Rivais

I felt that three of them were good but Guadagino chose to focus on (a) the product placement (god.. could they be more obvious?) (b) the annoying soundtrack accompanying the endless scenes in slow motion of people staring at each other, and (c) cool camera angles. Don't get me wrong. I understand film is another language in itself but I think the acting is far from the priority of the filmmaker. In the few moments where we get to see them interact with each other there is chemistry. I don't understand why he (or Amazon) chose not to focus more on that. I was so over that annoying soundtrack of gay 90s club. Did he choose to cut the story like that because he knew there was not much story to tell to begin with?

"Im doing this for both of us. You know that, right."

Idk if this was the straightest gay movie or the gayest straight movie.

• The thing that stopped this film from feeling incredibly boring was the way it played with time.

• Took 30 minutes to slow down and breathe. But if it didb't, I would've given it half a star less.

• Bad acting in trailers, far from the case in the actual film. Trailers didn't sell me but this was a good movie. Wouldn't go back to it though.

• The trailers spoiled the midpoint.

• I think Tashi should've agreed to train Patrick as a way of tricking him to lose. I also thought the guys were the real ones playing Tashi. I was waiting for a flashback scene where the they plan the whole thing. That might've been generic but I also wasn't expecting a "hug and walk off into the sunset" type of ending.

First of all, this movie has an 80s-style vibe that we have seen many times before that could have well been told in a conventional 90-100 minute movie. This movie truly was not "important" enough to tell it over 131 minutes. Add to that there were pointless extended shots that you were begging to end. At about 100 minutes in, audience members were looking at their cellphones either to check the time or they were getting restless.

Second, there were excessive timeline jumps. It is often a useful story-telling device, but here it was excessive and distracting - so much so that when they did another timeline jump there was a consensus "groan." Making matters worse, is that there were time jumps as long as 13 years. However, Zendaya --- bless her heart --- as much as they tried to "age" her and "de-age" her through hair and make-up, she never looked, to me, older than about 17 years old regardless of the time era.

Third, while I credit Zendaya for tackling such a meaty role, and as much as I otherwise adore her, she just simply seemed to young to be so "weathered" and "jaded" and "cynical" and "ruthless" and "calculating" as she was. Further, I really don't remember her smiling once throughout the movie. And as I have read in other reviews, she seemed to have a resting "scowl" throughout the movie - ironically very much similar to the scowl she had throughout both Dune 1 and 2.

And lastly, by the end of the movie, none of the three characters were likeable, and, perhaps, oddly, sadly, Zendaya was, to me, the least likeable. And from a film character study point of view, the viewer is never given a reason or backstory for this.

With all these distractions in mind, I was so eager for the movie to end that I lost all investment whatsoever in who won or lost in the story's big moment.

This is a tough one. I liked the concept and the overall story. However i feel like it missed the mark on occasions.

The acting was decent. Felt like each character was built upon chemistry and realism. It kept me entertained for the most part.

The times jumps at the beginning worked and created suspense. Leaving the viewer unsure of what the history our 3 characters share however, the time jumps became a bit too rapid and i personally found it harder to keep up with where we are in the story. I feel like they could've left out a few scenes to make the story flow smoother.

The soundtrack was interesting. Not sure if it suited the mood of the film. But my biggest gripe is the ridiculously slowed down ending. Not sure what the director was thinking with that one.

The conclusion felt like it was going on for 1 hour and i felt it a little cheesy with the last scene of the film.

Overall I see a lot of influence from the film "Match Point" starring Scarlet Johansson. In my opinion that film was far more successful in what "challengers" was attempting.

Overall, bit hit and miss. Some decent moments but nothing to get you excited about or talk about after.

This was my first Luca Guadagnino film, so I'm not sure if any of these criticisms can be explained by "it's just his style" but who knows. The trailer makes the movie look fun, and while there are humorous moments, these are few and far between.

We have two young tennis players - one successful and the other is not for various reasons - both in love with the same woman who seems to jump between them in what makes for a complicated love triangle. Add in electronic music played loudly over scenes where not much is happening, gratuitous nudity (so many penises), and neverending slo-motion in an overlong running time and you have Challengers.

I liked Zendaya when she was playing the role of mature mother and retired tennis professional, but she all too easily slips into an angsty teen who feels too young to play the character.

My favourite moments were the two male leads just hanging out (they had more chemistry than Zendaya with either one), but I wasn't exactly sure what the seemingly homoerotic moments added to the story.

Despite the above points, this movie held my interest and had me wondering exactly where it was going. When it landed, however, I felt cheated of 2 hours by watching a movie that thought it was smarter than it really was. Severely lacking payoff.