Skip to content

Bettany serves up an ace in schmaltzy tennis flick

Published:

From the producers of “Notting Hill,” “Bridget Jones’s Diary” and “Love, Actually” comes a film that is, not surprisingly, a lot like its commercially successful forebears. For fans of Working Title’s schmaltzy oeuvre, “Wimbledon” will no doubt feel like a visit from an old friend. The film is overflowing with dry-witted, unconventional Brits and overused, yet always-gorgeous footage of London’s famous landmarks. The only discernible difference between this effort and the others is the absence of Hugh Grant as the self-effacing male lead. That role is filled, and quite ably, by the immensely talented Paul Bettany. Pretty Kirsten Dunst stars as Lizzie Bradbury, an American tennis prodigy making her first appearance at the sport’s most hallowed championship. Lizzie gets swept off her feet by Bettany’s journeyman veteran, Peter Colt, much to the dismay of her overprotective father-coach (Sam Neill) who fears the affair will have an adverse effect on his daughter’s game. Apparently dad’s right, because not long after the requisite “falling-in-love” montage (complete with a shooting star sighting) and a few rolls in the hay, Lizzie — the world’s top-ranked female player — is bounced from the tournament. Love agrees with Colt, however, a perpetual underachiever who finds himself on an incredible winning streak that captivates a nation, yet strains his relationship with Lizzie. As he moves closer to the title, the film begins to lose steam — hampered by sports movie conventions such as the money-hungry agent (Jon Favreau) and the blustery play-by-play guy (John McEnroe). Then there’s the dubious prospect that Colt could lose all focus in the Wimbledon final simply because he and Lizzie had a fight.

Dunst looks great on the movie poster, but this movie belongs to Bettany. His performance alone is reason enough to recommend this romantic comedy. The exceedingly realistic tennis action isn’t bad either. (Rated PG-13 for language, sexuality and partial nudity. Running time: 98 minutes)

Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 17, 2004. Read the original PDF.

Comments

Sign in or become a SMDP member to join the conversation.

Sign in or Subscribe