Chariots of Fire.

Review #1464: Chariots of Fire.

Cast:
Ben Cross (Harold Abrahams), Ian Charleson (Eric Liddell), Nicholas Farrell (Aubrey Montague), Nigel Havers (Lord Andrew Lindsay), Ian Holm (Sam Mussabini), John Gielgud (Master of Trinity College), Lindsay Anderson (Master of Caius College), Cheryl Campbell (Jennie Liddell), Alice Krige (Sybil Gordon), Struan Rodger (Sandy McGrath), Nigel Davenport (Lord Birkenhead), and Patrick Magee (Lord Cadogan) Directed by Hugh Hudson.

Review: 
"The artist is a credulous animal. He is often a dreamer. And if he finds someone who appears to share his dream, or, even better, someone with the means to realize that dream, then that artist tends to believe in Santa Claus."

Sometimes you just need a film about the will to win. I suppose if anyone had to try and make a sports film about the triumph of victory with perseverance and faith, it might as well be one from the British about something historical. Whether that makes for a true classic or not is up to the viewer, who no doubt will have heard that one tune from Vangelis that starts the film up, one that is inspirational and all the jazz. This was a co-production between Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox (international) that was spearheaded by British producer David Puttnam, having been behind films such as Bugsy Malone (1976) and Midnight Express (1978) that wanted to do a film in the mold of A Man for All Seasons (1966) - where one had to follow their conscience, which just happened to fit the mold of the story of the 1924 Olympics that was written by actor-turned-writer Colin Welland. The director tasked to do the film was Hugh Hudson, a first-time film director mostly known for advertising and documentaries. If they managed to accomplish an accurate film, let them enjoy the fruits of said attention, even if there had to be certain liberties taken to get to this point: One can't really be serious to believe a runner wouldn't know about a heat being on Sunday right before going on a trip to compete in the Olympics. Two characters are based on folks that refused permission to have their real names to being used, while a romance for one of the leads is actually ten years too early. There is a mix of established and young faces, with Cross, Charleson, Farrell, and Havers being backed up by Holm, Gielgud, and Anderson. The sentiment must have paid off, since the film won four Academy Awards (one each for Puttnam Vangelis, and Welland), including Best Picture (over films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Reds - a punchline in it of itself).

If one really gets a tremendous inspiration from the story of two runners making their mark on the world through their faith and courage, go right on ahead. It has all the things one could for appeal for the traditionalists (with a modern electronic music touch) that goes for the inspirational without leaning on extreme sentiment or anything with too much contrivances - entertainment or otherwise. And yet, here I am, trying to figure out why it proves so average in my experience - a picture of illusion and platitudes that nearly choke out the air of actually finding something to really say anything meaningful about liking it. In other words, it feels like someone pulled over a bag over my head and somehow got me to the market while I only saw a bunch of decent images in the bag. We are talking about a "sports film" of running, after all. It seems like the kind of film people rush to elevate on a pedestal when trying to make a "prestige picture" that only just balances its story of Liddell and Abrahams to where I appreciate the effort and some of its aspects that go with it while not really reaching a high point. David Watkin does well with the cinematography, and Cross and Charleson are at least calm enough to make their struggle one to care for. Gielgud and Richardson are exactly what you could expect from the college angle, dignified and with reason even when doing a scene about expressing certain doubts about Charleson and his methods to glory. Holm proves to be most enterprising of the bunch, endearing in steadfast conviction that we care to see for what we see spliced in from time to time in teaching to victory without falling to all the clichés. In the end, it just depends on what one really sees the film in the prism of entertainment. Some people really get swept up in a film that is all about conviction and country - I just see it as not too far removed from other "sports films" that have their own little foundation of courage for the underdog, where you might as well call it Rocky (1976) for British people and running. If you are into a film of the stiff upper lip in the face of adversity for 124 minutes, this may very well be for you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Star Trek: First Contact.

Review #840: Star Trek: First Contact.

Cast
Patrick Stewart (Jean-Luc Picard), Jonathan Frakes (William Riker), Brent Spiner (Data), LeVar Burton (Geordi La Forge), Michael Dorn (Worf), Gates McFadden (Beverly Crusher), Marina Sirtis (Deanna Troi), Alfre Woodard (Lily Sloane), James Cromwell (Zefram Cochrane), Alice Krige (Borg Queen), Michael Horton (Security Officer), and Neal McDonough (Lt. Hawk) Directed by Jonathan Frakes.

Review
There have already been a plethora of Star Trek film reviews done by me (#009 - Star Trek (2009), #225 - Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, #226 - Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered County, #246 - Star Trek Generations, #299 - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, #337 - Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, #492 - Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, #515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture, #665 - Star Trek Into Darkness), but First Contact (based off ST: The Next Generation) was not one of them. Until now, anyway. Today is the 50th Anniversary of the premiere of the Original Series, and this year also happens to be the 20th Anniversary of this film, so I decided to connect the two for today. I guess you could call me a fan of The Next Generation, though I pride myself a film guy first...just kidding, nobody uses that phrase. In all seriousness, I really do dig the show, especially "The Best of Both Worlds", which also happens to have the Borg as the main villain. Onto the movie.

It's interesting that it's been over a year since I reviewed a Star Trek film, and it's almost been four years since I reviewed Star Trek Generations (#246). That movie was okay at points, but it never really felt interesting enough to make a movie out of. Having Kirk didn't help the idea of passing the torch fully from the original cast to the cast of the Next Generation, with a villain that was only mildly compelling at best. First Contact, however, is entertaining, using a familiar villain from the show but making it work for anyone to follow, much like with Wrath of Khan. Stewart is fairly compelling, with one of my favorite scenes being one in which he smashes a model ship into a window, and he is also pretty convincing in the action scenes, without losing too much of what makes him such a good Captain. Woodward also does pretty well in her scenes with Picard, having a fair amount of presence, particularly at the end right before the climax. Krige is clearly having fun as the villain, and she does a pretty good job, with the scenes with Spiner also being interesting to watch as well, managing to not chew too much of the scenery. The rest of the cast also does well, with Cromwell being pretty entertaining, alongside Frakes and Burton. Revenge (and time travel) are pretty common for Star Trek to begin with, but First Contact manages to convey it with enough conviction and legitimacy that it works on its own without being too familiar. The action scenes are done fine, without overshadowing the movie. The Borg look excellent, looking menacing and creepy at the same time. Simply put, it's an enjoyable movie that will most likely make you want to watch the show, but more likely stick with you for a while.

Live long and prosper, everyone.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.