Superficially, King Richard, a much lauded biographical sports film directed by Reinaldo Marcus Green and written by Zach Baylin is a very competent piece of film - making. It purports to tell the story behind the rise of the Williams sisters (Venus and Serena) in women's tennis, through the lens of their father and (certainly initial) coach, Richard Williams, as played by Will Smith in what turned out to be a Best Actor Oscar winning performance. But scratch the surface (and you really don't have to dig too deeply) and this rather overt hagiography (The Williams sisters and one of their step sisters are executive producers.) asks far more questions of its titular character, than it delivers answers.
Granted, the Williams sisters accomplishments in tennis are titanic in scale, but the movie appears to infer that most of this is all due to the obsessive planning and tough love fathering of their dad and to a lesser extent, their mother Brandy who, as depicted by Aunjanue Ellis, played a more traditional maternal role, whilst also being involved in coaching aspects of the girls. The concept of natural ability is never explored though it is mentioned once that both parents were "athletes". With this constant thread running through King Richard about the girls working to this life plan developed by their father from gestation period (???), I found this story of their upbringing in this overlong movie (Two and a half hour feels like three hours plus) to be too idealised and saintly, with Dad doing every thing and giving everything for the kids, including constant sage - like, life hacks.
I'm sure Mr Williams has some great qualities. But, barely touched upon is his obvious narcissism. And the elephant in the room which is blithely airbrushed away, is, whilst he was spending all this life - enhancing time with Venus and Serena and their 3 step sisters, what sort of involvement did he have with his other 6 children to other women?
Technically the film is extremely competently made and the acting is of a high calibre. However I would question the casting of Venus (Saniyya Sidney) and Serena (Demi Singleton) in much of the film's content, not because of any acting deficiencies on their respective parts. But it is only half way through the film, that you realise through spoken dialogue, that these very much teenage adolescent actresses are supposed to be playing young children below 12 and 10 respectively. It just doesn't ring true until the third act time jump, where it does seem more realistic. Little wonder then there are no date specifications in what is generally meant to be viewed as an authentic part telling of several life stories.
Granted, the Williams sisters accomplishments in tennis are titanic in scale, but the movie appears to infer that most of this is all due to the obsessive planning and tough love fathering of their dad and to a lesser extent, their mother Brandy who, as depicted by Aunjanue Ellis, played a more traditional maternal role, whilst also being involved in coaching aspects of the girls. The concept of natural ability is never explored though it is mentioned once that both parents were "athletes". With this constant thread running through King Richard about the girls working to this life plan developed by their father from gestation period (???), I found this story of their upbringing in this overlong movie (Two and a half hour feels like three hours plus) to be too idealised and saintly, with Dad doing every thing and giving everything for the kids, including constant sage - like, life hacks.
I'm sure Mr Williams has some great qualities. But, barely touched upon is his obvious narcissism. And the elephant in the room which is blithely airbrushed away, is, whilst he was spending all this life - enhancing time with Venus and Serena and their 3 step sisters, what sort of involvement did he have with his other 6 children to other women?
Technically the film is extremely competently made and the acting is of a high calibre. However I would question the casting of Venus (Saniyya Sidney) and Serena (Demi Singleton) in much of the film's content, not because of any acting deficiencies on their respective parts. But it is only half way through the film, that you realise through spoken dialogue, that these very much teenage adolescent actresses are supposed to be playing young children below 12 and 10 respectively. It just doesn't ring true until the third act time jump, where it does seem more realistic. Little wonder then there are no date specifications in what is generally meant to be viewed as an authentic part telling of several life stories.