It's better than the critics made it out to be.

"Wimbledon" as the name clearly implies, is about tennis and this famous grand slam event. It stars Kirsten Dunst and Paul Bettany and is directed by Richard Loncrain. This is a fairly well-acted and certainly well written and directed movie with the stars of the film really being the splendid photography and scenes of Wimbledon itself together with lovely and charming views of the British sea coast and countryside. This film will not be nominated or considered for any great awards since it is medium to good at best but, in this day and age of computer generated and spectacular epic films aimed at very young audiences, this movie gives the theatergoer a chance to see a film, relax in it, experience no heavy or suspense-filled mind trips and just, literally, "enjoy the view". As someone who saw the movie with me said?.It's a feel-good flick. So earning a 7.5, it still represents a film you should see especially when the other choices are so minimal and lacking in quality. You will feel good and be glad you went. No, the film doesn't "ace" the market but it nevertheless will make you and the time you give it a good "match". … Expand

Simple but sooo effective, like any solid rom-com i love tennis, and i love the constant buzz the film has... not too in your face, but still lively thruout... Actually quite subtle in places, and great on re-viewing... S.e.e. T.h.i.s .F.i.l.m.

It lacks plenty of things, but this is certainly a romance movie, and you can feel every bit of it.

Bettany iss sssooooo hot right now.

Entertaining for sure, but is that enough? This movie started off really good but eventually degenerated into a cliche-fest. Why does the script feel the need to have a sideline story going on with his dad living in a treehouse (do all screenwriters feel like British old men must all be daft?) and a horny brother? These things are unoffensive but completely unnecessary. And I also agree with The Village Voice review about the relationship between Bettany and Dunst in the film. Everytime they were together, it felt a lot more like a brother-sister cuddly relationship than real love. There is no satisfaction in the end because we never really feel like their relationship is that important to him or that it will last. It feels like at any time they will break up and be fine. For a good romantic comedy to involve people (see Jerry Maguire, Annie Hall, etc.) we need to feel that these protaganists really need each other and cannot live unless they are together. We do not get that here. The problems are with the script. The direction is bland, glossy, and standard with fabulously filmed tennis matches. Now if all tennis games were filmed in this way, I might watch.… Expand

The music and photography are amazing, with it had a bigger budget!

How many times is the word "appealing" written above?

It's hard to cast two actors more charming, likable or charasmatic than Paul Bettany (Master and Commander) and Kirsten Dunst. Theoretically, women should've packed the multiplexes for this tennis-themed romantic comedy, if only because it centers on a sport generally considered more female-friendly than most (e.g., NOT football, baseball, basketball, boxing or golf). as for men, four words: KIRSTEN DUNST GETS SWEATY. So with all those potentially surefire elements, why did Wimbledon double-fault at the box office? Ultimately, I thought it was far too leisurely, and leisurely is precisely what you DON'T want in a sports movie. Director Richard Loncraine doesn't build any real sense of urgency or tension, which is the one element that both great sports flicks and mediocre but momentarily effective ones share. (Why do you think that 99% of them culminate in a one-point score difference achieved in the last few seconds of the game?) To a degree, tennis itself is to blame for not being a game that depends on a rigid time schedule, but Wimbledon's lackadaisical attitude and pacing extends to other elements as well: Sam Neill, as Dunst's hard-driving dad, who doesn't want her to get involved with Bettany for fear it'll blunt her competitive edge, proves to be a straw man. Again, the two leads aren't to blame, but I couldn't help reflecting back to Dunst's other sports movie, the delightful cheerleader flick Bring It On from four years ago. Among other things, that one taught me just how grueling and physically demanding cheerleading is, and as a result exploded most of my preconceived stereotypes and prejudices about cheerleaders. The only thing I didn't know before about tennis that I learned from Wimbledon is that tennis players scream and yell at officials as vociferously as ballplayers do. Come to think of it, the appearance of John McEnroe in the cast reminded me that I didn't learn THAT from Wimbledon, either.… Expand

Although a predictable movie that seemed to keep true right to the hero & heroine love-story ending, I did find it quite enjoyable and something that kept a constant grin on my face.

Pros: it has romance, but there is a surprising twist other romantic comedies dont have: it also has comedy in it. cons: gets unbelievable at times overview: a good all-round movie that deserves that $4 to rent it. Heik, it might even deserve the $17 to buy it.

Very imature and shallow. Very sexist and boring. Where are the women tennis players.? No chemistry and leading man is not cute.

Gotta say it: this is probably the worst movie that I have ever seen. There, I said it.

Hollywood formula taken over to england. still stupid and mechanical.

Paul Bettany makes this film. It is pretty standard stuff - basically "Notting Hill" sent at Wimbledon. And Kirsten Dunst is just annoying, much as Julia Roberts was in "Notting Hill." So I guess that makes Bettany the new Hugh Grant: charming and able to save an entire movie from annoying American co-star!

While watching "Wimbeldon", it occured to me why people cry when Sam Gangee is put into the waning moments of a live Notre Dame football game, in David Anspaugh's "Rudy". Rudy didn't have a lady in waiting as a consolation prize had he not realized his goal of wearing the blue and gold. It was all or nothing. He left his girlfriend back home. In "Wimbeldon", win or lose, Peter Colt (Paul Bettany) gets to go home with Lizzie (Kirsten Dunst). You also don't get the sense that winning Wimbeldon is important to him. Why should we be happy for his ultimate triumph if romancing Lizzie seems more of a priority to him as he's advancing towards the finals? Wimbeldon seems just like another tournament to him, and most damaging, so does the film. In "Rudy", Notre Dame becomes a character, and we learn its backstory. The screenplay for "Wimbeldon", however, doesn't have enough allusions to the long and illustrious history, or capture the atmosphere, of this hallowed sporting event. … Expand

Could the acting be any worse?!?!