Short Review: Sure its long, slow and boring - sometimes that works.


This is not only a period piece because it portrays athletes battling to win the 1924 Olympics, but also because this film would never be widely distributed today. This is a period piece about British runners with no sex, no violence, and has one of the strongest Christian characters in film history. Yeah, this isn’t going to come around to the multiplex again soon.

This is a first-class production from the ground up, and I have nothing negative to say against it...well...okay, it's very dry in spots...well...okay, it's dry in a number of spots. The portrayal of Eric Liddell is stirring to see particularly contrasted to how Christians are usually portrayed now. Liddell is shown to be a generous and careful man who keeps himself bound by his faith. When his allegiance to Christ is tested, he offers the only answer possible.


Chariots of Fire is a film I would suggest young Christian filmmakers look to for inspiration. This film maps out a textured character who is caught in the very common Christian trap of being caught serving yourself instead of serving God. We have a story that patiently shows our world in a clever metaphor for our faith without ever becoming overbearing in its message. Those making Christian films today can learn a great deal from this classic.


Related Reviews:
Film with positive portrayals of Christians
The Heart of Texas (2008)
The Hiding Place (1975)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Reel Views
eFilmCritics




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Ben Cross, Christianity, film, Ian Holm, John Gielgud, movie review, Nicholas Farrell, Nigel Havers, sports

There are times when it appears an actor is born to play a specific role. If this were true, Ben Kingsley work portraying Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi would be the best example. Kingsley gives one of the great screen performances as the meek peace loving icon. The film is worth viewing just for Kingsley command performance. He humanizes the icon in a kind, promotional fashion that supports the legend more than the man. Now granted, Gandhi was a man who did great things with his life, but he was also a very flawed individual capable of some rather odd behavior (his disturbing sexual proclivities are one for starters.) This film wasn’t meant to show the real man but to lionize a fallen leader. Kingsley presents the legend with great conviction to where his performance solidified the man’s iconic status in the Western mind.

Director Richard Attenborough has crafted a patient, sprawling look at Gandhi’s life. There are a number of points where the story lags but these dips are short lived and the film as a whole is worthy of the praise that has been heaped upon it. It is a fascinating film to watch simply out of its masterful construction. Other than a few dry spots and the heavy “Gandhi as living saint” agenda, there is little I can find to criticize in this film. It is simply good cinema. It has a compelling lead, an engaging story and a writer and a director work perfectly in tandem – if only more films had so much going for them.

The one thing that has always stuck in my craw with Gandhi’s beliefs is that he promotes non-violence as a tool to shame the powerful into acting humanely. Gandhi confronted the British Empire, a society built on social order and appearances. Gandhi’s non-violence stance assumes the aggressor has a conscious. Would he done so well against Nazis, or Islamofascists? Believe it or not, there are belief systems out there that promote amorality and people committed to those ideologies are capable of inhuman brutality. It seems to me that Gandhi’s philosophy was so successful because he was dealing with civilized men, not true barbarians.

This is a brilliant film that is something you should at least try to sit through at least once. Those who have short attention spans or aren’t big on sprawling biopics, you may not make it all the way through. The more patient audience will find one of the better films ever made. Just remember that you’re watching an agenda piece more than a true biography.


Related Reviews:
Biopics
Patton (1970)
Milk (2008)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Roger Ebert
Classic Film Guide

Labels: Ben Kingsley, biography, Candice Bergen, film, John Gielgud, Martin Sheen, movie review