Challengers reviews

[Mister Tee]

There's definitely a much worse version of this movie -- one not made by such a gifted director, without talented actors, with more routine dialogue than the often imaginative/pungent exchanges that comprise this film. I'd have really disliked that film.

The thing is, I can't really love the film that exists, either -- despite its many admirable qualities -- because it's so easy to detect that less-interesting, formulaic version of the same story. Strip away the details (and the nuance they clearly add), and you have the blueprint of a routine studio romantic triangle -- minus the updated mores of 2024, it could have served as a Bette Davis vehicle 80 years ago.

The basic conflict is almost primitive: woman torn between two men, one offering stability/comfort, the other danger/eroticism -- the male version of the Madonna/whore dichotomy. There's A LOT more in the margins of Challengers -- the fact that the two guys knew one another prior to meeting the girl; that they've been both partners and competitors even aside from her; that she's partly working out her own life disappointments through interacting with them; that success/failure has been almost random for them, not lining up to any expected effort-reaps-rewards schedule. All of that stuff I found interesting, and it -- along with Guadagnino's fluid filming skills -- kept me engaged most of the way through. But, in the end, the thin quality of the overall plot nagged at me, and prevented me from enjoying this on any more than surface level.

Oh, and I pretty much hated the final tennis match. I retain a life-long aversion to watching characters' private dilemmas spill out into public scenes (an issue I also had with Baby Reindeer, to tip my hand on that), so the whole on-court tantrums thing had me rolling my eyes. I did like the final moment, but I'd been alienated from the film for a good 5 minutes by then, and it was too little too late.

As to the acting...I never understood the wild praise O'Connor got for The Crown, but I liked him more in La Chimera, and I think he comes off best, here, if only for having the wild-hair romantic persona that's always an audience-grabber (though he certainly doesn't stint on the negative aspects of the character). Faist is, like his character, honorable but not all that exciting. Zendaya mostly exists as "woman exotic enough you believe guys would spend a lifetime battling over her", and she fills that slot well enough...though I'm still not sold she's much of an actress.

I can see where critics who went into screenings -- during this traditionally dull part of the year -- found the film's virtues unexpected enough that they went a little overboard in selling it. But there's a critics' paradox afoot: we audiences then go to see it as something that's getting raves, and are proportionately disappointed that it doesn't live up to those raves. None of this is to say I disliked the film -- as I say, it's got a lot of admirable qualities. But it's also not the film I'd hoped I'd be seeing.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
Zendaya is fine but it's never explained why her character is so cranky, or as one of the twins said in their YouTube review, so mean.

Haha, I'm glad you said this because the biggest issue I have with the film is Zendaya although I think her role in the film is interesting and ultimately sort of key to one element of the film that is successful.

Zendaya is fine in this film. She's playing someone who comes across as more of an unknowable idea than a person. At this point, that's true for Zendaya as well. Like Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson, she's TOTALLY in her ingenue phase. I think that's okay because that's basically what draws Josh O'Connor and Mike Faist to her in the first place. But I'll be frank: she seems like a kid throughout the whole film. I get that she's 27 but she still seems like a Disney kid. It's hard to take her character's span of age seriously. Her indignation still seems like a tantrum. It's also one of the reasons why it's more of a flirty than sexy film.

However, I think that's one of the reasons why for me the film was such a farce. They all just seem like a bunch of kids who are hung up on each other. But also... Zendaya is kind of unimportant in this film. She's really just someone who gets in between these two guys and I was incredibly impressed at the specific behavior that Luca Guadignino has them depict on-screen, some of which is wildly "un-masculine." There is a scene late in the film between Mike Faist and Zendaya that is so vulnerable and tells you everything about how he loves her and how it makes her feel.

I think the best shot for Challengers at the Oscars is if it's a big hit. Right now, it's looking at a weekend gross of $15m so it needs to be a sleeper and its B+ Cinemascore doesn't indicate that's going to happen. On a $55m budget, it already looks pretty shaky. I'm sure there are a lot of reasons why it's not doing that well but one of them might be simple. Has a tennis movie ever done well?

I think it's best chances are for Best Original Screenplay and Best Film Editing. If it's a barren year, it's prospects could extend to Zendaya (because she has to get her first nomination for something).

[Big Magilla]

Saw it due to its hype as the best reviewed film of the year so far, but it's not an Oscar movie.

It basically has no plot but is an excellent character study and a showcase for both O'Connor and Faist, especially Faist who unlike O'Connor, has had mostly under-the-radar roles except for his Riff in Spielberg's West Side Story remake.

Zendaya is fine but it's never explained why her character is so cranky, or as one of the twins said in their YouTube review, so mean.

[Reza]

Sabin your review makes it sound very interesting.

Am glad Josh O'Connor is going places. He has been consistently good over the years - brilliant in God's Own Country, Hope Gap, on tv in The Durrells and especially his Emmy-winning Prince Charles in The Crown.

[Sabin]

If Challengers wasn't thrillingly directed, it would still be a good movie. It's a strong script with a compelling love triangle. All three characters are equally important (not always the case in love triangles). And it's very well-plotted. I either never knew where it was going or it got there in fresh, unexpected ways. But it also happens to be thrillingly directed, and not just in the exuberant tennis scenes. It's full of aroma, atmosphere, and detail. It’s such a movie. The two lead male performances are just fantastic. Josh O'Connor (whom I apparently have only seen in Florence Foster Jenkins) is the charismatic standout, but Mike Faist takes the far trickier part and makes him sympathetic. I would argue that it's more of a flirty film than a sexy one, and that's a little disappointing because they never quite registered as full human beings. Although I think it’s conducive with the film’s central conceit that these two are boys (which Guadagnino has a lot of knowing fun with).

Not a great film but definitely a terrific entertainment.

Only problems I had with it are a few soundtrack choices were overwhelming and a handful of bum moments in the third act.

[Sabin]

Can't wait. There's already a strong crop of films I need to catch up on released this year.

Oscar twitter and reddit is obsessed with Mickey 17 getting an Oscar qualifying release this December. They're so certain obsessed with the idea of releasing movies by the end of the year to get Oscar traction. Challengers didn't play that game. They're opening in spring (where increasingly, a lot of interesting fare shows up) and now it gets to try to be remembered by the end of the year vs. clamoring (to no avail) in crowded spaces for air like All of Us Strangers and The Iron Claw. Now it's on more or less the Past Lives track of trying to get remembered by the end of the year, which is a significantly better track to be on. Past Lives may have only picked up two nominations this year but any other year (2022, 2021) I bet it would've done much better.

[danfrank]

It’s definitely been on my radar, but I’m still a bit surprised by the raves. Guadagnino, who I’ve been following since the sumptuous I Am Love, is a bit hit and miss. He definitely has talent, and works like a madman (he has a second film, Queer, based on the William S. Burroughs novel, coming out this year). Challengers has the feel of a big hit. Besides looking sexy and well made, it features Zendaya, who I predict will be at the pinnacle of superstardom for many years to come. It’s great to see continued success for musical theatre nerd Mike Faist. I’m looking forward to this one.

[Mister Tee]

Okay, given the involvement of Luca Guadagnino, I should have had my eye on this a bit more. But it's a tennis movie, and I never anticipated reviews this good.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 235870986/

https://variety.com/2024/film/reviews/c ... 235967433/

https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/mov ... 234973713/

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/challe ... c-reviews/