David Mamet’s “Spartan” (2004) opens with one of my favorite lines of movie dialogue.

We begin in the woods, watching men and women run through a rigorous training course in which they are being pursued. At one point, a cadet stops to catch her breath and doesn’t see a figure watching her, sitting nearby, observing her actions.

He’s identified only as Scott, the Master Gunner, and played by Val Kilmer. Scott asks her, “You had your whole life to train for this moment. Why aren’t you ready?”

The movie is literally off and running and doesn’t slow down for a moment.

Scott is whisked away from the training session and ordered to take part in a rescue mission. It seems a young woman named Laura Newton (Kristen Bell) has been kidnapped. We don’t know immediately who she is or why she’s important, only that there’s a two-day window, tops, to save her and “there’s just the mission.”

After getting his orders and the only intel available, Scott takes off and intercepts the last person the girl interacted with. From there, it’s a series of interrogations, chases, false starts and surprise reveals.

Mamet’s dialog is no-nonsense and direct, with character revelations coming out in rare, unguarded moments. The credentials and backstory of these characters are on a need-to-know basis – the momentum is at a sprint from the start and we’re along for the ride.

Coming a few years into the run of “24” (which began in 2001, aired for nine seasons, then came back through TV movies and added seasons), Mamet is once again giving us a dialog-driven piece in which the inner lives of the characters are revealed gradually, if at all.

These are people defined by their actions and ability to carry out orders.

Occupation aside, Kilmer isn’t really playing a character all that different from the sort of sink-or-swim corporate figures in Mamet’s “Glengarry Glen Ross (which Mamet wrote but James Foley directed as a film in 1992) or “The Spanish Prisoner” (1997). As with Mamet’s “Heist” (2001), this could be transformed into a theater piece but really wouldn’t work as well presented as a play without major structural alterations.

Like Mamet’s “Redbelt” (2005), “Spartan” is driven by a central figure who is a disciplined, highly trained warrior, capable of violence, whose focus and unwavering motivation carries him. Mamet excels at creating this kind of fascinating, unknowable character – his screenplay for “Ronin” (1998) was another example of this kind of high-minded crime caper.

Perhaps Mamet’s legacy is “Glengarry Glen Ross” and “Oleanna,” but his stage and film work demonstrate a willingness to take chances with genre conventions, potentially alienate audiences from the protagonist and creating moral and intellectual puzzles that allow for far more than simply good versus evil.

Kilmer’s character, like the actor himself, is a brilliant, intuitive performer. Watch how quickly Scott improvises during an interrogation. Kilmer did this back-to-back with Shane Black’s “Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang” (2005), another offbeat but smart choice that gives further proof that he’s one of our best, most interesting film actors.

Kilmer’s performance here has a focus and gravity that rates alongside his best work.

Clark Gregg, William H. Macy and Derek Luke excel in supporting turns, though it’s Bell who is especially affecting. Mark Isham’s great, simple score never overshadows Mamet’s hold on the story.

“Spartan,” in a word, is terrific. So why haven’t most people even heard of it?

When it was released in theaters 20 years ago, it barely registered in theaters, despite mostly positive reviews. A major culprit of its meager imprint in theaters was that the depleted Franchise Pictures (smarting from the flops of “Battlefield: Earth,” “Get Carter” and “Driven,” to name a few) couldn’t afford to give it much of a push.

Like Sean Penn’s “The Pledge” (2001), Mamet’s film was Oscar caliber but released at the wrong time and didn’t last in theaters.

If you’re a fan of Kilmer’s and enjoy the challenge of Mamet’s brain-teasing psychological dramas, then “Spartan” is a major discovery.

The post How Did We Miss David Mamet’s ‘Spartan?’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Wes Anderson’s “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou” was the filmmaker’s first lavish, wildly stylish and extremely divisive work.

The momentum of “Rushmore” (1998) and “The Royal Tenenbaums” (2001) allowed Anderson final cut privilege and immediate auteur status, a deserved title, to be sure, but not a guarantee that audiences would embrace all of his eccentric visions.

Case in point – “The Life Aquatic” had a wide Christmas day opening and baffled most audiences and critics. Twenty years later, it’s a transitional work, ushering Anderson into the consistent filmmaking and storytelling approaches that would mark his finest films.

Undoubtedly, this is still a strange and unabashedly offbeat look at a hard to like character. It’s also a masterpiece and among the most essential works of the early aughts.

Bill Murray stars as Zissou, a world-famous Jacques Cousteau-like adventurer, who creates engaging documentaries on his many adventures that are more distinct than his abilities as an oceanographer. Zissou seemingly does little without a camera to capture it, creating a clear distinction between the celebrity with a library of recorded and colorful sea voyages, and the contradictory, frustrating, even morose man he is when he isn’t being documented.

Zissou is a failure as a father, as he learns of Ned (Owen Wilson), an unheard-of son who is hastily made a newly-appointed crew member and keeps his marriage to Eleanor (Anjelica Huston) at a barely functional level.

Zissou’s crew adores him, particularly Klaus (Willem Dafoe, terrific as usual) and are game in keeping him a step ahead of his professional rival, Alistair (Jeff Goldblum). Adding further complication to Zissou’s life is the arrival of a reporter (Cate Blanchett) who becomes a romantic rival between father and son.

There’s also the shark that ate Zissou’s best friend that has become his Moby Dick and a pair of dolphins who, in Zissou’s words, don’t do much of anything.

RELATED: WES ANDERSON TOME TRIES TOO HARD TO MIMIC AUTEUR 

It opens with an Italian gala premiere of Zissou’s latest motley documentary – Anderson and co-screenwriter Noah Baumbach (who has a wordless cameo in one scene) tease the denizens and decorum of the high-end film festival circuit.

“The Life Aquatic” was Anderson’s first lavish film and immersion into a quasi-magical realism environment. It also presents a world as a living diorama, as Zissou’s vessel, the Belafonte, is presented in a vivid, highly theatrical manner.

The set design allows us to experience the Belafonte as though we could view it as a pop-up book or a stage setting. A nice touch is when Zissou informs us that “the observation deck, I came up with in a dream.”

Adding a strange but undeniably tasty texture to all of this are Henry Selick’s magical stop-motion creatures (only seen fleetingly) and the frequent Portuguese renditions of David Bowie songs by Seu Yorge. There’s also the use of Mark Mothersbaugh’s “Gut Feeling” during a killer montage.

I saw Mothersbaugh and his band, Devo, perform this onstage a few years after the movie came out and the audience went nuts.

Anderson’s film is more about filmmaking than underwater exploration, as Team Zissou is a dysfunctional, only somewhat competent extended family, all of whom hold a fondness and extended grudge toward their captain.

Murray’s performance is perfection. As funny as he is here, Murray always taps into the truth of the character and never tries to make him cloying or likable. The Murray/Goldblum rivalry is hilarious and, while the many adventures of Team Zissou are, indeed, exotic and weird, what is always the most compelling are the relationships among the crew.

Blanchett takes a character that could have been an afterthought and makes it special. Dafoe is hilarious but his character, arguably the neediest of Team Zissou, is also deeply touching. For Klaus, Zissou is family.

ON THIS DAY – In 2004, Bill Murray and Jeff Goldblum helped premiere Wes Anderson's "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" in New York. #OnThisDay pic.twitter.com/79E3eTV61W

— AP Entertainment (@APEntertainment) December 9, 2021

For all of Anderson’s wildly stylish touches, the heart and emotional center is strong.

“The Life Aquatic” is also about the damage our fathers inflict on us and how we survive them. Most of Anderson’s films are about fractured family units. At one point, Zissou declares “I hate fathers and I never wanted to be one.”

Murray plays him as is soulful and a visionary but also an ass. Zissou is too sad and self-absorbed to fully enjoy his fame, alternating between being inspiring and hateful.

This is that period where Murray was doing his best work, ranging from “Mad Dog & Glory” (1993), “Rushmore” (1998), “Lost in Translation” (2003), “Broken Flowers” (2005), “Get Low” (2010), “Hyde Park on Hudson” (2012), “St. Vincent” (2014), “Rock the Kasbah” (a deep cut and hidden gem from 2015) and “On the Rocks” (2020).

Who would’ve thought the guy who started his film career in “Meatballs” (1979) would wind up being such a damn good actor?

Many of Anderson’s films (most of which, by the way, are master classes in filmmaking) feature Murray and showcase the actor willing to be up for the challenge of playing men at odds with themself and lacking confidence (the anti-Venkman).

Anderson is just one of the filmmakers who allows Murray to stretch and reveal startling depths as an actor. “The Life Aquatic,” my favorite of Anderson’s films so far, is a gloriously moving film about shaping our legacy.

As a transitional work for Anderson and a milestone for Murray, it’s a thing of beauty.

The post ‘The Life Aquatic’ Remains Wes Anderson’s Masterpiece appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Maïwenn’s “Jeanne du Barry” depicts the hard life of Madame du Barry, who rose out of poverty after her family left her in a Catholic boarding school when she was a child.

After gaining a reputation as a figure of adoration among high-society men, du Barry met King Louis XV, who was immediately smitten with her. The King arranged for du Barry to become his mistress and live with him in Versailles.

The movie, which opened the 2023 Cannes Film Festival and is already a hit overseas, was not only directed by Maïwenn but she also plays the title role. The former wife of director Luc Besson, Maïwenn is an accomplished actress and filmmaker; she was unforgettable playing the Diva Plavalaguna in Besson’s “The Fifth Element” (1997) and was one of the leads in the infamous “High Tension” (2005).

Yet, the most discussed bit of casting here is easily Johnny Depp, who is returning to acting after a three-year absence as the King. His performance follows the media circus around the defamation trial between him and his ex-wife.

“Jeanne du Barry” is far from the first film to depict the title figure – there are 10 films prior to this one, some of which were made during the silent era. In Sofia Coppola’s “Marie Antoiniette” (2005), du Barry was played by Asia Argento. Maïwenn’s film isn’t a costume drama rethink like Coppola’s radical film, or even a work that moved me as deeply as “The Young Victoria” (2009).

However, it’s not a stuffy, stodgy pageant, either. Maïwenn is clearly aiming to replicate the beauty, precision, and internalized drama of Stanley Kubrick’s “Barry Lyndon” (1975). Maïwenn’s film, like “Barry Lyndon,” has immaculate sets and costumes, natural lighting, and a painterly framing of every single scene.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Jeanne du Barry (@jeannedubarryfilm)

Since Maïwenn is playing du Barry, the focus of nearly every single scene, and the film’s director, this is likely to be accused of being a vanity piece. Yet, while the film is on du Barry’s side, Maïwenn doesn’t hesitate to depict the title character as flawed and impulsive.

That said, this is also a tribute to du Barry, who is depicted here as an intelligent, driven and compassionate woman who knows how to play the game and work the rules of the system to her advantage. Maïwenn portrays her as ahead of her time, empathetic and forward thinking.

The presence of du Barry in Versailles is a scandal to all, except the King, who adores her. A running gag I loved is how everyone is instructed to shuffle away loudly from the King, never turning their back to him. This is initially addressed as an expected behavior but becomes an endearing in-joke shared between the King and du Barry.

In this exclusive clip from Johnny Depp's new film, King Louis XV pushes back against the people who are scandalized by his love with a commoner. Jeanne du Barry hits theaters May 2nd from Vertical Entertainment #JohnnyDepp #JeanneDuBarry pic.twitter.com/P737E80Rri

— Movieweb (@movieweb) May 1, 2024

Depp, always a character actor with a movie-star career, excels as King Louis XV, bringing humor and needed gravity to the tole without taking over the film. Yet, the film’s best, most layered and endearing performance comes from Benjamin Lavernhe as La Borde, who was an ally to the King and is depicted here as a sort of Professor Henry Higgins who coaches du Barry on the social rules of living in Versailles.

Lavernhe creates a mesmerizing figure, one that I always found myself watching closely to gauge his subtle but telling reactions in each scene.

“Jeanne du Barry” won’t emerge as a definitive take on its subject, though how could it be, since this version of the story remains only from du Barry’s perspective? Nevertheless, as a tribute to du Barry and a you-are-there immersion into a lost time, the film is enjoyable and engaging from start to finish.

Costume dramas can be stiff and patience testing, but this one emerges a work of passion.

Three Stars

The post ‘Jeanne du Barry’ Brings Johnny Depp Back to the Big Screen appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

“Idiocracy,” indeed.

Mike Judge’s 2006 classic predicted the dumbing down of society. If Hollywood has its way, we’ll get there sooner than later.

And we can partly blame “The Fall Guy.”

The action comedy lifts its title and main character from the Lee Majors TV show. The action romp does what 99 percent of modern blockbusters do – reduce the source material to endless action and stupefying storylines.

We’re not expecting a “Fall Guy” movie to quote Shakespeare, but for the love of all that’s holy can’t a wannabe blockbuster hold together in some fashion?

Ryan Gosling stars as Colt Seavers, a veteran stuntman who leaves Hollywood after a brutal accident. The story picks up 18 months later, and Colt is dragged back to the business at the prodding of hard-charging producer Gail (“Ted Lasso’s” Hannah Waddingham).

The gig reunites Colt with his old flame, Jody (Emily Blunt). They dated before his devastating accident, but she’s moved on, and up, since then.

She’s now directing the latest Tom Ryder blockbuster, and she doesn’t need Colt distracting her from a crack at the big time.

Except Tom (Aaron Taylor-Johnson, wasted) has gone missing, and Gail hopes Colt can both perform the necessary stunts AND track the A-lister down.

Or something.

Ryan Gosling said The Fall Guy is obviously a "love letter to the stunt community" at the film's premiere.

"How do you say thank you to someone that got set on fire eight times for you, jumped from a helicopter, rolled a car eight times for you?" Via THR: https://t.co/6csyOUGGQC pic.twitter.com/aDZBpVtAty

— IGN (@IGN) May 1, 2024

“The Fall Guy” only cares about the stunts, and a few of them are worth the price of admission. Yet a great stunt needs a story to anchor it. Otherwise, it’s eye candy and nothing else.

Like this film.

The same is true for the Colt-Jody romance. Gosling and Blunt are cute together, but the story is more interested in chaos theory than storytelling.

So we get too many scenes that make no sense, and any narrative momentum crumbles.

Some sequences are so dumb they hurt.

At one point Jody attacks a person in an alien costume (don’t ask). The scene goes on forever, and while Jody appears to have no formal fight training or skills she delivers a beatdown that would make John Wick blush.

Why? Who knows?

Earlier in the film, Teresa Palmer gets one scene to call her own as Tom’s girlfriend, and she nearly kills Colt by attacking him with a sword.

Why? Who knows?

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by The Fall Guy (@thefallguymovie)

Director David Leitch (“John Wick: Chapter 4,” “Bullet Train”) craves that chaos, and it keeps undermining the film’s better elements.

The film’s first 10 minutes are darn near glorious. Gosling’s character narrates the moments leading up to his life-altering accident, and there’s silliness and laughs throughout.

More, please!

The rest of the film is a slow but steady downhill ride through Generic Hollywood Blockbusterism.

Like most new movies, “The Fall Guy” goes on a good 15 minutes too long, squandering our goodwill in the process.

Along the way, we do get some classic movie lines and odes to the stunt people who make movies brighter. Stay for the end credits for more of the same.

We’re also treated to some shallow swipes at Tinsel Town, but nothing that feels fresh or meaty.

Fine. “The Fall Guy” is a love letter to the stunt profession, and only nominally tied to the Majors TV show. Would it hurt the creative team to put a little thought into said letter? First drafts are never worth throwing up on the screen.

HiT or Miss: “The Fall Guy” is breezy, light and so aggressively dumb that nothing sticks. And, yes, that matters even in an action comedy.

The post ‘Fall Guy’ Dumbs Down ’80s TV Show … Way Down appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Bob Balaban’s “Parents” (1989) begins with a series of family rituals.

Although set in the 1950s, before my time, anyone can relate to the montage that opens the film – a family drive, a game of living room golf, etc.

It’s what comes next that shocks, as it feels so unnatural and scary, the first of many such moments throughout.

Dad (Randy Quaid) is carrying his son to bed while chipper Mom (Mary Beth Hurt) is all smiles and watches approvingly. However, their Boy (Bryan Madorsky), who rarely speaks during the film, is reserved and seemingly unable to speak, in fear of some sort of dreadful retaliation.

The kid is afraid of something. What he suspects about his parents is dreadful and, as the story proceeds, we’re not entirely sure until the end if we’re witnessing something unthinkable or a child’s warped interpretation of the truth.

“Parents” (1989) is one of the few films that truly scares me. I saw the film when I was too young to fully engage with the satire and subtext it contains. Looking at it now, as a father and with reflection on the decisions and motivations of my own parents during my childhood, the movie still rattles me.

The tone and look of the film are similar to David Lynch’s “Blue Velvet” (1986) and the then-forthcoming “Twin Peaks” (1990). Indeed, “Parents” shares Lynch’s composer, Angelo Badalamenti and the milieu of a Norman Rockwellian past as a setting and cover up for the darkness within.

For some, the similarity to Lynch was a drawback but here’s the thing – what Lynch does on a film-to-film basis (with rare out-of-character exceptions like “The Straight Story”) is so distinctive, personal, and nearly impossible to duplicate. Balaban is using Lynch’s paintbrush the same way Brian DePalma borrows from Alfred Hitchcock.

That’s not easy to pull off. I mean this as a compliment.

Taken as a companion piece or simply a jolting double feature with “Blue Velvet,” Balaban takes some wild swings and makes a top-grade art film, as well as a terrifying portrait of childhood fears.

Is it a satire? In some ways, it spoofs the conventions and social mores of the 1950s, though this isn’t a comedy. Perhaps, if, say, Christopher Walken and Kathy Bates had played the title characters, it could have found an easy tone of a horror farce. Instead, the actors aren’t kidding around, and neither is Balaban.

The boy, whose name turns out to be Michael (but is rarely addressed as such) catches his parents having sex, has a nightmare of his bedsheets turning into a sea of blood and has a shuddering fear of the dark. Are we seeing the boy’s reality or is that even possible?

This child is so young and inexperienced, could anything we’re witnessing be anything more than a hyperactive imagination?

Mom and Dad, whose names are revealed to be Lilly and Nick, are an interesting contrast, as Lilly is chipper and charming. Dad, however, has a mean streak that comes out whenever his son tests him in any way.

Quaid and Beth Hurt give layered, unsettling turns; we can’t tell if they’re faking normalcy, or if they’re genuinely hiding the hostility that they feel towards becoming parents. Their resentment seems directed towards their son.

Are they wearing a mask of sanity? Quaid isn’t playing Cousin Eddie and Beth Hurt is disturbing in her portrayal of unbroken devotion.

It's #ManiacMonday! Meet the Laemle family—Nick, Lily and their son Michael, who suspects his parents are cannibalistic murderers. Directed by Bob Balaban, #Parents (1989) stars Randy Quaid & Mary Beth Hurt. What's your take on this late '80s horror film?#80s #horror #movies pic.twitter.com/XszsNbozWe

— In Search of Darkness (@80sHorrorDoc) January 15, 2024

Dad, who is employed by “Toxico,” works in “defoliants,” explaining to his son that “in 24 years, this jungle is mulch.” Mom is a busybody in the kitchen and outgoing socially, but her Donna Reed effervescence seems to be a mask for … something.

Perhaps the boy’s imagination only makes his parents appear monstrous, as his imagination may provide the clue that he’s only imagining his nightly traumas. I’m unsure if, in the very end, even with that amusing final scene, if the film makes an ultimate decision in deciphering what the true reality is here.

Yet, even as the conclusion is debatable, “Parents” can be taken as straightforward horror and not as a guarded allegory.

Badalamenti’s creepy score dips into the dread the boy is experiencing. The art direction is remarkable, looking like an extension of the boy’s troubled mind. The grim black and white portrait of the boy that Mom has on her nightstand is a hilarious prop. The film is stylish enough that the material is never unwatchable, though there are ample tonal shifts to keep us off balance.

“Parents” explores suburban conformity and parental influence. When the boy says ghastly things in school, we wonder if he’s just parroting something he heard his father say. A scene of the parents having dinner with Dad’s boss is notable for the way it suggests Mom and Dad are dining with older versions of themselves. Conformity as company.

Mom and Dad like to drink but they seem every bit as weird when they’re sober. A question the film hints at and never actually addresses: Is the boy the biological son of these two?

RELATED: ‘TERROR IN THE AISLES’ CAPTURES ’80s HORROR

One of Michael’s most harrowing nightmares switches from black and white to color and has imagery reminiscent of “The Shining” (1980). Clearly, much of the surreal imagery can be interpreted as fantasy but, since the boy is so young, could we simply be seeing how his mind interprets the unthinkable?

An interesting contrast with “Blue Velvet” is that Jeffrey, the film’s protagonist, finds the world a terrible place once he leaves his home and ventures into the dangers of the outside world. Here, the horror is primarily inside the young boy’s home.

Because “Parents” is from the point of view of a grade school kid, there’s an intentional lack of nuance and understanding of the adult world. Or, perhaps Michael, with his purity and unfiltered way of expressing himself, is simply seeing things exactly as they are?

There are lots of films with jump scares and spooky moments but this one still frightens me.

The post Randy Quaid’s ‘Parents’ Remains a Bone-Chilling Satire appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

It was even worse than you heard, than you read, than you feared.

“Screams Before Silence” lets the survivors of the Oct. 7 massacre at the hands of Hamas tell their stories.

The documentary, available for free at screamsbeforesilence.com, doesn’t show the grisly visuals found in the 45 minute video from late last year. The stories reveal atrocities that led one voice to describe them as “redefined evil.”

Even the Nazi machine couldn’t match the vile acts perpetrated again and again.

Sexual violence is the film’s focus. The Hamas targets endured mutilation and rape before death. The details are almost unimaginable.

Picture the worst horror film violence ever captured on screen. Now, imagine it happening hundreds of times. The survivors will live with those images until they leave this mortal coil.

The communities in question may never heal.

Some witnesses can’t help but break down on screen. One woman, tasked with attending to the stacks of body bags flooding the morgue, vowed to remain stoic despite her pain.

These details, she said, must be heard.

The survivors are artfully framed by Israeli director Anat Stalinsky, whose camera work is both tasteful and relentless. Burned-out trailers. Bullet holes. Ransacked homes forever stained by terror and death.

Other visuals come courtesy of the terrorists. Their footage captures a fraction of their savagery. We watch captured women dragged like dolls, their bodies degraded on purpose.

Just when you think you’ve heard too much, that nothing could be as harrowing as the last testimonial, another shocking account arrives.

A brief segment shows captured terrorists describing some of their actions. The scenes offer few insights, as if they shared nothing consequential during the interviews or the filmmakers wanted to put a face to the monstrosities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Sheryl Sandberg (@sherylsandberg)

Some details are almost too devastating to process.

“We never knew what we would see [in the body bags],” one worker shares. Others describe body parts treated like toys, hacked off their owners and distributed yards away.

It always comes back to rape, humiliation and physical torture.

Always.

Sheryl Sandberg, former COO of Meta, is our on-camera surrogate and the driving force behind “Screams Before Silence.” She asks the blunt, necessary questions to let the survivors speak. She repeatedly fights back her own tears and can’t help but offer comfort to her interview subjects.

Her shock mirrors ours.

RELATED: RAPAPORT SHREDS HOLLYWOOD FOR SILENCE ON ISRAELI HOSTAGES

Sandberg offers her personal reflections at one point, a curious decision given what we’re witnessing. This isn’t her story, but her willingness to gather the resources necessary to document Oct. 7 earned her monologue.

The documentary doesn’t attempt to contextualize the Israel/Palestinian divide. No politics enter the frame, nor does the film explore Israel’s military reaction to the horrors.

The film shrewdly wraps just before the hour mark. How much more can audiences take?

Many grew up hearing the phrase, “Never again,” relating to the Holocaust. Yet Oct. 7 already feels far away. Just ask any college protesters cheering on the political group behind the attacks.

“Screams Before Silence” won’t wake up your average, radicalized student. It’s still chilling, invaluable and necessary.

HiT or Miss: “Screams Before Silence” could be the most consequential film of the year. 

The post ‘Screams Before Silence’ Must Be Seen and Remembered appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Luca Guadagnino’s “Challengers” is a tawdry, repetitive, sports-driven relationship drama elevated and almost saved entirely by robust filmmaking.

Take it either as “Bull Durham” (1988) but set in the world of tennis, or simply “Dangerous Liaisons” (also 1988) but with the gender of the three leads reversed.

We meet Tashi, played by Zendaya, a competitive tennis player who is far smarter than her age would indicate. Tashi becomes the object of affection and an all-or-nothing competition between two lifelong friends and tennis players, the highly competitive Patrick Zweig (Josh O’Connor) and the sweet but controllable Art Donaldson (Mike Faist).

The story jumps forwards and backward dozens of times, with potential confusion avoided by timecards rendering the dates clear. However, it’s Zendaya’s contrasting hairstyles that ultimately keep things coherent.

Tennis matches and switching romantic partners between the three leads is how the story moves in rotation. Unlike the aforementioned “Bull Durham,” which also revolved around a love triangle and explicitly compared the rules of baseball to sex, “Challengers” actually has no sex scenes (only moments of graphic nudity and a three-way kiss that is in the trailer).

There is an eroticism to this that can only be taken somewhat seriously, as Guadagnino is never subtle.

It’s suggested a few times but never actually explored that Patrick and Art are sexually attracted to one another but have been holding it back for decades. Rather than developing this, Guadagnino gives them a literally steamy sauna room conversation and another scene where they munch on phallic churros while making eyes at one another.

“Challengers” has this in common with the tacky cult classic “Cruel Intentions” (1999): it wants to jolt the mainstream but is limited to occasionally shocking its audience without following through on provocative promises.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Nine Inch Nails (@nineinchnails)

The three leads are appealing but give limited performances.

It’s too early to tell if the one-note natures of the characters, the range of the actors or both are to blame but, if Zendaya, O’Connor and Faist become important actors after this, it would be a pleasant surprise. The three ably invest in their roles but no one steps up and carries the film.

Zendaya’s Tashi not only drives the story but is the sports guru/sex object at the center of the triangle, the way Susan Sarandon’s Annie Savoy was crucial to “Bull Durham.” “Challengers” lacks that film’s humor and true character growth.

There are three major contributors here who make the film worth seeing – two are the composers, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, whose club banger of a score sounds like an extension of their thrilling “Nun with a Mother-Bleeping Gun” track from the “Watchmen” HBO series.

The music is dynamic and exciting, as well as used in a knowing, unusual manner. You expect the throbbing beats during the electric tennis matches but, when Guadagnino has the score play during the high-stakes conversations between the leads, we understand that those verbal altercations are every bit a competition as the actual tournaments.

Loved hearing Zendaya's thoughts about the narrative and thematic use of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross's score for Challengers. pic.twitter.com/gsW5EZ1cto

— Devanayagam (@Devanayagam) April 28, 2024

The other major contributor is obviously Guadagnino, who takes an engaging but obvious and not altogether radical melodrama (teen athletes struggling to embrace adulthood!) into a tour de force. There are no scenes that embrace a light touch – for example, a character’s main change of heart is revealed during a windstorm.

As in Guadagnino’s best films, the surprising “A Bigger Splash” (2015) and the hypnotic, horrifying “Suspiria” (2018), the style is the substance. The showmanship of Guadagnino goes beyond the tennis matches, which are easily the most exciting to be put on film.

The engaging but forgettable “Wimbledon” (2004) is probably the last time tennis was the focal point of a sports movie. Come to think of it, the last time a tennis match connected in a movie on this level was probably “The Witches of Eastwick” (1987)!

There’s a Hitchcockian quality to the filmmaking, which takes an obvious cue from “Strangers on a Train” (1951), which is also about a tennis player; Guadagnino mimics the famous shot of spectators’ heads going back and forth with the tennis ball.

Yet, the two-men dynamic, even the suggested possibility of sexual attraction between them, is also in Hitchcock’s film. “Challengers” isn’t a thriller but would make an interesting double feature with “Strangers on a Train.”

Guadagnino overreaches with the 131-minute running time. I like a long, fully-formed movie but this easily could and should have been 10 minutes shorter.

Like John Cassavetes, Guadagnino likes scenes to stretch beyond the expected before or after they begin. I like the shots of the athletes preparing mentally before their matches, but there are some static bits here that are frustrating in their overextension.

Yet, there’s a welcome second-act surprise that breaks the cyclical nature of the story. Guadagnino somehow makes a date to Applebee’s seem romantic and crucial. Then there’s the grand finale which, like everything else here, goes on far too long but is still exhilarating.

After the disappointment of Guadagnino’s irritating and oddly predictable cannibal love story “Bones and All” (2022), it’s good to see him back with a full throttle, propulsive work of cinema. Time will tell if this becomes the definitive tennis movie (I prefer “Match Point” slightly more, even though it lacks the enthralling tennis sequences of “Challengers”).

As is, it shows what happens when a wily, talented film artist takes juvenile material and turns it into a powerhouse.

Three Stars

The post Is ‘Challengers’ This Generation’s ‘Bull Durham?’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.