If you had to choose the main film of 2026, what would you pick? The new Paul Thomas Anderson movie “One Battle After Another”? Or “Sinners” with Michael B. Jordan? Or maybe you would choose foreign cinema like “Sentimental Value”? Or maybe you’re not into movies at all and didn’t recognize any of the films above.

 I don’t know, but I’m almost sure you’ve heard about “Marty Supreme.” A movie about ping-pong with Timothée Chalamet in the main role, it basically became one of the most discussed films of the year even before it came out because of huge and excellent marketing.

But is it that good, or is it just an overhyped product of good marketing?

Development of the movie started in 2018, and Chalamet began preparing for the role of Marty. Overall, it seems that the film was originally created by Timothée, and the role belonged to him from the start—but whatever. Josh Safdie (Uncut Gems) became the director, and for him this project became the first without his brother Benny Safdie, with whom he had previously made all his films. 

Later, the cast was joined by Gwyneth Paltrow, Odessa A’zion, and Abel Ferrara. Actually, we should give the director credit because, besides the actors, he managed to bring into the movie Tyler, the Creator; Kevin O’Leary from “Shark Tank”; and even some guy who isn’t an actor from a viral street interview—and gave all of these people, who had never acted before, pretty big roles. In fact, this isn’t too crazy for Josh Safdie, because he mostly worked on indie films before, so casting random people is not unusual for him.

The movie has already received a wave of critical acclaim and numerous major award nominations—nine Academy Award nominations, eleven BAFTA nominations, and three Golden Globe nominations, winning only one of them.

 The New York Times writes, “Marty Supreme is one of the most thoroughly pleasurable American movies of the year and one of the most exciting,” but at the same time, many viewers have reacted very negatively, with some reviewers calling it “exhausting and pointless.” So the real question is: does it truly deserve all the praise and recognition it has received, or are the criticisms justified?

But first things first: What is the movie even about?

This two-and-a-half-hour film takes place in New York City sometime in the 1950s. The story follows a young and ambitious Marty Mauser, who works as a shoe salesman. However, he sees this job only as a temporary way to earn money for traveling to ping-pong tournaments, where he hopes to become a world champion. Determined to achieve his goal, Marty is willing to do whatever it takes—no matter the cost. For him, neither morality nor the law is a real obstacle. As the story unfolds, we watch just how far he is willing to go and where his relentless ambition ultimately leads him. 

Throughout the film, we also meet many of Marty’s friends, partners, and enemies, like his taxi driver friend Wally; Rachel, a married woman having an affair with Marty; businessman Mr. Rockwell, who is Marty’s sponsor in ping-pong; Rockwell’s wife, who is also having an affair with Marty; and ping-pong player Koto Endo, who is presented as Marty’s worst enemy—although sometimes it feels like Marty is his own worst enemy.

Interestingly, “Marty Supreme” was originally inspired by a real ping-pong player—Marty Reisman, a legendary table tennis player and hustler who played from the late 1940s through 2002. The movie isn’t Reisman’s biography, but Safdie didn’t deny that Reisman’s story strongly inspired him.

In one of the reviews that I read, a reviewer said, “Marty Supreme is like Uncut Gems with ping-pong,” and I couldn’t agree more. Both films have this incredible, unstoppable rhythm—something happens every 7–8 minutes—and it’s one of the best parts of the film. It keeps your attention the entire time, especially if you’re watching it in a movie theater like I did, although at home on a MacBook it doesn’t lose much impact either.

Definitely one of the things I liked about the movie is the cast. All the actors are perfectly matched with their characters. Even people who aren’t actors deliver very good performances, like Tyler, the Creator, who is always very energetic and here feels very comfortable in the role of a funny taxi driver. 

But of course, no one can outshine Timothée’s acting. We can criticize this movie as much as we want, but we can’t deny that Timothée Chalamet delivered probably one of his best performances. He and Marty Mauser become indistinguishable from each other—and it’s no wonder why, since Timothée prepared for the role for seven years.

I would also like to highlight the excellent work with costumes and set design. I like how the movie explores the theme of the glass ceiling, which already existed back then, and how it prevents the younger generation from reaching the top—and how sometimes it’s impossible. 

Mr. Rockwell, played by Kevin O’Leary, represents the older generation and the capitalist system at the same time. His business relationship with Marty is very toxic—he doesn’t support Marty’s ambitions, and honestly, why would he? For him, ping-pong is just a way to make money, whereas for Marty it is everything. We can rightfully dislike Marty as much as we want, but one thing I admire about him is that for him ping-pong is the entire world. 

Of course, every coin has two sides. I like this depth in the film, but the idea itself is open to big discussion. As Sarah Azzarello writes, “There was a lot going on in the movie in general, so it just gave me a lot to enjoy… I really like the end purpose; it had a deeper meaning than I realized.”

Even though I’ve said a lot of positive things about the film, I can’t deny that it’s far from perfect. Certain problems run throughout it. The biggest one, in my opinion, is Timothée—yes, and I mean it. I think Timothée Chalamet is both the best and the worst feature of the movie. Let me explain: he does an incredible job with his character and, with his presence, steals every scene. And here’s the thing—it turns out that the movie is nothing more than Chalamet’s showcase, and everything in it exists just to create circumstances for him to demonstrate what a great actor he is. Because of this, it can feel like the artistic value of the movie is somewhat lost. Plus, the marketing campaign overshadows it as well. 

One of my friends said after the movie that it felt like it was filmed in an “Instagram Reels style,” and I don’t know how to put it better. In the Safdie brothers’ “Good Time,” this overload of events feels appropriate because of the madness of the characters and the dirty, chaotic atmosphere. But in “Marty Supreme,” this crazy tempo feels more like an attempt not to lose the audience’s attention. Besides that, the screenwriters could have developed Marty’s transformation better.

A good friend of mine, Emelyan, also agreed to share his thoughts on “Marty Supreme.” He said the movie was overall an enjoyable experience and noted that “with a Safdie movie, it’s always a bit tense throughout the whole film,” and that works well with the right protagonist. He considers the film’s advertising one of the best he has seen in a long time, but even though the marketing was huge, it didn’t make the movie worse: “It was hyped up, but it held up decently.” One of the best parts for him was the main character’s acting, but he doesn’t consider Marty Mauser to be Chalamet’s best role: “I fell in love with Timmy C’s acting during his Dune movies”—this one was close, though. One thing he didn’t like was the portrayal of 1950s New York: “I think I would have added more focus on making it feel like a real 50s New York setting.” In general, he felt that the realism sometimes failed, especially in the dialogue: “Especially whenever Tyler, the Creator would talk.” When I asked him about the film’s chances of winning an Oscar, he said he didn’t believe it would win anything and estimated its chances at 20%.

Another reviewer, who decided to stay anonymous, described the movie as overloaded and not very thoughtful. She argued that it leaves “no space for thinking” because of its frantic rhythm, making it feel like everything is “already chewed up and served to us on a silver platter.” She also felt that the main character, who had great potential, wasn’t as deep as he could have been, which is why this isn’t Chalamet’s best role. In films like “Beautiful Boy” or “Dune,” she believes he performed better. Despite these flaws, she acknowledged the great cinematography and strong performances from some of the cast.

Another person spoke very highly of the movie: “Best movie of 2025, 100%.” He admired the director’s professionalism, the cinematography, and the “crazy acting.” He shared his interpretation of the film’s message: “The film shows us a person trying to achieve greatness, but everything he struggles for ends up being for nothing—either because of himself or the people around him.” We even debated this point for a while, but he remained firm in his opinion.

In the end, “Marty Supreme” remains a very controversial film in which a frantic rhythm is combined with the tragedy of a little man—or maybe not a tragedy at all. Everyone has their own opinion, and no matter how hard you try, you can’t change that. I don’t know if people will remember this movie in ten years, but right now, people are talking about it—and I think all this debate is very interesting. Honestly, any debate about anything is interesting. As they say, “truth is born in argument.”