I'll jump! You don't want that on your conscience, do you?

Rating: 2/10 (11 January 2005)

Was the purpose of this Hollywood film to see how just how many clichés they could fit into a two hour time frame? Perhaps it was just I, but I counted nearly twenty in the first hour. From the accidental meeting to the overuse of the "good luck charm" theme, Hollywood successfully packed in these and a bunch more for this little British film. With clichés weighting down the truck of this ride, we also have two actors helming it that need more skill in the romantic comedy genre, or else they may find themselves veering off the road and down a steep hill crashing into more and more poor films. Bettany was not a substitute for the Hugh Grant style of British acting that this film desperately needed, while Kirsten Dunst is not aging well at all. Her acting seems to be depleting with her charm and looks, causing us to actually watch the tennis games in this film instead of their performances. Thankfully, we had these CGI tennis matches to watch, which was the only eye-catching element to this entire film. It covered the element that Bettany and Dunst were lacking, which was talent.
So, was I too harsh with the beginning paragraph? I don't think so. What could have been a decent film with better British actors and a stronger leading lady, eventually fell apart with the nonchalant emotion of Bettany and the "collecting my paycheck" style of acting from Dunst. Even veteran actor Sam Neill couldn't escape the clutches of cliché as he played the same father-esquire figure that we have seen time and time again in this genre of film. I hope his paycheck will go to the reconstruction of the broken nerves in his face that were unusable in this film thus giving us a reason why his character did not smile nor show any form of emotion towards his daughter or boyfriend. It was as if he was rehearsing for a role in The Stepford Wives instead of this movie. These three actors literally gave the worst performances of their career. They never broke their own mold, but simply followed the lines and direction given to them from the script. If the script itself could have done its own acting, this may have been a better film. Instead we are lead on an emotional carriage ride that has squares for wheels and seems to be lost the entire time. If I had to give a reason as to why this film was not as successful in the box office as it could have been, I would have to say it was the acting. It really slumped this film deeper into a darkened corner.
If one can look past the acting, there really isn't anything else to see. Lacking the excitement from a sports film, even if it is tennis, director Richard Loncraine follows the same route as every other sports film released by Hollywood. Imagination was not a prerequisite for making this movie. From the overplayed underdog story, to the forced connection between Dunst and Bettany, to finally the unemotional ending, Loncraine gives nothing short of disaster. When these films are being produced by the dozens in Hollywood, it is your job as the director to give us something new. Either a fresh face, or a fresh course of events. Do not fall into the same clichés over and over again, as it seems that Loncraine has opted to do (referencing my comment about packing as many clichés as possible into this film).
If I must note only one good thing about this film, I would have to go with the use of CGI. Apparently, the graphics department was ordered to use their imagination to give us a new perspective on the game and to freshen up the look of tennis. This was successful as I thought that the uses of CGI to capture the effects of the ball on the court were outstanding. It is an element not used often enough in sporting films, so it provided some ease to my eyes that were swollen from the rest of this picture. As I think about it, even the CGI was a bit disappointing because it proved that the actors were not actually playing the sport, thus only destroying whatever believe we had in their feeble characters. Oh well, I tried.
Finally, I would like to say that I was a bit disturbed by the idea of Bettany and Dunst together. I felt that their relationship was built upon Bettany doing better at the game. She was his good luck charm. He knew that from the beginning, yet decided to stay with her to help him reach new heights of fame and fortune. He, in other words, used her. Director Richard Loncraine does a fantastic job of avoiding this issue and placing the entire emphasis on love. That is all fine and dandy, but we need reality to take into effect her and demonstrate that without Dunst, Bettany would have ultimately failed. Loncraine tries to give us some explanation at the end of the film (not to give anything away), but is unsuccessful because of the cliché surrounding it. I personally thought there was no emotion between the two love interests, only this dark addiction to being victorious that kept these two together (or at least one rushing after the other). Think about this as you watch the movie.
Overall, this film was pitiful. Nothing in it was spectacular, nothing was imaginative, and nothing sparked any bit of creativity or excitement for me to pick up a tennis ball and begin playing again. Bettany and Dunst gave the worst performances of their careers as they stumbled through the emotions and lines of this film. With these two hardly showing any skill it was only a matter of time that the remaining elements followed suit.
Grade: ** out of *****