Challengers

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?

Forget Match Point, even Paul Bettany's Wimbledon is better. If you are not a fan of Zendaya, I would never reccomend this "movie" to anyone. It lacks absolutely everything but occasional beautiful scenery.

I remember Zendaya since Shake It Up and although she is a smart and lovely woman with indeniable star quality, her acting has never been convincing. She always positions herself perfectly for the shot, has the needed movement or expression, but it is always with more connection for the camera than with the character (even in Euphoria). I also never found her use of her voice adequate, it is usually one note. It sort of works here because Tashi is a character as flat as a pancake.

The two other leads are no better and it is an already very far fetched idea that they would attract the attention of anyone, let alone of someone like the Tashi character.

And if this was a movie to attract tennis fans... well it won't. None of the tree leads looks like they have ever played sport. Any sport, any kind, not professionally, just any at all. In school, in the backstreet with friends. The director is either very incapable of his job or hasn't either. They hired Brad Gilbert to consult and help. Ok, but he helps with the wrong aspects. In the end of the day a general viewer would not care if the serve technique is correct, or if the movement and speed is accurate. But he would care about the absolute lack of any engagement with the game. No passion, no desire, no will, no care. Even Ivan Lendl has visibly shown more connection to the game and he was infamous for cool attitude. Or Andre Agassi or Nick Kyrgios who have stated many times they hated tennis. These actors look and act like they are trying not to trip, not to make a wrong move and not like playing for anything (not just the tenmis aspects of the movie). And from this there is no loud enough music to make you care about their game or desires.

The music is terrible allthrough, loud and without having any connection with the supposed story. The overly in your face "metaphors" are just tiring at this point. Filmmakers might wanna try some new and fresh approach to get the point across. And the overuse of slow motion... it just makes the movie even less.

In a time where we care about sparing resources, resources for movies like this shouldn't even be be considered to be spent.

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.

"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.

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.