There was a movie called "Rush" that looks very much like it. You have to watch this movie seven or you can watch those seven.

Borg vs McEnroe presents a powerful and well-made portrait of two tennis rivals under immense psychological stress. Despite this, it may fail to stick in the minds of non-tennis enthusiasts. Borg vs McEnroe is like many sports movies in that it focuses on the mindset of the individual players to heighten the drama. However, it is unique in its presentation of the contrast between Borg and McEnroe; two brilliant rivals who experience excruciating inner and outer pressure, but who deal with it in different ways. The film manages to convey near-complete psychological portraits of the two tennis stars through a combination of flashbacks, character interactions, and scenes on the court. The film succeeds due to its skillful cinematography and powerful performances from Sverrir Gudnason (Borg) and Shia LaBeouf (McEnroe). Borg vs McEnroe feels comfortable using unique shots and cuts to portray a certain emotion or action sequence, but it doesn't overuse any techniques so as to distract from the reality of the events. Thus, the use of dramatic cinematic embellishments rarely feels overly theatrical or out of place. The second main strength of the movie is the two performances from Gudnason and LaBeouf. The actors accent the emotional torment that the tennis figures faced, and without such strong performances the movie wouldn't have been worth the watch. The real value of Borg vs McEnroe is the questions it raises about success and perceptions of success, and it highlights the fact that the media's portrayal of athletes rarely tells the whole story. But the movie is clearly building towards the great match between Borg and McEnroe, and so that promise must be fulfilled. The final tennis scene is done effectively, but it is not strong enough to bring the whole movie to a close. For those who are unaware of how the match turned out, the third act will be riveting. For those who know the end result, they may feel that it drags out a little longer than necessary. One choice by the filmmakers that undermines the final scene was their obvious bias towards Borg by focusing on his flashbacks and emotions over those of McEnroe. Ultimately, the movie's strengths overshadow its weaker points; Borg vs McEnroe is a solid biographical sports film, even if it can't quite mix sports thrills with an in-depth character analysis.

In full disclosure, I am a tennis player and as a boy I idolized McEnroe. I admired Borg a great deal as well. What made this match and all of their matches so great and so riveting was their completely opposing approaches to the game. Borg was the greatest baseliner to play the game. It was nearly impossible to get get the ball by him. His steadiness and zen-like approach to the game gave birth to many baseliners in his wake, most notably someone like Andre Aggasi. McEnroe was was the first ever punk rock athelete. No player in history had shown so much anger and rage, but mostly so much desire to win. It was raw rock n roll. It was a bit of a paradox because though he was a punk rocker in his attitude and in his passion, his game was a throwback to Rod Laver. He was an artist on the court. On any given point you might see topspin forehands, slice backhands, drop shots, lobs, breath taking volleys, and backhand overheads. He had a complete game. While Borg was content to outhit his opponents, McEnroe was eager to cut the points short. He would take every opportunity to come into the net and display his artistry. Of course none of this is apparent in the film. The problem with sports films is that most actors are not atheletes. So a director has to be inventive in his camera work to cover the fact that his actors don't know how to play. A rally with Borg might go 15 Strokes. Tennis is about court position. For McEnroe to beat Borg he had to chose his spots. When is the right time to approach the net? Where do you hit the ball when you are there? Shia was quoted as saying that he despised tennis and he hopes to never play again. He clearly chose this roll, not to impress us with his tennis skills, but because he wanted to play McEnroe the man. This film unfortunately climaxes with the finals match at Wimbledon, normally something I would enjoy because after all this film is about tennis, but it is shot so horribly that you never see Borg hitting back 10-15 groundstrokes. You never see his unquie at the time, 2 handed backhand Vs Mac's classical one handed. You never see Borg trying to pass Mac at the net. You never see the tennis artistry of McEnroe at all in this film. The way it is shot you really only see the the players heads and quick 2 stroke rallies which is like going to see Miles Davis play Mary had a Little Lamb for 2 hours. I feel bad for tennis players because they will feel cheated like I did by this film, but I feel worse the non-tennis fans because they will walk away from this film and completely miss how revolutionary and inspiring these two great athletes are. They might just shrug and say "what's the big deal?"That is a crime.

I liked how the movie brought me back to those days when tennis players were like superstars (although you would not know it if you watch the last aierport scene where Bjorn and John have a lWhat I did not like is how the movie overkills the contrast between them and yet, it is contradictory in that the "calm/predictable/shy" Bjorn fires his coach without thinking it over much and is ready to leave his fiance as well ... which makes him as volatile as McEnroe supposedly is... Meanwhile there is no tennis analysis whatsoever. I loved how John had the best hands in tennis and how graceful and talented he was at the net ... Sverri Gudnason plays and moves a little bit like Bjorn, Shia LaBeouf is a DISASTER as John McEnroe: his movements are totally non-tennis and totally wrong!!! The movie shows them as if this is the first time they play one another when it really was the SEVENTH time they played one another. This is just on of many liberties they take to tell the story they want to tell: the Ying/Yang that movies require in order for those watching to get the point... Too many flashbacks: the whole movie seemed like a long string of Bjorg remembering hitting against a wall and John getting rejected by his parents!!!