Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Miracle

This is topic Miracle in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000720

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 01-31-2004, 09:18 PM:

AMC Tallahassee Mall 20
1-31-04
Auditorium #19 approx. 340 in Attendence

Being a huge hockey fan, I really loved this movie. If anyone here has seen Herb Brooks coach, Kurt Russell did an AMAZING job. The dialogue was corny at times, but it usually lead to a fun laugh. The hockey action looked amazing, and growing up a hockey player, I really appreciate Disney for doing it well.

On the other hand, it could have been a little more "rude" if you ask me. This is a family movie, not a realistic hockey movie (although the action was real)

I give it 3.5 out of 5 stars...

Posted by John Carpenter (Member # 1488) on 01-31-2004, 09:49 PM:

In the sneak here in Gainesville, it sold out hours before showtime. That says a lot, because even though we normally have very large grosses, sneak previews don't normally do all that well.

The audience all seemed to love it - laughs and applause throughout the film - especially at the end. For some reason, the customers felt the need to tell me as they were leaving, how much they enjoyed it.

For me, I really liked it. I think most people will, unless they really don't like those "feel good" movies. Kurt Russell's fake accent was quite a bit annoying, and the plot dragged on at the beginning a bit. Overall well done by both the writers and technical crews. Particularly interesting was how they set up what was going on in current events leading up to the 1980 Olympics - set the mood of the country for the viewer.
4.5 out of 5

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 01-31-2004, 10:17 PM:

Sorry, I don't have a review at this time, but our sneak tonight sold out as well. Also unusual for our market this time of year.

I think that this film will do well next weekend, along with BS 2.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-31-2004, 10:39 PM:

I went to the sneak an hour early and it had been sold out already for several hours. [Frown]

The "buzz" is this is one of Kurt Russell's best performances ever and a very enjoyable film. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

Posted by Dennis M Dow Jr (Member # 1970) on 02-01-2004, 04:13 AM:

I really liked this movie.... I thought that the accents were fairly close to the regional areas they were supposed to be.... Was definitely a feel good movie but at the time that was exactly what this team was.
Only thing was they were shooting for a kind of retro look but the skates were not retro (minor detail).
other than that this movie gets 3.5 outta 4

Posted by Andrew Lee (Member # 1330) on 02-07-2004, 11:51 AM:

This movie captured the magic of one of the greatest moments in American sports history. It is also one of the best hockey films I have ever seen. Kurt really caught the feel of not only the game itself, but portrayed Herb Brooks as he really was. Hockey fan or not, this is a great story and was well told.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-07-2004, 02:28 PM:

Decent movie overall, but there was one thing that continually distracted me from the show.

STOP ZOOMING!!! You want to get closer to the action? Then MOVE THE FRIGGIN' CAMERA CLOSER! At least that way the viewer gets a perspective change.

Damn these cinematographers who think that they can create tension and involvement by continually racking the zoom on the lens and shaking the camera around for no damn good reason. Ever since that NYPD Blue television show started, I see this crap all the time from amateurs and a quick check to the IMDB revealed this is no exception.

Other than that the movie was fairly decent, but the zooming must stop. I can see this era of filmmaking 30 years from now as being called "the earthquake period".

Rating with unnecessary zooming taken into account: 2 starts out of 5.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-07-2004, 06:12 PM:

I pretty much hate the use of zoom lenses in feature films altogether.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-07-2004, 06:25 PM:

I agree with yous about zooming. YUK! It reminds me of the 8mm film home movies to perserve Johnny's 1st steps.

With VERY few exceptions, the use of the "ZOOM" lens should be set to a "fixed" focal length and reserved for composition...

>>> Phil

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-07-2004, 06:34 PM:

Zooming sucks - reply here

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-07-2004, 09:22 PM:

Liked it, although "Hoosiers" is still my favorite "sports movie that conforms to every cliche in the book, but is well done enough to make it worth watching."

The opening title was great (yeah, I'm a sucker for stock footage used to set the mood for a film). Score was good as well.

I'm in complete agreement with Brad on the gratuitous use of zooms, although I was more annoyed by the sheer number of shots which were just plain out of focus. These weren't just action shots, either. There's no excuse for out-of-focus shots and I'm surprised that the director didn't fire the first AC and re-shoot those scenes. On the other hand, the game photography is pretty good. Hockey is a tough sport to shoot (I made some attempts in high school, on both video and 16mm), and they did a nice job in this film.

I was unimpressed with the way that most shots were framed, too; most are way too tight for a scope (well, super 35) film intended to be shown on a large screen. I'm sure that it will look fine for the Academy frame TV version when they use more of the super 35 image area than was seen in the scope prints. This is annoying...movies should be made to look best on the big screen, not on TV. [puke]

Oh, well, that's a minor complaint. It's still a good film and one of the better titles in current release.

Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 02-08-2004, 04:15 AM:

I really liked this one.
Being a hockey fan and living in MN made this movie awesome for me. Growing up hearing these players’ names as sudo-celebrities in the area was cool. It was interesting to see & hear all the news related items throughout the film & the score was brilliant. The young actors dialogue scenes were a bit painful at times & the stadium pan ‘fan shots’ were a little over the top for me. Even knowing the outcome, I still felt the rush of adrenaline as the final seconds ticked away in the last period. I also liked the end credits, with the picture & current where abouts, classy all the way.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-08-2004, 06:23 PM:

08 Feb 2004, Regal Cinema World 8, Eugene OR, 12 noon, house #4, SR-D. Attendance around 60. When the trailers ended (finally [Roll Eyes]

) and the feature started, there was an abrupt improvement in sharpness and detail in the screen image. Yay. Presentation was very good though there were a couple of lab splices and a fogged section of film that caused a digital dropout and the analog level dropped very low. But no major complaints. I noticed 1 instance of CRAP code. I did notice some shots were out of focus. Most of the scenes were razor sharp, so the o-o-f shots really stand out. I suppose it's possible that was intentional, given the almost documentary look and feel of the action sequences sometimes. Who knows?

I loved this movie. Kurt Russell was great -- I felt I was watching Herb Brooks, not an actor playing him. I liked that they used all unknowns for the hockey team. Very inspirational - the best feel-good movie in quite a while.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 02-14-2004, 11:13 PM:

Just saw it. I agree with Brad and Scott, the zooming was the most annoying part. I think they did it because it is so difficult to recreate a hockey scene. I've heard a couple people up here in "hockey country" say that the film was a little embellished. But those folks are simply too young or were not paying attention. My father was a hockey coach who around the same period was winning provincial championships, we were VERY into the game at the time. We also are not far from Lake Placid and vacationed there before and after the Games. Russell does a fabulous job, and the story stands. Team USA, a bunch of kids playing the mighty USSR professionals, and all the political turmoil of the time, this really WAS impossible, a miracle. There are many proud Canadians who hold this victory by the US as a far, far greater moment than when our Canadian team of pros beat a bunch of other vacationing pros to win in Salt Lake. It just doesn't compare. I watched it with my family at home. We screamed at the cheap-shotting Ruskies, were awed by Craig's supernatural goaltending, and embraced when they won. My parents are gone now, I was very emotional watching this movie, especially the scenes where the players celebrated goals vs. the USSR, absolutely bang-on. Anyone who thinks this was Hollywood embellishment, simply did not see it the first time, what a story, just when the world needed it...

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 04-18-2004, 04:50 AM:

Just saw this movie at a dollar theater. Maybe it was the hazy image or incomplete aperture filing, but I didn't notice the zooming that much. I agree, in principle, that zooming is normally obvious and amateurish. It was OK for me, though, to use the effect to show a visual speed over the ice. Whatever.

I'm a big fan of "Hoosiers" and if I had to compare the two, "Hoosiers" would still win out. Maybe I ended up not liking Brooks that much, though I do respect what he was able to accomplish. It seems like he could always go too far. Maybe he did.

I liked the way they summed up how the big game was played. Essentially, each goal and when it came was shown. Then, just holding out the last 10 minutes of the game. I did feel like cheering in the audience whenever the U.S.A. scored. [uhoh]

I thought Brooks character was a little bit too one dimensional. He had a little bit of interaction with his wife, but to me that was just to get some female element into the film.

The skating was impressive. I had heard it was easier for Disney to teach hockey players how to act rather than teaching actors how to skate. I assume they did the same with "Hoosiers" because few of those players ever acted again according to IMDB.

Overall, it held my interest, but I wouldn't call it a great movie.