Before I traduce this film, ~ I have to point out how much I admire the cast of great actors. Betany gives a flawless performance, as usual, but is working with an awfully outdated attack on the class system, which Mr. Allen has no real conception of being one of the elite and not a native of the British Isles. The premise of a society riven, and divided by class runs along clankingly throughout. After the killings in the film, it meanders on aimlessly until, trying to seek some resolution, Allen comes up with: horror of horrors the corpses of the dead materialise like some Homeric decent into the underworld. Maybe Allen might have succeeded had he followed Homer's lead and made Betany descend like a mystic elevator into Hades, but no. Sadly the dead materialise in the Kitchen illuminated by the open fridge.The wait for this resolution was not worthwhile, and to save myself embarrassment I had had to leave the cinema.Has Woody Allen lost the plot? Yes, and for some time.

I feel a bit guilty about not liking this movie. After all, it was a bit of fun. It's just that it felt as though the plot was trying very hard to be stretched out to 94 minutes. The main story could've probably been dealt with in a much more effective manner in almost half the time (I know this is not how the movie industry works but a girl can dream...) At its core, this film is a textbook rom-com disguised as a tennis flick to try and fool you into thinking you're seeing something new.Another reason I wasn't a fan was Kirsten Dunst. She was predictable and lacked something I couldn't quite put my finger on. I do like some Paul Bettany, so I felt obliged to be happy with his performance, but their match seemed odd, even though the chemistry worked for the most part. What made it worse was the blatant disregard for the amazing array of supporting characters, who were used for plot exposition rather than interest. I don't blame the actors, I blame the direction.All in all, Wimbledon is OK for a night in, but don't expect a comedic gem or anything particularly lasting.

Nope, nothing special here, other than that the story (love conquers all) is in a tennis setting. That's not to say that it isn't a pleasant film and mostly done rather well.Paul Bettany as the male love/tennis interest was "okay", although not to intriguing that I'll be buying many movie tickets just to see him. But, he was reasonably convincing as a tennis pro. Kirsten Dunst was "okay" as the female love/tennis lead...but she's been more interesting in other films. James McAvoy...well, I just don't get the attraction. Nice to see Bernard Hill as Bettany's father; very convincing. Eleanor Bron was "okay" as the mother. Sam Neill gets a little screen time as Dunst's father.The story itself...well, it works as a love story, but I'm not totally convinced it works as a tennis story. I'm not much of a tennis fan, though I may watch a match or two on occasion. But is it likely someone who is standing at a ranking of 119 will really win a Wimbledon? This is a "good" film, and it meets one of my standards for a sports film -- you don't have to love tennis to enjoy the movie. But there's just something missing. I wonder if there is really much screen chemistry between Dunst and Bettany.I won't recommend it or dis-recommend it. It's "okay".

Fun movie, especially if you play tennis, which I have. Betthany showed his movements competently, as did Dunst.The real fun for me was watching Evert and McEnroe do the commentary. So enjoyable after all the sports people have commented on their many wonderful matches. Loved the part where Chrissie asked John if he knew all about the questions about a line shot - in or out, and how labored the questioning of it got. Funny, when your remember all the shenanigans McEnroe used to put officials through.No, its not a great sports movie, or even a tennis movie, but thoroughly enjoyable. Again, the key is if the audience has ever followed the tennis world and better yet, played it.