Challengers

"Im doing this for both of us. You know that, right."

Idk if this was the straightest gay movie or the gayest straight movie.

• The thing that stopped this film from feeling incredibly boring was the way it played with time.

• Took 30 minutes to slow down and breathe. But if it didb't, I would've given it half a star less.

• Bad acting in trailers, far from the case in the actual film. Trailers didn't sell me but this was a good movie. Wouldn't go back to it though.

• The trailers spoiled the midpoint.

• I think Tashi should've agreed to train Patrick as a way of tricking him to lose. I also thought the guys were the real ones playing Tashi. I was waiting for a flashback scene where the they plan the whole thing. That might've been generic but I also wasn't expecting a "hug and walk off into the sunset" type of ending.

This is a tough one. I liked the concept and the overall story. However i feel like it missed the mark on occasions.

The acting was decent. Felt like each character was built upon chemistry and realism. It kept me entertained for the most part.

The times jumps at the beginning worked and created suspense. Leaving the viewer unsure of what the history our 3 characters share however, the time jumps became a bit too rapid and i personally found it harder to keep up with where we are in the story. I feel like they could've left out a few scenes to make the story flow smoother.

The soundtrack was interesting. Not sure if it suited the mood of the film. But my biggest gripe is the ridiculously slowed down ending. Not sure what the director was thinking with that one.

The conclusion felt like it was going on for 1 hour and i felt it a little cheesy with the last scene of the film.

Overall I see a lot of influence from the film "Match Point" starring Scarlet Johansson. In my opinion that film was far more successful in what "challengers" was attempting.

Overall, bit hit and miss. Some decent moments but nothing to get you excited about or talk about after.

I went to see this yesterday although it was not my choice.

I tried to disregard that tennis mostly bores me.

Usually perceptive, but I did not get the point of the film.

A love triangle spanning 13 years with Zendaya as the master manipulator. What was she doing? Making the chaps better tennis players, making them grow up, making them aware that their long time friendship was more than just that. I do not know and then you ask yourself, why?

On the plus side, Josh O'Connor was mesmerising, turning in a good performance. The music was good, if on occasion a tad overdramatic for the scene being played out. Some titters.

On the minus side, the tennis montages grew tedious, the time jumps a little too often, particularly towards the end of the film.

There was one scene in a locker room, where I could not understand a word that was being said, I thought it was not in English, but I could not understand the gist or the purpose. Very frustrating.

The film was too long (I saw people leave) and, dare I say it, a little pointless.

This was my first Luca Guadagnino film, so I'm not sure if any of these criticisms can be explained by "it's just his style" but who knows. The trailer makes the movie look fun, and while there are humorous moments, these are few and far between.

We have two young tennis players - one successful and the other is not for various reasons - both in love with the same woman who seems to jump between them in what makes for a complicated love triangle. Add in electronic music played loudly over scenes where not much is happening, gratuitous nudity (so many penises), and neverending slo-motion in an overlong running time and you have Challengers.

I liked Zendaya when she was playing the role of mature mother and retired tennis professional, but she all too easily slips into an angsty teen who feels too young to play the character.

My favourite moments were the two male leads just hanging out (they had more chemistry than Zendaya with either one), but I wasn't exactly sure what the seemingly homoerotic moments added to the story.

Despite the above points, this movie held my interest and had me wondering exactly where it was going. When it landed, however, I felt cheated of 2 hours by watching a movie that thought it was smarter than it really was. Severely lacking payoff.

I felt that three of them were good but Guadagino chose to focus on (a) the product placement (god.. could they be more obvious?) (b) the annoying soundtrack accompanying the endless scenes in slow motion of people staring at each other, and (c) cool camera angles. Don't get me wrong. I understand film is another language in itself but I think the acting is far from the priority of the filmmaker. In the few moments where we get to see them interact with each other there is chemistry. I don't understand why he (or Amazon) chose not to focus more on that. I was so over that annoying soundtrack of gay 90s club. Did he choose to cut the story like that because he knew there was not much story to tell to begin with?