Challengers (Luca Guadagnino, 2024)

[yoloswegmaster]

Luca Guadagnino’s Challengers will open this year's Venice festival.

[ellipsis7]

Luca Guadagnino’s Challengers will open this year's Venice festival.

Trailer.

[yoloswegmaster]

Luca Guadagnino’s Challengers will open this year's Venice festival.

This will not be opening the festival due to the strikes.

[Matt]

Guys, Challengers is so much fun! The Reznor/Ross score makes the movie (which pushes for a vintage ‘80s sports rivalry drama vibe and nails it, gratuitous nudity and all). The structure is, I suppose, like a tennis match through the lives of the characters, back and forth in time, one character scoring a point and then losing the next. Zendaya, Faist, and O’Connor all have great chemistry with each other (the movie would absolutely fail if one of the sides of the love triangle was weak), and the spirited direction intensifies it. Guadagnino goes a little bonkers at times as you would expect—there is no place he will not put a camera.

I don’t know if it’s going to win any critics’ or mainstream awards—its pretty slight—but Film Twitter seems to love it, and it’s way better than a lot of films that got big attention last year.

[thirtyframesasecond]

Guys, Challengers is so much fun! The Reznor/Ross score makes the movie (which pushes for a vintage ‘80s sports rivalry drama vibe and nails it, gratuitous nudity and all). The structure is, I suppose, like a tennis match through the lives of the characters, back and forth in time, one character scoring a point and then losing the next. Zendaya, Faist, and O’Connor all have great chemistry with each other (the movie would absolutely fail if one of the sides of the love triangle was weak), and the spirited direction intensifies it. Guadagnino goes a little bonkers at times as you would expect—there is no place he will not put a camera.

I don’t know if it’s going to win any critics’ or mainstream awards—its pretty slight—but Film Twitter seems to love it, and it’s way better than a lot of films that got big attention last year.

I'm not sure what the schedule is for 'serious' films but given that this is getting very good reviews with all three performances particularly praised, I'd be surprised if it wasn't a big contender during awards season, but you know, comedy......

[TMDaines]

Guys, Challengers is so much fun! The Reznor/Ross score makes the movie (which pushes for a vintage ‘80s sports rivalry drama vibe and nails it, gratuitous nudity and all). The structure is, I suppose, like a tennis match through the lives of the characters, back and forth in time, one character scoring a point and then losing the next. Zendaya, Faist, and O’Connor all have great chemistry with each other (the movie would absolutely fail if one of the sides of the love triangle was weak), and the spirited direction intensifies it. Guadagnino goes a little bonkers at times as you would expect—there is no place he will not put a camera.

I don’t know if it’s going to win any critics’ or mainstream awards—its pretty slight—but Film Twitter seems to love it, and it’s way better than a lot of films that got big attention last year.

Yeah, it is so fucking good. Absolutely loved it too, but needed a cold shower and a lie down afterwards! For all the adrenaline and sexual energy the film has, there is actually very little explicit nudity – and none of a sexual nature - and no sex is seen onscreen. The editing of vision and sound is what really gets the blood pumping.

[Matt]

I guess I should have specified “unmotivated” nudity, just some random, unexpected penii and male butts in the same way you might get some random boobs in an ‘80s comedy.

Richard Brody made some dumb post about “its presumed sexiness is like a fast-food chain adding a grind of pepper to the special sauce.” Like, sorry it didn’t have the big jiggly knockers you expected, but if you’re blind to the appeal of caked-up Mike Faist and scruffy Josh O’Connor being sweaty and shirtless for most of the movie and lustily eating bananas and churros, I don’t know what to tell you. That ain’t just a bit of pepper.

[thirtyframesasecond]

I was reading the 2021 version of the screenplay (and some of the dialogue fizzes like a Mamet or LaBute) - sounds like Guadagnino has sexed it up, but it also sounds like an Eyes Wide Shut-style trailer.

[HinkyDinkyTruesmith]

I guess I should have specified “unmotivated” nudity, just some random, unexpected penii and male butts in the same way you might get some random boobs in an ‘80s comedy.

Richard Brody made some dumb post about “its presumed sexiness is like a fast-food chain adding a grind of pepper to the special sauce.” Like, sorry it didn’t have the big jiggly knockers you expected, but if you’re blind to the appeal of caked-up Mike Faist and scruffy Josh O’Connor being sweaty and shirtless for most of the movie and lustily eating bananas and churros, I don’t know what to tell you. That ain’t just a bit of pepper.

Surely, whether Brody's missing the sexual appeal or not, his idea of genuine sexiness is not "big jiggly knockers." And whether the film is genuinely sexy or not, your description of "being sweaty and shirtless" and eating phallic shaped foods sounds like the sort of programmatic sexiness that Brody is comparing to fast food flavors in the first place.

[Walter Kurtz]

...if you’re blind to the appeal of caked-up Mike Faist and scruffy Josh O’Connor being sweaty and shirtless for most of the movie and lustily eating bananas and churros, I don’t know what to tell you.

I know what to tell you. I don't know which assumption you're making is wilder. That every man in this forum is gay... or that all gay men in this forum share the exact same taste in men that you do.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

Big jiggly knockers, shirtless ripped men eating bananas, being a librarian, raunchy pornography, meaningful stares, Pedro Pascal, lithe saucer-eyed sassy women in marinières, brick walls, and marital commitment can all be sexy. Let's bring it in...

[swo17]

"Blind to the appeal" doesn't have to mean that it does nothing for you. It can just mean a failure to acknowledge that something has an audience to which it appeals

[therewillbeblus]

Was that pullquote part of some larger criticism? If so, it seems that you're extrapolating a lot of meaning from its elisions. HinkyDinkyTruesmith has a great point.

[Matt]

The full (and only) tweet on the film:

“Challengers has its merits—the actors, the dialogue—but its presumed sexiness is like a fast-food chain adding a grind of pepper to the special sauce: factually but minimally true, mostly significant as publicity, as branding.”

[therewillbeblus]

I don't think that needs to be defended. It reads perfectly fine, but elaboration would certainly be invited. Personally, I was cool on Call Me By Your Name for the majority of my first viewing because I didn't think Guadagnino earned the romance in the first act. The physicality of everything was felt (it was perceptive to the hyper-vigilant state of brewing attraction), but I didn't think it was “sexy” - and I’m certainly not above calling out any sexual acts as "sexy" from an objective standpoint in art (Singapore Sling is erotic and contains quite a few literally-repulsive fetishes!) Now, the film functioned well for me once I realized that the understated nature of the blossoming connection was the point: Who can actually convey what flirtation looks like when not itself overstated? It's pretty brilliant. But I don't think it's a particular sexy or erotic film, so much as it's romantic and a mature youth pic.

Anyways, I say all this because I don't find Guadagnino's strengths to be conveying sexiness, even if he's great at capturing physicality and tying that to human connection. The two can be separate for some viewers. Maybe that doesn't make sense (sorry, if not!) but it's the best way I can explain how someone could measure the auteur’s approach on a scale of eroticism. I didn't find Bones and All "sexy" either, but I loved the film for similar reasons as Call Me By Your Name.

Brody and I may feel the same about what Guadagnino is 'not' doing, but I still like his work a lot! Sounds like Brody is less charitable to the strengths, hence why elaboration would be cool. If he thinks it's hollow outside of a promised sense of eroticism, that might be a more fun thing to respond to - by not refuting its un-sexiness, but by providing other reasons why Guadagnino succeeds in his aims regardless of where one's interpretation of the film's sexy-scale lands. Perhaps Brody thinks Guadagnino‘s “brand” is to be sexy and just doesn’t get it on that wavelength either

Brody certainly is inviting a lot of challengers, and maybe that’s the joke. It’s not a very sexy joke though

[The Narrator Returns]

I didn't associate Guadagnino with "sexiness" before this, CMBYN is for me much more about its deepening summertime idleness (which, like TWBB, it took me a second viewing to fully lock into) and awkward shows of passion than its hotness. But it seems everybody arguing with Matt here has not seen Challengers and I have, so I can say that, as a lesbian very close to a Kinsey 6, this is pretty inarguably sexy to me, even if it's far from the only thing it has going for it. It's a kind of sexiness that's hard to put into words, I wouldn't have given a picture of Josh O'Connor a second look but through Guadagnino and Sayombhu Mukdeeprom's lens, I felt the erotic charge even just from how he moves his hairy knees (a trick borrowed from Robert Towne's Personal Best, up to this point easily the sexiest sports movie). Everybody's sexual taste is their own and Brody's takes are so often separate from mine that I usually react with "Sure, whatever", but if it made me attracted to men for two hours, I can't imagine it won't do the same for almost anybody else.

And the movie outside of the steaminess is great, surprisingly similar to the aforementioned CMBYN idleness until I realized every jump back in time is tightening the screws and revealing something new about the character dynamics. A distinctive and well-oiled piece of pop entertainment, it's easy to see what Guadagnino is aspiring for (and just about reaching) when he sets one scene in front of prominent Desperately Seeking Susan and Something Wild posters.

[senseabove]

I guess I should have specified “unmotivated” nudity, just some random, unexpected penii and male butts in the same way you might get some random boobs in an ‘80s comedy.

I don't know that a few stray dicks in a lockerroom counts as random, unmotivated nudity. I'd even say, with a star who is approaching Ewan McGregor-in-the-90s readiness to flop on screen remaining conspicuously covered in a scene wherein another lead character is made specifically uncomfortable by his unseen dick, the avoidance of it is strangely unmotivated! Perhaps Luca thought an American WASP being uncut in the mid-oughts would ruin the audience's suspension of disbelief...

Dicks aside, this is good enough dumb fun that I'll happily tell folks to go see it, because it's a sensational melodrama about the vagaries of desire that's neither infantile nor prudish. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it moves beyond fun to complex or interesting—I'd hesitate to even call it adult, but it's at least a step in the right direction for mainstream movies with an A-lister (which is perhaps where Brody is coming from—there's lots of sizzle, yes, but it's a dribble of water to test how hot the skillet is, no steak). We're told, with all the elegance and subtlety of Past Lives' "you dream in a language I can't understand" (which is absolutely none, to be clear—as subtle as a billboard), that our theme is how competition is a form of relationship. Unfortunately, the relationships never get more complex than that, and we don't even get enough of a glimpse into the pathological perversion that would lead these particular people to believe that. That's just how it is: there is lust and there is competition-cum-relationship; sometimes they overlap.

As far as psychological depth in movies featuring a climactic tennis match go, Strangers on a Train is a Grand Canyon to this drought-stricken river bed. The "tell me it doesn't matter" scene, obviously intended to be pivotal, is adrift because we have no understanding of Art and Tashi's relationship as adult human individuals; what we know is that Art was there at an opportune time, and now his time may be up. The sauna scene is just about the only one where any character is rounded out beyond their establishment and subsequent service to the theme, and that's all of 10 minutes in a 2+ hour movie. Otherwise it's a circuit diagram strung across some zingers—there are, indeed, a lot of memorable zingers, visual and verbal, from mutual churro munching to "you'd have a better shot with..."—and then an impossibly, hilariously, extraordinarily, ridiculously, perversely extended finale that has all the originality and verve of an auteur advert: shallow-focus sweat drops landing on the lens, first-person-tennis-ball CGI, a faux-double split diopter composite shot that asserts itself as the emotional climax to several, multiple, repeated shots of Zendaya staring intensely, neutrally, directly over the net while everyone else's heads bob back and forth with the ball. All things that exist to grab your attention, not to elucidate anything (so help me god if anyone says the finale is camp). O'Connor and Zendaya are both delightful to watch, thank god, and Faist has proven himself, I hope, capable enough to get more chances—this did make me worry, slightly, that he was such a thrill in West Side Story because Elgort is, comparatively, a cinder block, but I think the worry is mostly because this is the inverse situation, where he struggles to hold focus in comparison to Zendaya, who is already a rightful mononym, and O'Connor, who is hitting a confident stride with this and La Chimera.

[therewillbeblus]

This was a fine game of tennis with a strong final match, where Guadagnino really goes “bonkers” as Matt said, by drawing out the inevitable punchlines so long the strategy interferes with the plot and a consequence is literally issued within its world - twice! Its point seems to be making a joke about drama in general - not just melodrama in movies but the melodrama we let seep into our lives that ruin and build relationships. It’s a strong play but only in the end, though all players do their part to keep investment til that point. I dunno, the deliberately bombastic score and phallic foods and all - including the brilliance of how it all comes together - just reminded me of Verhoeven's better channels. I didn’t find this film very “sexy” and don’t want to get into it again, but I also don’t think the point of Showgirls is to be sexy (and while this film is more serious than an obvious lampoon, they feel rooted in a similar approach of Russian-dolling camp within sincerity, and vice versa; diverse themes hardly masked under ambidextrous dressing). And that doesn’t have to be a dis