really is a shocker) is over-pervasive and just plain annoying.
Emma Stone rarely puts a foot wrong in my view and at times you really do think BJK is on screen. That part, and the general 70's styling of the movie, is excellent but it's ponderously directed and although the final shoot out between BJK and Riggs has an element of tension we all know the outcome and Britell's pomp and circumstance was gradually doing my nut in.
Just because you loved Little Miss Sunshine it does not follow that you will love this.
But this potentially offered more because it appeared multi layered and could have been more nuanced than it is.
It tackles two themes simultaneously. First, Billie Jean King's lesbian relationship with her hairdresser Marilyn Barnett (Andrea Riseborough) that eventually ended in controversy as she was publicly outed by her lover when they split in 1981. Throughout King remained married to her first love Larry (played sympathetically but a little limply by Austin Stowell). This is handled very tastefully and, for me, was the better part of the whole.
Second, and the source of the title, the movie explores sexism in the women's tennis game that led to her breaking away from the WTA and its sexist president, Jack Kramer (in an unconvincing performance by Bill Pullman), and taking on a challenge billed as THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES with 55 year old ex tennis champion and self proclaimed Male Chauvinist, Bobby Riggs (Steve Carrell).
I disliked Carell's part greatly, not because he didn't perform it well but that it is written to make him out to be a complete idiot (which no doubt he was). He becomes a character of himself quickly and I neither liked nor disliked him (I was annoyed by him though). It all makes for a strange mix of comedy, politics, sexuality and revolt.
And the revolt was all too gentlemanly for me - despite the subject matter and the ire it must have stirred nobody really ever loses the plot and so the film lacks edge and dramatic tension.
What's more, it's 30 minutes too long and the overwrought soundtrack (Nicholas Britell - it really is a shocker) is over-pervasive and just plain annoying.
Emma Stone rarely puts a foot wrong in my view and at times you really do think BJK is on screen. That part, and the general 70's styling of the movie, is excellent but it's ponderously directed and although the final shoot out between BJK and Riggs has an element of tension we all know the outcome and Britell's pomp and circumstance was gradually doing my nut in.
Just because you loved Little Miss Sunshine it does not follow that you will love this.
A light, fluffy, sweet treat, Battle of the Sexes is assuredly a crowd-pleasing movie. But much like cotton candy-the movie offers very little to digest.
Overall, the movie will win over most viewers with its familiar feel-good true story angle. If you liked 2016's Hidden Figures, chances are that this is a movie for you.
It strives for and ultimately achieves the classic feel-good movie moments. Hero activist beats chauvinist pig. Good triumphs over evil. Or something like that. There is no deeper exploration. There is no hard-hitting, brutal honesty. The examinations are superficial and dive no deeper than the surface.
Basically, movie is too simple. But sexism and the problems that it causes are complicated. In the movie, everything is spelled out in a painfully obvious way. It condescends to make sure that everyone understands. The sexist characters come out in shameless and laughably overt ways. The good person defeats the bad person and everyone cheers. It's a fairy tale ending, hooray! But none of that is realistic.
Sexist and discriminatory people in power don't publicly profess their feelings in such blunt ways. So, when the movie scenes portray characters as loud and proud sexists, I can only roll my eyes. I know the movie uses these exaggerated characters and moments to make the situation abundantly clear to the audience. I just prefer a bit of subtlety.
Instead, the movie handles the delicate, nuanced topics of sexism and repression of homosexuality with the blunt force of a lumberjack with a giant axe. Wrong professional and wrong tool. We needed a surgeon with medical instruments.
The movie still has its upside. Steve Carell and Emma Stone are charming and wonderful, which is an amazing feat considering the character that Carell plays. Bobby Riggs (Carell) flaunts his chauvinism in such a flamboyant manner that showmanship is clearly his primary focus. This is one detail that the movie gets right, thanks largely to Carell. Riggs doesn't actually believe the gross, archaic things he says about women. It's an act. He says them to attract interest in the upcoming Man vs. Woman tennis match with Billie Jean King (Stone).
The storytelling is clear, even if not always smooth. The combination of King's life-changing romance along with the battle of the sexes tennis match fit awkwardly. Though, I'm sure those two things also fit awkwardly in King's life at the time, so I accept the somewhat clumsy clash of the two storylines. Again, if you liked Hidden Figures, you will like Battle of the Sexes. It's uplifting and sends a valuable and inspiring message to young girls everywhere. On that basis, I applaud the movie. Despite its flaws, it's still a story worthy of knowing.
It strives for and ultimately achieves the classic feel-good movie moments. Hero activist beats chauvinist pig. Good triumphs over evil. Or something like that. There is no deeper exploration. There is no hard-hitting, brutal honesty. The examinations are superficial and dive no deeper than the surface.
Basically, movie is too simple. But sexism and the problems that it causes are complicated. In the movie, everything is spelled out in a painfully obvious way. It condescends to make sure that everyone understands. The sexist characters come out in shameless and laughably overt ways. The good person defeats the bad person and everyone cheers. It's a fairy tale ending, hooray! But none of that is realistic.
Sexist and discriminatory people in power don't publicly profess their feelings in such blunt ways. So, when the movie scenes portray characters as loud and proud sexists, I can only roll my eyes. I know the movie uses these exaggerated characters and moments to make the situation abundantly clear to the audience. I just prefer a bit of subtlety.
Instead, the movie handles the delicate, nuanced topics of sexism and repression of homosexuality with the blunt force of a lumberjack with a giant axe. Wrong professional and wrong tool. We needed a surgeon with medical instruments.
The movie still has its upside. Steve Carell and Emma Stone are charming and wonderful, which is an amazing feat considering the character that Carell plays. Bobby Riggs (Carell) flaunts his chauvinism in such a flamboyant manner that showmanship is clearly his primary focus. This is one detail that the movie gets right, thanks largely to Carell. Riggs doesn't actually believe the gross, archaic things he says about women. It's an act. He says them to attract interest in the upcoming Man vs. Woman tennis match with Billie Jean King (Stone).
The storytelling is clear, even if not always smooth. The combination of King's life-changing romance along with the battle of the sexes tennis match fit awkwardly. Though, I'm sure those two things also fit awkwardly in King's life at the time, so I accept the somewhat clumsy clash of the two storylines. Again, if you liked Hidden Figures, you will like Battle of the Sexes. It's uplifting and sends a valuable and inspiring message to young girls everywhere. On that basis, I applaud the movie. Despite its flaws, it's still a story worthy of knowing.
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.
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.
Funny to see all those offended over a simple biographical drama crying sexism and politics. Too bad those can't simply enjoy a great film with great acting and directing. It was an interesting story told very well. 8/10 from me
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाIn 1973, Billie Jean King was 29 and Bobby Riggs was 55. At the time of filming, Emma Stone was 28 and Steve Carell was 54.
- गूफ़When Marilyn leaves the hair salon for Houston, she's shown foiling a client's hair. Foiling was not patented until 1977, so it should have been a frosting cap.
- भाव
Billie Jean King: I'm not saying women are better. I've never said that. I'm saying we deserve some respect.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटThe Fox Searchlight Pictures and TSG Entertainment logos are redone in period-appropriate styles.
- कनेक्शनEdited from Tennis Battle of the Sexes: Billie Jean King vs Bobby Riggs (1973)
- साउंडट्रैकMovie House Theme
Written and Performed by Nicholas Britell
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Battle of the Sexes?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- La batalla de los sexos
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- Westin Bonaventure Hotel & Suites - 404 S. Figueroa Street, Downtown, लॉस एंजेल्स, कैलिफोर्निया, संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका(Hotel where Marylin & Larry run into each other in the elevator)
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $2,50,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $1,26,38,526
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $5,18,332
- 24 सित॰ 2017
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $1,85,98,607
- चलने की अवधि2 घंटे 1 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.39 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें