Battle of the Sexes

Directed by Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton, the film brings to life the famous 1973 tennis match between Billie Jean King, portrayed by Emma Stone, and Bobby Riggs, played by Steve Carell.

The film takes us back to a time when women's sports struggled for recognition and respect, and Billie Jean King emerges as a formidable figure fighting for gender equality both on and off the tennis court. Emma Stone captured King's determination, resilience, and internal struggle as she grapples with her own personal journey while championing the cause of equal pay and equal rights.

Steve Carell shines in his portrayal of Bobby Riggs, a charismatic and self-proclaimed male chauvinist who challenges King to a highly publicized match. Carell brings both humor and depth to the character, capturing Riggs' larger-than-life personality while also highlighting the underlying insecurities and complexities that drove him.

Beyond the tennis match itself, "Battle of the Sexes" explores the broader social and cultural context of the time. The film portrays the struggles faced by women in the sports industry and the larger feminist movement of the 1970s. It delves into the personal lives of the characters, shedding light on the challenges they faced in their relationships and their efforts to navigate societal expectations.

Funny to see all those offended over a simple biographical drama crying sexism and politics. Too bad those can't simply enjoy a great film with great acting and directing. It was an interesting story told very well. 8/10 from me

This movie is about how Billie Jean King cheated on her loving husband with her lesbian hairdresser.

The filmmaker apparently thinks you're supposed to overlook adultery because... I don't know, LGBTQ something?

Billie Jean's husband may be the only not flawed character, and he's apparently supposed to be... what? The bad guy?

I came to see a movie of women's empowerment and I somehow found myself almost rooting for Bobby Riggs, especially since they made a point to say his chauvinism was just for show. Given that it's an actual historical event I'm glad Billie Jean won, but I mean damn. Seriously, what was the point of making Billie Jean a cheater? The whole movie just felt awkward and forced.

I look forward to a women's empowerment movie that doesn't somehow accidentally make women the villain of the story.

Few things made less sense than the battle of Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King. What exactly is proved by middled-aged man winning or losing to a young tennis champion? And yet, this was a big deal at the time, as showman and huckster Riggs somehow persuaded the world that such a contest would prove something.

According to the movie, Billie Jean knew it was nonsense. Her perfectly reasonable position was that women tennis stars should be paid as much as the men because they sold as many tickets. But sometimes you have to take the symbolic fight you are offered rather than the one you want.

Steve Carrel is terrific as Riggs, with an obnoxious, breezy charm that is pretty much what I remember from the time (when I was a kid with no interest in sports). Emma Stone has the less interesting task of playing a noble hero, but her gentle steeliness and sexual awakening make her a sympathetic and terrible likable protagonist. The rest of the cast is terrific as well, and full of familiar faces.

It's not a great movie, but it's a cute, perpetually entertaining one that tells an interesting story in an engaging manner.

The themes presented in this film are still relevant and have merit. With that said, I want to add that ever since Ibsen wrote "A Doll's House," it's very rare to get a film (or play for that matter) that is charged with the theme of gender equality and presents it in a way that truly resonates. What do I mean? In films that aim to give a message or present an issues, such as when the writer wants to say something about the relevant society, more often than not, the writer portrays those characters in simple categorizations of good and bad. That may work in a superhero film, but in a piece of realism, where character development and relationships are key elements to the storytelling, simple good and bad just won't do. That's my issue with this film. The screenplay simplifies a few integral characters too much, in favor of hoisting up its protagonist.

To get this out of the way, the performances are fantastic. Emma Stone and Steve Carell lead the cast well, and the cast doesn't have a weak link in it. In particular, a lot of credit has to be given to Steve Carell. He took a character that was underwritten and perhaps even misrepresented and makes him sympathetic and someone to root for. Andrea Riseborough also delivers a very affecting performance and really gives us some great scene work with Emma Stone.

The directing is swift, well paced and well filmed. Kudos to the cinematographer who really has a wonderful grasp on stillness to promote an essential moment and exerts great uses of soft and hard focus to portray dramatic moments and internalize character feelings. The editing also deserves a shout out for some wonderful pacing and really effectively switching between the grainy, 70s like cinematography and more clear cinematography.

Now, back to the screenplay. What made and still makes "A Doll's House" the ultimate gender-equality script is that every character can be sympathized with. We learn more about the human condition and evils of society, rather than placing blame and anger on individual groups. There are only two men that can be rooted for without hesitation and that's our protagonist's husband and father. Every other guy is completely unlikable and has no arc, and Steve Carell's character can be questioned. Carell's character, who is a vital part of this story, isn't written very well or thoroughly. It's always hard to have two protagonists in a film, especially at a reasonable and well paced time. Carell's character is both an antagonist and protagonist or, at least attempts to be so. Carell's character opposes Emma Stone's. It's a man versus women ordeal and their tennis match is the crisis and climax of the film. But, here's the issue. Carell's character is NOT the antagonist. It's society! So why is Carell's character's standing within the realm of the film so questionable? Why doesn't he get his own arc? Every major character in "A Doll's House" takes a journey. That's what makes us empathize with them and come away disliking their society, and not the products of that society. The same would work with this film. But instead, there is a co- protagonist / antagonist that is not written for people to care about or even empathize with. He gets no arc, no change. He's unaffected. He may as well have been a smaller part.

Why is this an issue? Because Emma Stone's character is a catalyst. She's the driving force and vehicle used within the film to represent the affects of an unjust era and to showcase the positive effects that a change in this society would have. Unfortunately, because Carell's character and the real antagonists (the sexists who sit atop the societal ladder) don't change, because we only see them as unlikable, this story turns into something simple and ultimately un-fulfilling. Stone's character merely wins the battle within the film and we come away knowing that and are momentarily happy. However, that soon goes away, which makes this entertaining dramedy perhaps a little forgettable. Had the writing been more substantial and caring to all its characters, and forgiving to all its characters and condemned society instead, we'd come away with a more profound understanding of where issues lie and are issued from. That's a memorable film. I suppose the cinematic world is still chasing Ibsen.

I give this film 3 out of 5 stars for its entertainment value and performances and recommend it for ages 13 to 18. Reviewed by Willie J., KIDS FIRST! Film Critic.