I liked it.
I liked it.
I was seven when I saw it and thought it was incredibly boring. I was probably too young to enjoy it.
been around ya' know wrote:
I have noticed a divide based on age. The youngest of us seem to have a bias against the movie, and for the life of me, I don't know why that is.
Over the 30+ years since the movie appeared, movies and moviegoers' tastes have changed. Lotta quick cuts, etc., these days.
Most successful current films do not call for sustained attention. We are easily distracted, and today's good films tend to supply the distraction themselves.
I coached a number of film students at a university that was renowned for its film department. When I mentioned to one that I had seen "High Noon" (on TV) as a kid, and that I'd been beside myself with the suspense and tension, he was astounded. He'd seen it (for one of his classes, I think) and just found it glacially boring. And this exchange was ~20 years ago!--you know the taste for a quicker pace has only increased since then.
Things change. Movies are one. However, let me go on record as saying that CoF was excellent.
Great movie, I loved it, but my son thought it was just Ok, therefore it might be an age thing. My age group read books, which is perhaps why we like good story telling.
haywardfield wrote:
It's a Great movie. Perhaps the best sports movie ever made. But it's also a period piece. So it's slower than what today's generation is used to. Also different values, speech, behavior. But make no mistake, it is a masterpiece.
In this instance, the Academy Awards gets it right for Best Picture. Brilliant movie.
The problem with the movie is that it generates homophobia now.
Everyone thought Ian Charelson ran like a complete fairy when the movie came out but thought he was just acting.
Now they know and that's the end of it.
terrible account of Jews.
I don't know. I fell asleep.
Nobody has patience for slowly paced movies anymore. Not a great tragedy or anything, but it does mean certain types of stories can't really be successfully made into movies. Lots of really good movies of that era would not be possible now. Even movies with lots of violence/action like The Deer Hunter, Apocolypse Now, The Godfather have lots of really long, slow-moving scenes that wouldn't make it into final cuts now.
I have seen Chariots of Fire approximately 30 times. Each time, I find something new. It is a very deep movie.
I believe that some of the reason for people disliking it is as suggested on other posts -- a generational aspect of a slowly told story. However, I think another key reason that people -- specifically on this board -- may not like it is that Chariots of Fire is really NOT a movie about track & field. It is a movie about many other things.
Three of the most interesting and deep scenes in the movie took place outside of the track:
1 - When Abrahams is being rubbed out by Coach Mussabini between semis and finals of the 100m, he talks to Aubrey Montague in a long soliloquy. It is a deep look at how a man handles pressure, the drive to be the best at something, and how his religion (and others' perceptions of him as a Jew in 1920's Europe) affected everything in his life.
2 - After Abrahams wins, in the locker room Montague is excited and wants Abrahams to celebrate, but he quietly gets dressed and leaves. Lord Lindsey tells Montague that "someday you will win too, and it is a very hard pill to swallow." If you have ever achieved anything of greatness, you will understand this scene. If not, you will be lost.
3 - Eric Liddell addresses the crowd after a meet in Scotland. His homily talks about how his faith guides him as a man and an athlete. I think people today may struggle, because we rarely have men who are as principled as Liddell was portrayed in the movie. It is not just about not running on Sunday. It is about how a man decided he was going to live his life.
The movie is not about track. It is about many things -- faith, Christianity vs Judaism, the things that drive a man to greatness, the overwhelming sense of loss that happens once you achieve your lifetime goal, falling in love, standing for principles....and yes, track as it existed in the 1920s.
It's the best ever film on athletics by a long way
The only one which actually had a story and it also showed them training which is unusual in this type of film eg Overstriding in the sprints a slap in the face on every step - brilliant stuff
Name me a better film - those Pre ones have no real story line or depth added to his character never mind a subplot
Great title for a movie.
Great music.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Name me a better film -
"Across the tracks"
I liked Chariots of Fire btw.
Gene Siskel's ghost wrote:
I have seen Chariots of Fire approximately 30 times. Each time, I find something new. It is a very deep movie.
I believe that some of the reason for people disliking it is as suggested on other posts -- a generational aspect of a slowly told story. However, I think another key reason that people -- specifically on this board -- may not like it is that Chariots of Fire is really NOT a movie about track & field. It is a movie about many other things.
Three of the most interesting and deep scenes in the movie took place outside of the track:
1 - When Abrahams is being rubbed out by Coach Mussabini between semis and finals of the 100m, he talks to Aubrey Montague in a long soliloquy. It is a deep look at how a man handles pressure, the drive to be the best at something, and how his religion (and others' perceptions of him as a Jew in 1920's Europe) affected everything in his life.
2 - After Abrahams wins, in the locker room Montague is excited and wants Abrahams to celebrate, but he quietly gets dressed and leaves. Lord Lindsey tells Montague that "someday you will win too, and it is a very hard pill to swallow." If you have ever achieved anything of greatness, you will understand this scene. If not, you will be lost.
3 - Eric Liddell addresses the crowd after a meet in Scotland. His homily talks about how his faith guides him as a man and an athlete. I think people today may struggle, because we rarely have men who are as principled as Liddell was portrayed in the movie. It is not just about not running on Sunday. It is about how a man decided he was going to live his life.
The movie is not about track. It is about many things -- faith, Christianity vs Judaism, the things that drive a man to greatness, the overwhelming sense of loss that happens once you achieve your lifetime goal, falling in love, standing for principles....and yes, track as it existed in the 1920s.
Brilliant critique !
I choked up at reading the epilogue account of Liddel's death during his Mission in China .
"And all of Scotland Mourned ." if I remember the quote correctly .
Next February 22 I'll raise a glass to him here in America .
counting iop wrote:
How so you vote?
Good, actually GREAT
ukathleticscoach wrote:
It's the best ever film on athletics by a long way
The only one which actually had a story and it also showed them training which is unusual in this type of film eg Overstriding in the sprints a slap in the face on every step - brilliant stuff
Name me a better film - those Pre ones have no real story line or depth added to his character never mind a subplot
This is a movie that the English love to slurp up. If you are from any non caucasian country or Germany , it is a huge piece of garbage . The German process of athletics in the 1920's was the ideal process for men and women.
England and its dehumanizing process of women in this movie , is similar to Saudi Arabia today.
I teach a high school film studies class and have included Chariots for the last several years. I was hesitant at first because I love the film but wasn't sure how a high school audience would react to the film's slower pace and message. I have been pleasantly surprised at how receptive students have been to the film. One of the ideas I teach in film is that good films are not about the subject but about the message about the subject. Therefore, you don't have to love track to love Chariots, just like I don't have to love boxing to love Rocky (I actually like boxing and love Rocky, but you get the point). When approached this way, students do enjoy the film and even understand the connection between the deliberate pace of the film and the attitudes of the primary characters. Don't sell this generation short; teach them what and how to appreciate and they will surprise you with what they see and think.
Jackson Shultz giving Eric the note and then Eric winning the 400 in his own fashion makes me tear up each time I watch it. A man dedicated to one purpose being able to show that purpose in a physical achievement and heralded by the world for it is such a powerful message.
Great Movie!
"Go on...go on! Pass the car, pass the car!"
The other thing I forgot to mention -- Chariots of Fire is widely regarded as being the first movie to make significant and key use of slow motion as a story telling device. For early 1980's, this was a groundbreaking advancement in cinematography.