"Chariots of Fire" is today remembered for three things: 1) its pretentious title, 2) its opening credits of young British men running barefoot in the surf scored to Vangelis' famous synth theme, and 3) being one of the Academy Awards biggest misfires as to a Best Picture winner. How this ponderous and plodding film won over Spielberg's "Raiders of the Lost Ark" will puzzle film fans for generations to come.
The plot: in post World War I Britain two young men from different backgrounds pursue an opportunity to compete as runners at the 1924 Paris Summer Olympics. One is a wealthy, Cambridge student who runs out of anger at a world he feels does not truly accept him due to his being Jewish and thus it's a world that he constantly wants to best. The other is a devout Presbyterian Scot whose life's work will be as a missionary and believes that God reflects his joy in him by giving him the ability to run really, really fast.
There is no question that "Chariots of Fire" is well-acted and decently filmed, but there really isn't much of a story here. There's almost no conflict or tension. The two main characters rarely interact with each other. It's as if they each have their own little film. In the Olympics, they don't even compete against one another. The film's "villains" are some stuffy Cambridge deans and the big, bad American Olympic team. However, it's clear from the start that the two main characters are also world class athletes. They're not exactly underdogs.
What we get is that two great athletes ran in the 1924 Olympics for different personal reasons. So? Couldn't we make a movie about almost any other Olympic athletes? What made these two any more special or unique? One didn't want to run on the Sabbath? That's interesting, but it's not exactly the stuff of 130 minute movies. Sadly, a lot of "Chariots of Fire" feels like sluggish padding.
The plot: in post World War I Britain two young men from different backgrounds pursue an opportunity to compete as runners at the 1924 Paris Summer Olympics. One is a wealthy, Cambridge student who runs out of anger at a world he feels does not truly accept him due to his being Jewish and thus it's a world that he constantly wants to best. The other is a devout Presbyterian Scot whose life's work will be as a missionary and believes that God reflects his joy in him by giving him the ability to run really, really fast.
There is no question that "Chariots of Fire" is well-acted and decently filmed, but there really isn't much of a story here. There's almost no conflict or tension. The two main characters rarely interact with each other. It's as if they each have their own little film. In the Olympics, they don't even compete against one another. The film's "villains" are some stuffy Cambridge deans and the big, bad American Olympic team. However, it's clear from the start that the two main characters are also world class athletes. They're not exactly underdogs.
What we get is that two great athletes ran in the 1924 Olympics for different personal reasons. So? Couldn't we make a movie about almost any other Olympic athletes? What made these two any more special or unique? One didn't want to run on the Sabbath? That's interesting, but it's not exactly the stuff of 130 minute movies. Sadly, a lot of "Chariots of Fire" feels like sluggish padding.