Gadzooks. I'm pinch-hitting (ha! sports metaphor!) the Film Forum for Jeff this week, so I figured I should see the major new releases this weekend, just in case I want to insert any of my own comments between the quotes as Jeff does -- and since I had already seen Sky Captain, that meant I had to see Mr. 3000 and Wimbledon. And about half-way through the latter film, I began writing on the back of my hand, jotting down all the things the two films had in common.

SPOILERS, PRESUMABLY -- BUT THESE ARE CLICHES

* Both films star an actor who is best known for supporting roles or, at best, for leading roles in smaller, more independent-style films; in these two films, Bernie Mac and Paul Bettany make their first serious bids for mainstream leading-man status.

* The protagonists in both films are sports figures who plan to retire after just a few more games. (Mr. 3000 begins with the Bernie Mac character retiring after what he thinks is his 3000th hit, but then, nine years later, it turns out there was a counting error and he is three hits short -- so he gets back into the game, and he plans to stick around just long enough to get those three hits. In Wimbledon, by contrast, Bettany's character simply announces to anyone who will listen -- which is apparently almost no one -- that he plans to retire after his present tour.)

* The protagonists in both films are considered old for their sport, and are addressed at least once as "Grandpa". (Bernie Mac's baseball pro is 47, Bettany's tennis pro is no more than 32.)

* There is a moment in the climactic game -- but not a climactic moment, per se, more of a penultimate tension-building moment -- where a judge or umpire makes a call that is clearly wrong and thus provokes the wrath of our heroes. (In Mr. 3000, the Paul Sorvino character, a baseball manager who has been silent throughout the entire film up until this point, begins yelling "HE WAS SAFE!" at the umpire when the latter character says Bernie Mac failed to hit first base before getting tagged with the ball; in Wimbledon, a ball lands just inside the line but the judge, or whatever they're called, says it is outside, which really ticks Bettany off.)

* The protagonists in both films are pretty casual about sex, but of course, by the end, they have lapsed into the ways of commitment. (And what has happened to Angela Basset's career, that she should be stuck with a thankless girlfriend role like this?)

* The protagonists in both films have somewhat complicated relationships with younger, more egocentric up-and-comers in their fields. (When Bernie Mac returns to baseball, he encounters a young hotshot who puts himself ahead of the team just as Bernie Mac did way back when; meanwhile, Paul Bettany has an affair with a hot-tempered Kirsten Dunst.)

Okay, beyond that, there may not be much more in common. The Bernie Mac film is about baseball, and baseball is a team sport, and Bernie Mac plays an arrogant guy who always puts himself first -- so the film's narrative arc is all about Bernie Mac learning to put others first, and I actually really, really liked the way the film handled his character's climactic moment. Whereas the Paul Bettany film is about tennis, which is a strictly solo thing -- so Wimbledon moves the romance into the film's narrative centre, instead of keeping it on the sidelines as Mr. 3000 does, and its narrative arc is all about how individual players affect each other's game, especially when they get romantically involved with each other.

Notably, the Paul Bettany film -- the one set in Britain, with a British protagonist -- ends with what you might say is a typical American happy ending, where the hero wins the game, the girl, everything. Whereas the Bernie Mac film ends on a note emphasizing the newfound humility of the protagonist, who sets aside one of his life's main goals, and is rewarded anyway. Both satisfactory happy endings, to be sure, but I think Mr. 3000 gives the ending a more poignant sort of twist.

I wonder if another reason Mr. 3000 might not make a big splash in Britain is because of the film's African-American make-up. Certainly, here in Canada, films with some sort of British bent tend to do better than most other films, while so-called "urban" films -- i.e., films with African-American protagonists -- tend to do noticeably less well. (Click here for the supporting data in another thread -- Canada, with 9.7% of the North American population, generated around 11-12% of the revenue for Thunderbirds, Harry Potter and King Arthur, but only about 6-7% of the revenue for Catwoman, I, Robot and White Chicks -- and it is not unknown for films like The Cookout, which opened in the "North American" top ten, to never even be distributed here.)

I know Britain has a black population, but I wouldn't assume that their history or culture automatically lends itself to ready identification with America's black population. What I DO notice occasionally in British films is that the role that black characters typically play in American films -- sassy sidekicks who comment on how crazy those white folks are -- is often given, in British films, to people like the Scots! I am thinking, in particular, of Ben Elton's Maybe Baby, in which the main character has a black friend and colleague who is just like him in every way except for skin colour, while the Scottish character keeps going on about how he can't stand the English.

I wrote:
: I wonder if another reason Mr. 3000 might not make a big splash in Britain is
: because of the film's African-American make-up. Certainly, here in Canada, films
: with some sort of British bent tend to do better than most other films, while
: so-called "urban" films -- i.e., films with African-American protagonists -- tend to
: do noticeably less well.

Speaking of which, check out that other thread's latest update. Wimbledon, the British movie, made nearly 11% of its money in Canada this past weekend, whereas Mr. 3000 made only 4.8% of its money here -- the lowest percentage of any film in the Canadian top ten in the 12 weeks that I've been following this stuff.

Well I saw Wimbledon on Sunday, and I can't say I was disappointed, but then I had very very low expectations for it.

As Phil says its defintiely one of those British made films pitching to the Americans (hope you appreciate the baseball ref.) - there was once scene which looked like the tourist board had forced its inclusion (two if you count the bizarre shot of an empty road in London)

There were actually some moments in this film which I quite liked. I liked the voiceovers going on in Bettany's head. I've not played much solo sport, but when I do inevitably my head sounds a bit like that. I also liked the role of Bettany's parents, Bernard Hill is always good value, and Eleanor Bron was quite different from her role in A Little Princess. My favourite shot was one of the morning after ones where the camera pans across the floor and instead of a mountain of pizzza boxes we see a pile of half eaten fruit. A nice touch. Plus the younger brother occasionally veered into a good line...occasionally. Plus the portrayal of the sports media was quite sharp, and self-depricating remarls about British tennis much appreciated. Plus the British serve volley player who is beloved of the public, but gets knocked out in the quarter finals called "Tom".

But unfortunately it was all far too cliched. Dunst was awful, whilst Bettany will no doubt increase his female fanbase off the back of it, it really was cliche tastic & :vomit: vomit inducing in a number of places.

And I found this on the IMDB which was quite interesting

Matt

I didnt care for Wimbledon at all. While I also found the movie in general to be too cliched, the corny dialogue really did it in for me. You see a movie like Before Sunset right before this one and you realize how ridiculous the conversations are between Dunst and Bettany. Also, while I normally find Dunst charming, I thought she was trying much too hard to be cute here.

Hey I saw Before Sunset shortly before Wimbledon as well. Are you based in the UK or was it just coincidence?

Anyway I agree with you about thee dialogue it did really suck. I think what was probably worse was that the whole film just had no heart. Everyone was clearly in it for what they could get out of it. Bettany for the fame, the makers to sell it to Americans, the real tennis players for a bit of cameo glory. It was just so souless. I can't work out what Dunst got out of it though. Maybe she's always fancied Pat Cash and just wanted him to coach her for a few months (yeah I didi watch the extras)

Matt

Nope, I just happened to rent them pretty close together. Id also add how amusing it is that they feel the need for the foe in the final game or match always has to do the little extra things to be a bit more unlikeable. I found the match against his friend to be more interesting in furthering along the story than the climatic one.