This was a good movie, regardless of whether it was about soccer or not. The movie had good actors, and some surprise actors (Gavin Rossdale, John Harkes, etc.) and was a good "person" movie. It did do a good job of telling about the 1950 upset victory for the Americans, and it was good that it stopped right there and didn't include the following matches in that World Cup for the Amerians of losing to Spain 1-3 and Chile 2-6. So it ended on a good note. I actually had a comment about one of the user comments....the one gloating about his daughter's soccer team and how good they are because they are Arizona state champions. I have lived in Ohio most of my life and lately I have lived in Arizona....I am sorry to break it to him, but Arizona soccer is terrible. Teams in Arizona would get crushed by teams in Ohio. A state champion of Arizona is a mediocre Ohio team. Or MIssouri, or Michigan, or California, or Florida.
47 Reviews
Sweet story of a little known American moment
hobbes322 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is a likable depiction of a little known event in American sports history; the defeat of soccer superpower England at the hands of an unknown, underfunded U.S. team (most of whom are sons of Italian immigrants) during the World Cup in Brazil in 1950. The film defines the characters, showing their Italian roots as well as their pride at being Americans without crossing the line into stereo-type. Their are a couple of moments that appear as if they're heading in that direction but, then the film deftly veers around it. The scenes on the pitch are exciting and compelling, particularly the ultimate match with the English. Even though the outcome is a matter of record, I was still captivated. Part of the reason for this might be all those shots of walking pheromone Gerard Butler as goalie Frank Borghi. (Disclaimer:Mr. Butler was the real reason I picked up this little film.) *Spoiler*I'm glad they included the real players that were still alive at the time of filming in the final scene. I'll watch this again. I rented it last night, bought it this morning.
Game well played
dianewms24 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Even though we know what happens (so how can you have a "spoiler"?), I found the overall tone of the film a little flat. Yet it's a great introduction to what happened back in 1950, even if not 100% accurate. I'd like for the film to have told me that most of these players had played together before in previous international matches, that the USA had lost all its other games in the pool, and that England did not advance to the elimination round either. Sure that one game is the focus of the story, but I'd like to have seen it in better context.
I thought the action was very well done. Gerard Butler certain did Frank Borghi proud and was totally believable as a world-class goalkeeper and team leader. The best scene in the film had to be his slow mo prowl in front of the goal during the practice game in the rain against England's second team. Borghi was justifiably angry at himself for allowing so many goals, even in such horrible playing conditions.
I recommend this film to soccer fans and nonfans alike. It has some faults, but its well worth watching.
I thought the action was very well done. Gerard Butler certain did Frank Borghi proud and was totally believable as a world-class goalkeeper and team leader. The best scene in the film had to be his slow mo prowl in front of the goal during the practice game in the rain against England's second team. Borghi was justifiably angry at himself for allowing so many goals, even in such horrible playing conditions.
I recommend this film to soccer fans and nonfans alike. It has some faults, but its well worth watching.
This will be more than a just soccer movie.
peterdunne0217 May 2004
This film records the most unlikely upset in World Cup history, the 1-0 United States defeat of England in the Brazilian mining city of Belo Horizonte ("Beautiful Horizon"), 300 miles north of Rio di Janeiro, on June 29, 1950. The United States was a team of part time amateurs who were drawn against the mighty English squad, playing in its first World Cup and determined to show the world their mastery of the game they had invented. Football fans who saw the score reported assumed the score line was a typographical error, as it was unthinkable that the US could even stay with, much less defeat, an English side which featured some of the games all time great players, including Billy Wright, Sir Stanley Matthews (who sat out the match), Stan Mortenson and Wilf Mannion. London bookmakers offered odds of 500-1 against such an preposterous event. The New York Times refused to run the score when it was first reported, deeming it a hoax.
The US team was a collection of first generation American soccer players drawn mainly from club teams on the east coast and included five St. Louisans, four of whom grew up in the "Hill" neighborhood of South St. Louis: goalie Frank Borghi, fullback Frank Colombo, forward Gino Pariani, and midfielder Frank "Pee Wee" Wallace, and also the long time St. Louis University soccer coach, halfback Harry Keough. The US had only one full time professional player on its roster, Hugh McIllvenny from Scotland. They had played together only two weeks when they departed for Brazil. They'd lost to Italy in a World Cup warm up by the score of 9-0, and had been defeated by Spain in the World Cup opener 3-1.
It was reported that the American players were so confident that victory was unlikely that several of them were out late the night before the game enjoying themselves and sported hangovers at the opening kickoff. Borghi was quoted afterwards as saying he was hoping to hold the English to five or six goals. The English team poured forward, firing shot after shot at goalie Borghi, but could not score. Six minutes before half time, U.S. center forward Joe Gaetgens, a Haitian born dishwasher living in New York, redirected with a lunging header a shot by half back Walter Bahr, who is himself, incidentally, the long time Penn State soccer coach and the father of NFL placekickers and former Penn State soccer players Chris and Matt Bahr. The misdirected shot beat England keeper Bert Williams, and the single goal stood up through a second half where the Americans withstood constant English pressure and numerous near misses, including three shots off the woodwork.
The Brazilian crowd thoroughly enjoyed the failures of the pretournament favorites and carried the US team off the field after the final whistle. The game was noteworthy for the complete lack of interest in the result by the American press and public. The only American reporter at the game, Dent McSkimming of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, used his vacation time and paid his own way to Brazil to cover the game.
Author Geoffrey Douglas' book advances the premise that the victory was not a fluke when one considers the character and promise of the winning American players, as evidenced by the upstanding and honorable men they came to be.
Trivia: the English national soccer team has never again worn blue shirts they wore against the US in that game.
The film was shot on location in St. Louis and Brazil, and features former US National Soccer Team Captain John Harkes as a consultant and soccer playing extra.
The US team was a collection of first generation American soccer players drawn mainly from club teams on the east coast and included five St. Louisans, four of whom grew up in the "Hill" neighborhood of South St. Louis: goalie Frank Borghi, fullback Frank Colombo, forward Gino Pariani, and midfielder Frank "Pee Wee" Wallace, and also the long time St. Louis University soccer coach, halfback Harry Keough. The US had only one full time professional player on its roster, Hugh McIllvenny from Scotland. They had played together only two weeks when they departed for Brazil. They'd lost to Italy in a World Cup warm up by the score of 9-0, and had been defeated by Spain in the World Cup opener 3-1.
It was reported that the American players were so confident that victory was unlikely that several of them were out late the night before the game enjoying themselves and sported hangovers at the opening kickoff. Borghi was quoted afterwards as saying he was hoping to hold the English to five or six goals. The English team poured forward, firing shot after shot at goalie Borghi, but could not score. Six minutes before half time, U.S. center forward Joe Gaetgens, a Haitian born dishwasher living in New York, redirected with a lunging header a shot by half back Walter Bahr, who is himself, incidentally, the long time Penn State soccer coach and the father of NFL placekickers and former Penn State soccer players Chris and Matt Bahr. The misdirected shot beat England keeper Bert Williams, and the single goal stood up through a second half where the Americans withstood constant English pressure and numerous near misses, including three shots off the woodwork.
The Brazilian crowd thoroughly enjoyed the failures of the pretournament favorites and carried the US team off the field after the final whistle. The game was noteworthy for the complete lack of interest in the result by the American press and public. The only American reporter at the game, Dent McSkimming of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, used his vacation time and paid his own way to Brazil to cover the game.
Author Geoffrey Douglas' book advances the premise that the victory was not a fluke when one considers the character and promise of the winning American players, as evidenced by the upstanding and honorable men they came to be.
Trivia: the English national soccer team has never again worn blue shirts they wore against the US in that game.
The film was shot on location in St. Louis and Brazil, and features former US National Soccer Team Captain John Harkes as a consultant and soccer playing extra.
Hoosiers.... Rudy.....
queencyan1 May 2005
Contrary to the comment above, they do not say that they won the World Cup or insinuate that at all in the description (please read it carefully).
It's from a couple of great directors and is more about the backbone of the surroundings of the 1950's, family and the wide ethic backgrounds of that era. I didn't find it to be another Hoosiers or Miracle, but it's still a pretty good soccer movie (although Bend It Like Beckam was more entertaining). It's definitely worth a watch if you love sports in general and have any knowledge at all of the 1950's and all that was going on.
It's from a couple of great directors and is more about the backbone of the surroundings of the 1950's, family and the wide ethic backgrounds of that era. I didn't find it to be another Hoosiers or Miracle, but it's still a pretty good soccer movie (although Bend It Like Beckam was more entertaining). It's definitely worth a watch if you love sports in general and have any knowledge at all of the 1950's and all that was going on.
Great story, reasonably decent movie
hall89526 April 2007
The story of the 1950 United States World Cup soccer team's stunning upset victory over England is one which has been begging to be told for years. One of the great sports underdog stories of all time and hardly anyone knows a thing about it. Many younger American soccer fans don't even know it happened. Finally, this movie has come along to shed some well-deserved light on those players who toiled mostly in anonymity and whose achievements seemed lost in the dustbin of history. It is wonderful that this movie was made. You just wish the movie had been made better. The Game of Their Lives or The Miracle Match or whatever they're calling it these days never quite hits the heights. It tells a story which needed to be told. It just doesn't tell it in an entertaining enough way.
This movie is cut from the tried and true sports underdog movie mold (Hoosiers, Rocky, Rudy and so on) but it never has the same sense of energy which drove those films forward. While those films had a certain zest to them as they built towards a thrilling conclusion this film just kind of slogs along. It's not nearly as engrossing as it could have, and given the great story they had to work with, probably should have been. The fact that certain details of history have been twisted and changed to try to make things seem more dramatic than they actually were doesn't help either. A misguided attempt to create a "villain" on the English team also falls flat. It seems the filmmakers were afraid to allow this story to speak for itself and were determined to spice it up with some artificial drama. The fake drama doesn't work and we're not left with enough real drama either.
This is not to say that The Game of Their Lives (or The Miracle Match or whatever) is a bad movie. It's OK. You just get the sense that this story deserved a movie which is better than just OK. The acting is fine with Gerard Butler and Wes Bentley the key figures in a cast which otherwise is made up of mostly unknowns with the exception of, oh sweet irony, Englishman Patrick Stewart as the American soccer reporter who serves as the film's narrator while relishing the memory of the English defeat. The visuals are very good and the soccer scenes quite well done. But what's lacking is drama. The film never really grabs you, from the "getting to know you" phase as we meet the players all the way through the "thrilling" climax which comes off as rather ordinary. And what the U.S. team achieved in Brazil in 1950 was anything but ordinary. Unfortunately the full impact of what those men accomplished and who those men really were doesn't come across in this film. And that's a shame.
This movie is cut from the tried and true sports underdog movie mold (Hoosiers, Rocky, Rudy and so on) but it never has the same sense of energy which drove those films forward. While those films had a certain zest to them as they built towards a thrilling conclusion this film just kind of slogs along. It's not nearly as engrossing as it could have, and given the great story they had to work with, probably should have been. The fact that certain details of history have been twisted and changed to try to make things seem more dramatic than they actually were doesn't help either. A misguided attempt to create a "villain" on the English team also falls flat. It seems the filmmakers were afraid to allow this story to speak for itself and were determined to spice it up with some artificial drama. The fake drama doesn't work and we're not left with enough real drama either.
This is not to say that The Game of Their Lives (or The Miracle Match or whatever) is a bad movie. It's OK. You just get the sense that this story deserved a movie which is better than just OK. The acting is fine with Gerard Butler and Wes Bentley the key figures in a cast which otherwise is made up of mostly unknowns with the exception of, oh sweet irony, Englishman Patrick Stewart as the American soccer reporter who serves as the film's narrator while relishing the memory of the English defeat. The visuals are very good and the soccer scenes quite well done. But what's lacking is drama. The film never really grabs you, from the "getting to know you" phase as we meet the players all the way through the "thrilling" climax which comes off as rather ordinary. And what the U.S. team achieved in Brazil in 1950 was anything but ordinary. Unfortunately the full impact of what those men accomplished and who those men really were doesn't come across in this film. And that's a shame.
Lacked the "Heart" to Be Really Great
crystallopez8030 December 2005
It was a good movie, but it just didn't have the same heart and push as "Remember the Titans" or "Rudy", etc to me. All the ingredients were there: underdogs, struggling to come together as a team, lots of raw talent but somehow, when it all was put together...it just didn't really get it done. The soccer scenes are done well and are exciting - coming from someone who doesn't know anything about soccer other than you can't touch the ball with your hands and you have to get it into net. It just left me thinking "that's it?" If Gerard Butler wasn't in it, I wouldn't watch it again. Incidentally, this is the only "underdogs beating all the odds" sports movie I've seen about adults...I wonder if that's the "missing" piece to this film? We root more for kids, and get more unbridled emotion from kids than adults, so we feel more?
Possibly the worst sports film of all time
boothenendusa5 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Certainly there have been sports films that were more technically unacceptable to this one, but never in the history of celluloid has so much carelessness for a true account been displayed on the silver screen. "The Game of Their Lives" is a revolting untrue story of the United States' 1950 World Cup upset of England. Having read the book the film is loosely )and I do mean loosely based on), the story plays on film like a made-for-Disney Sunday night TV movie. The half truths in this debacle start right from the outset as the St. Louis playground team gets notice of a World Cup tryout. The World Cup in 1950 was not the World Cup of today. It was only the fourth tournament, and first since 1938. For the players to suggest at that point in time that World Cup was considered the greatest sporting event in the world was for all intents and purposes false. The glamor and glitz associated with the World Cup did not come until later. According to the book, there wasn't much of a St. Louis-New York rivalry. It wasn't like the 1980 Olympic hockey team with its Minnesota-Boston rivalry. The players, if I remember correctly, came together without much fuss and did their job. The preoccupation with Stanley Mortensen is a mystery too. Did I hear correctly during the banquet introduction speech where he was introduced as scoring three goals in the FA Cup final in 1950? Sorry. That didn't happen until three years later. The book also said nothing about a scathing Mortensen speech. I highly doubt it would be in any player's nature to stand up and directly insult a team which had no chance of making an impact. And...The USA did NOT open the 1950 World Cup against England. They lost 3-1 to Spain a mere four days earlier, playing well against another good side. That game probably illustrated that the Americans weren't exactly a rag-tag bunch more than the England one, but the filmmakers didn't mention it. Or the 5-2 loss to Chile which ended the Yanks tournament. And guess what? After all the excitement made over topping England, the U.S.A. finished last in the group. England only picked up two points (a win was worth two points back then and not three) against Chile. So, the win over England might have been more of a story of a fading power than a miraculous upset. The crux of the book was the players relationship to their families and athletics. It only gets a basic treatment in the film. As for Haitian goal scorer Joe Gaetjens, the filmmakers treat his character like a right loon who is deeply under the spell of voodoo. It's laughable and racist to some degree in how he is portrayed. There also is no discussion of his life after he scores a goal. The film suddenly ends after the win. Sure we get to see the remaining remembers of the real team get a nod at the 2004 MLS All-Star game, but what about the others? Joe, I'm afraid wasn't one of them as he was kidnapped and killed in Haiti for political reasons in the 1960s. Why wasn't that in the film? The absolute worst part of the film was the presentation of the uniforms. (First of all, was not the constant begging for uniforms like the Bad News Bears a bit pathetic?) A general or some high-ranking military schmoe presents the players with the new uniforms on a tarmac in Brazil. What we get here is some of the most vile military to sports comparisons you'll ever see. It's the kind of stuff that makes you curl up and wonder what other countries will think when they see it. In fact, the whole movie is.
A Victory for Game of Their Lives
JenUF23 April 2005
First and foremost, I'm hardly a soccer expert and barely a soccer fan so this commentary comes strictly from a movie fan and a fan who enjoys critiquing films. That said, I found The Game of Their Lives to be a solid film. It's a product of the same mind that brought us "Rudy" and "Hoosiers" and one can expect similar results. It tells the tale of the 1950 US World Cup team that shockingly beat England (though did not win the World Cup itself) It begins in St Louis, providing backgrounds and insight into the lives and families of the St Louisians who later will be on the World Cup Team.
Strong performances from Wes Bentley and Gerard Butler lead this film to the final victory. Bentley and Butler portray the leaders of the team (Walter Bahr and Frank Borghi, respectively) with likability and believability. The supporting cast that rounds out the team also turn out performances that will keep you involved with wanting to route for this team. Don't expect an electric atmosphere, however, as this story is told from a reporter reminiscing.
The Game of Their Lives offers character development for the team members without ever straying from the subject at hand. Through their actions on and off the field, the audience can get a taste for who these men were. Much homage and respect is also deservingly paid to England for their magnificent history in the sport. This is not one of those ports films that serves to make the United States seem over glorious and under mind the greatness of England, as many assume it will. I for one walked away from this film with a greater respect for England and what they've done, and continue to do, for the sport
Strong performances from Wes Bentley and Gerard Butler lead this film to the final victory. Bentley and Butler portray the leaders of the team (Walter Bahr and Frank Borghi, respectively) with likability and believability. The supporting cast that rounds out the team also turn out performances that will keep you involved with wanting to route for this team. Don't expect an electric atmosphere, however, as this story is told from a reporter reminiscing.
The Game of Their Lives offers character development for the team members without ever straying from the subject at hand. Through their actions on and off the field, the audience can get a taste for who these men were. Much homage and respect is also deservingly paid to England for their magnificent history in the sport. This is not one of those ports films that serves to make the United States seem over glorious and under mind the greatness of England, as many assume it will. I for one walked away from this film with a greater respect for England and what they've done, and continue to do, for the sport
Hit the checks, but direly needing an epilogue
movieswithgreg9 July 2020
This is a sports inspiration movie. It hits all the marks that a sports inspiration movie traditionally offers, so if you're looking for that, you'll find it. It's very american (as am I), perhaps a whisper too american in its chest beating. I said a whisper.
Also, it leave a big plot hole on the cutting room floor. The coach's character, as depicted here, is either merely phoning in his coaching duties, or he has an insightful plan to bring this team together. This movie suggests the first, but never reveals the latter. In this kind of story, it's not the kind of thing that enhances the film by leaving audiences wonder.
What's missing big time, is an epilogue. This story begs for it, since none of its characters is known to 90% of americans. And since it's a true story, and an important one in american international sports. It lacks the raw heart of something like Rudy, and it lacks the clear-eyed cynicism of how national sports teams are managed, like Chariots of Fire,
Also, it leave a big plot hole on the cutting room floor. The coach's character, as depicted here, is either merely phoning in his coaching duties, or he has an insightful plan to bring this team together. This movie suggests the first, but never reveals the latter. In this kind of story, it's not the kind of thing that enhances the film by leaving audiences wonder.
What's missing big time, is an epilogue. This story begs for it, since none of its characters is known to 90% of americans. And since it's a true story, and an important one in american international sports. It lacks the raw heart of something like Rudy, and it lacks the clear-eyed cynicism of how national sports teams are managed, like Chariots of Fire,
They got it wrong.
bongo-614 April 2005
This could have been a good film but they got it wrong. The football match at the end - or soccer if you like was OK but the rest missed so many opportunities. England was not the number one team in the world at the time they never were. This was the first time England entered the world cup. Up to this time they didn't know how they fared against foreign teams as they hardly played them a couple of years later they played Hungary and got the shock of their lives when they lost 7-2. Football, in England was and is a working class game. In the film they depicted the England players with upper middle class accents. Stan Mortenson was a Geordie and had a Geordie accent. The rest of the team would have had working class accents too. At the time the England players so called professionals were earning less than the $100 per week promised to the part time Americans; nothing was made of this irony. These English players would be subsidizing their incomes from football with regular jobs some of them in the mines, some working behind the counters in shops. It wasn't till a few years later that the maximum wage was lifted and the potential to earn the fortune some of them now earn happened. This film was full of jingoistic music and some of the patriotic lines made me cringe; at one point Stan Mortenson said to the captain of the American team at the coin toss 'there's no need to make it a war out there today' and the American captain said 'if it was a war you'd be dead;' totally unnecessary and not funny. The great football/soccer film will be made one day when someone makes the story of Manchester United and the recovery after the Munich air crash which wiped put most of the team.
Soccer Know-nothing loved this movie
arion21426 April 2005
If you enjoy soccer, you'll really like this movie about USA underdogs playing the Brits, the best in the world in 1950. The audience I was with consisted of adults and kids in soccer uniforms. The movie drew cheers and applause especially during the final confrontation. Gerard Butler as the great goalkeeper Frank Borghi really gives this movie heart and soul. The actors were chosen for their ability to actually play soccer so the game sequences are very realistic. Butler especially throws his body into a bone-crunching depiction of a goalkeeper with the heart of a lion.
You don't have to be know much about soccer to enjoy this movie. I highly recommend it to everyone who likes an exciting movie and wonderful acting. Three cheers!
You don't have to be know much about soccer to enjoy this movie. I highly recommend it to everyone who likes an exciting movie and wonderful acting. Three cheers!
Cliché , music-driven garbage
anarchistica10 January 2007
Take every sports movie cliché, add a whole lot of annoying, pounding music, and finish it off with some nice depraved Americanisms. Patriotism? Nonsense about "honor" and "respect" (we're talking about a bunch of guys who're playing football here)? Arrogant, haughty stereotypical English? Hilarious comparisons between athletes and state-empowered murderers ("soldiers")? Predictable outcome? No mention of what happened afterwards (US lost remaining games and Korean War)?
Even worse is the constant repetition of how great football is. From the very first dialogue to the last, a constant reminder that football is awesome, great, fantastic and the most democratic sport.
It's just a crappy sports movie with Captain Jean-Luc Picard and Captain Vasco Rodrigues making some easy money. Please, waste your time on something else.
Even worse is the constant repetition of how great football is. From the very first dialogue to the last, a constant reminder that football is awesome, great, fantastic and the most democratic sport.
It's just a crappy sports movie with Captain Jean-Luc Picard and Captain Vasco Rodrigues making some easy money. Please, waste your time on something else.
World Cup
porkbilly30 May 2003
Despite the description on the previous page, this team did not win the World Cup - no USA team ever did. They simply beat a heavily favored England team in an opening round game. The grandiose description of this victory became the title of this film. They ended up losing in the quarter finals to Chile.
Game of their lives? or the way the producers wanted to see it.
raleighgranprix12 December 2009
This movie has fine soccer action on the field and fine acting, I can see a bit of why so many people like 'Hoosiers' a lot...
The real victory that took place at Belo Horizonte merits that story being retold to us without any embellishments.
Okay, first things first, in 1950, we the US were a real backwater of soccer, plain and simple and we were still far behind other countries at the 1990 World Cup though our LA Olympics performance in 1984 was very scrappy, so you can talk about other victories by other countries being as great and indeed, I would not argue about that but the facts still are that when countries such as Algeria, North Korea, Cameroon or Senegal defeated major soccer powers, these countries I mentioned have soccer as one of their major sports if not the main one. We were a blooming "minnow" like Faroe Islands or something and everyone and their dog knew it, low men on the totem pole, perhaps a bit the way Canada is today in soccer. So yes, this is one of the greatest international upsets of all time and merited a movie being made about it ( and for the record, yes, there is another film, sounds like a documentary out there called "The game of their lives", it's about North Korea team in 1966 and yes, that was another great upset so I don't call one upset greater than another). There is a book, "soccer in a football world" that details the development of US soccer. Sure, from time to time, we may have had some glimpses of potential and accomplishments in the sport like being a 1930 semifinalist in the first World Cup ever held but times were different and the tournament much smaller. So, what these guys did was totally out of the blue. Since so many stats are being tossed up, less than a year earlier, Ireland defeated England 2-0 in what I believe is the first time a none-UK ever won on English soil. The UK teams battled each other often over there such as England vs. Wales, etc. All of these stats can be checked out at Elo ratings. Indeed, the US' win was a staggering result all the same.
I think this film is quite a revision of the book it is based on by Geoffrey Douglas, it leans a lot on the St. Louis end, that is fair but that should be acknowledged. I really don't think that is as central to the original book except that by the way, St. Louis was the base for a long time of the US Soccer Federation. I believe the screen writer had an agenda with this point of view and that it may not be totally accurate. The Brits I must say are shown as arrogant but back then, their players worked hard for their wages and were not payed high amounts of money, their wages were really not much higher than that of other occupations. I've read Sir Stanley Matthews book "The way it was" and the 1950 World Cup and this game are spoken about and it is quite a bit different than the way we are told the details of the game. I seriously find this to be a flaw in the movie and I wonder about some other possible historical inaccuracies too. After all, this is a "feel good" Rah-Rah type of movie but it should not be playing fast and loose with the facts either. For historical accuracy, this is more like a six star movie though this would be a matter of research. I'm not positive the depiction of Joseph Gaetjens is accurate and compare it to how the others are portrayed. Perhaps we understand that when we find out the screen play writer's name is Angelo Pizzo.
For soccer action it is excellent, I believe only 'Escape to victory' is as close with soccer greats like Pele, Bobby Moore and Osvaldo Ardiles lighting up the screen. The 'Goal' movies and 'A shot at glory' are good in that vein as well. The story moves along very smoothly and is exciting, clearly, the producers had a good understanding of soccer, the sport itself. As a soccer movie, this is close to 10 stars.
South Africa 2010, these two teams meet again!
The real victory that took place at Belo Horizonte merits that story being retold to us without any embellishments.
Okay, first things first, in 1950, we the US were a real backwater of soccer, plain and simple and we were still far behind other countries at the 1990 World Cup though our LA Olympics performance in 1984 was very scrappy, so you can talk about other victories by other countries being as great and indeed, I would not argue about that but the facts still are that when countries such as Algeria, North Korea, Cameroon or Senegal defeated major soccer powers, these countries I mentioned have soccer as one of their major sports if not the main one. We were a blooming "minnow" like Faroe Islands or something and everyone and their dog knew it, low men on the totem pole, perhaps a bit the way Canada is today in soccer. So yes, this is one of the greatest international upsets of all time and merited a movie being made about it ( and for the record, yes, there is another film, sounds like a documentary out there called "The game of their lives", it's about North Korea team in 1966 and yes, that was another great upset so I don't call one upset greater than another). There is a book, "soccer in a football world" that details the development of US soccer. Sure, from time to time, we may have had some glimpses of potential and accomplishments in the sport like being a 1930 semifinalist in the first World Cup ever held but times were different and the tournament much smaller. So, what these guys did was totally out of the blue. Since so many stats are being tossed up, less than a year earlier, Ireland defeated England 2-0 in what I believe is the first time a none-UK ever won on English soil. The UK teams battled each other often over there such as England vs. Wales, etc. All of these stats can be checked out at Elo ratings. Indeed, the US' win was a staggering result all the same.
I think this film is quite a revision of the book it is based on by Geoffrey Douglas, it leans a lot on the St. Louis end, that is fair but that should be acknowledged. I really don't think that is as central to the original book except that by the way, St. Louis was the base for a long time of the US Soccer Federation. I believe the screen writer had an agenda with this point of view and that it may not be totally accurate. The Brits I must say are shown as arrogant but back then, their players worked hard for their wages and were not payed high amounts of money, their wages were really not much higher than that of other occupations. I've read Sir Stanley Matthews book "The way it was" and the 1950 World Cup and this game are spoken about and it is quite a bit different than the way we are told the details of the game. I seriously find this to be a flaw in the movie and I wonder about some other possible historical inaccuracies too. After all, this is a "feel good" Rah-Rah type of movie but it should not be playing fast and loose with the facts either. For historical accuracy, this is more like a six star movie though this would be a matter of research. I'm not positive the depiction of Joseph Gaetjens is accurate and compare it to how the others are portrayed. Perhaps we understand that when we find out the screen play writer's name is Angelo Pizzo.
For soccer action it is excellent, I believe only 'Escape to victory' is as close with soccer greats like Pele, Bobby Moore and Osvaldo Ardiles lighting up the screen. The 'Goal' movies and 'A shot at glory' are good in that vein as well. The story moves along very smoothly and is exciting, clearly, the producers had a good understanding of soccer, the sport itself. As a soccer movie, this is close to 10 stars.
South Africa 2010, these two teams meet again!
good movie for football fans
daviddavidlim862 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
this is a good movie for football fans to watch just before the biggest show in football kicks off, i.e. the 2006 World Cup.. no stars in this movie apart from Patrick Stewart but it bodes p well.. v similar to World's Fastest Indian if not as good but it does give ya a glimpse of the perceptions of football in those days when England still considered themselves to be the masters of the game they invented..
in fact, the original result hardly made headlines back in England.. the English just didn't care about the World Cup until 1962, the last tournament before they would host it.. to the English, the World Cup was a joke as they still thought themselves to be the undisputed World Champions of the world..
of course, history tells us that England has only won the World Cup once when they were hosts in 1966 with a team as talented but more adept to the changes in world football than the one which lost to the USA in 1950.. as for the USA, they only made the World Cup again in 1990 before they hosted the tournament in 1994..
in the movie there is no mention about how the Americans had to qualify for the World Cup beating the likes of Guatemala and Mexico, nor about how they had to beat Spain to progress to the second round of the tournament.. but i guess the one result that everyone remembers is that game against England in beautiful Belo Horizonte and how they beat the team that called themselves the World Champions before a ball had been kicked.
hopefully in a couple of years time, they might make a movie about another shock win by the Americans at a World Cup tournament 52 years later, when they beat a Portugal team full of stars 3-2..
in fact, the original result hardly made headlines back in England.. the English just didn't care about the World Cup until 1962, the last tournament before they would host it.. to the English, the World Cup was a joke as they still thought themselves to be the undisputed World Champions of the world..
of course, history tells us that England has only won the World Cup once when they were hosts in 1966 with a team as talented but more adept to the changes in world football than the one which lost to the USA in 1950.. as for the USA, they only made the World Cup again in 1990 before they hosted the tournament in 1994..
in the movie there is no mention about how the Americans had to qualify for the World Cup beating the likes of Guatemala and Mexico, nor about how they had to beat Spain to progress to the second round of the tournament.. but i guess the one result that everyone remembers is that game against England in beautiful Belo Horizonte and how they beat the team that called themselves the World Champions before a ball had been kicked.
hopefully in a couple of years time, they might make a movie about another shock win by the Americans at a World Cup tournament 52 years later, when they beat a Portugal team full of stars 3-2..
DULL, DULL, DULL!!! (and uneventful)
ljarsonbeck-15 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I'm sure the producers were hoping for "MIRACLE" on a soccer field- but a dream is only a dream. After viewing this film you will find soccer less exciting than golf. The director spends an hour introducing the characters many of whom are underdeveloped and others who are unlikeable. They introduce a negro player who the coach insists can't join the team but the next day he joins and no one offers an explanation as to why it was so easy for him to join but that's o.k. since the coach never explained why he couldn't join in the first place. John Rhys Davies plays the coach and if you find Davies a fairly lame actor you won't be disappointed he is dry and flat here as well. On to the big tune up game- well it was kind of quick and for some reason in the 2 minutes they show of the game they decide the center "must go!!". The audience knows not why since we never saw him play in those 2 minutes nor does the director show/ explain the importance of his role on the team (11 players on the field the center is the reason the team sucks you'd think this would be a nice time to touch on a few points about the role of center in soccer). On to the big game. The first half is 4 minutes then the coach comes in for a lame-o speech proving him the least inspiring leader written for the silver screen(kind of sad when you consider they had days into the shoot for dramatic rewrite- way to go MR. Director) the second half is 3 minutes and the film ends without the audience being lifted by the event! Perhaps the director should have spent less time under developing unlikeable characters and more time on the heart and soul of the game because there was no drama!!! no sign of exhaustion by the players no sacrifice on the field no sign of I assure you this director had no game plan taking on this project!! In fact he had less than that since the 1950 U.S. World Cup team had no game plan but walked away with a victory!! Not even worth a $5.50 walmart dump bin purchase. I gave it a 4 since I could at least see an effort- but it was a bad movie.
Loved the look and feel of this film----
Ishallwearpurple25 April 2005
"The Game Of Their Lives" lives up to expectations as a exciting underdog sports movie. I loved it. Saw it in a theater with only 3 other people - at noon, on a Monday, raining - but it didn't matter because I was engaged and wrapped up in the 1950's story of a bunch of ordinary guys who did something extraordinary.
Based on a real event with real, still living, people it is about heros of WWII who came home and went about their lives until asked to form a team for the World Cup soccer matches. They have only weeks and decide to get some players from the east coast and some from one area of St. Louis, MO. from the Italian enclave known as The Hill.
Frank Borghi (Gerard Butler) is the goalie and a leader of the group. The challenge is to get the whole group to pull together and mesh the different styles to make a team that may make a good showing. They don't expect to win as most of the teams they will play are more or less professionals and/or have played together for years.
The soccer playing is exciting even for this old gal who knows little about the game. The cinematography is very good and keeps the pace of the game and shots of the crowds and sports announcers ticking along and by the end when time runs out on the English players, and the Americans have won this great upset, I was ready to cheer too.
I disagree with most of the reviews I have read. This is a good sports movie and the performances and pacing are as good as "Rudy" or any other underdog film.
One thing I loved was the look of the people and homes and cars. It was the 1950's again and the music I danced to was just right. One for my movie collection. 9/10
Based on a real event with real, still living, people it is about heros of WWII who came home and went about their lives until asked to form a team for the World Cup soccer matches. They have only weeks and decide to get some players from the east coast and some from one area of St. Louis, MO. from the Italian enclave known as The Hill.
Frank Borghi (Gerard Butler) is the goalie and a leader of the group. The challenge is to get the whole group to pull together and mesh the different styles to make a team that may make a good showing. They don't expect to win as most of the teams they will play are more or less professionals and/or have played together for years.
The soccer playing is exciting even for this old gal who knows little about the game. The cinematography is very good and keeps the pace of the game and shots of the crowds and sports announcers ticking along and by the end when time runs out on the English players, and the Americans have won this great upset, I was ready to cheer too.
I disagree with most of the reviews I have read. This is a good sports movie and the performances and pacing are as good as "Rudy" or any other underdog film.
One thing I loved was the look of the people and homes and cars. It was the 1950's again and the music I danced to was just right. One for my movie collection. 9/10
come on guys let's be serious
greek_samurai6926 April 2006
First of all I'm not American that does not mean i hate Americans or their movies. I was raised with movies that showed that the underdog could win just once and be proud of it.My own country won the European championship.They were the #1 underdog of the whole championship.So am just saying thats OK to make movies about such great victories but in every sport movie i have watched the team always made to the finals and either won (the most cases were like this ) or lost (a new trend that i first saw in Coach Carter).But here this is just a waste of film and time, the U.S. team won 1 match in the 1950 world cup, that was against England who was a superpower i give you that but lost the other two against Spain and Chille.For further information England never made it to the finals,but Spain did(they won against England 1-0).In my opinion this victory is great but not a reason to make a movie out of it.And just a final reflection there have been many underdogs that accomplished something extraordinary in football history none of them made a movie ,this movie is just the American attitude on film "we are the best in everything"
Enjoyed but one thing lacking
drl291629 April 2005
I very much enjoyed this movie. The return in time to 1950 was well done & very realistic. The movie did a nice job of recreating one of the most forgotten episodes in USA sports history. There is one thing I would have liked to have seen and that would have been an 'epilogue' at the end of the film stating what these players did with the rest of their lives. This is what was done at the end of movies such as 'Chariots of Fire' and 'American Graffiti'. I do know that Walter Bahr ended up as the soccer coach at Penn State. I know that Harry Keough was the soccer coach at St. Louis U. when they won five NCAA titles. It would have been nice to see these kind of summaries about all of the featured players.
A bit of a farce...
dopeydave9830 November 2007
OK... if ever there was a movie that needs to be taken with a pinch of salt then this is it. In the final present day scenes the voice over actually says "still considered the greatest upset in World Cup history" which actually made me laugh out loud. I'd be interested to know who actually thinks that. So let's get a few facts straight.
England (and I do mean England not "the Brits" as they are referred to in the movie) were not considered the best team in the world, that was Brazil. The World Cup in 1950 was not the event it is today. Many of the best teams were not present due to the cost of getting a team over to Brazil. The game was a first round group game, so nobody won anything, or even progressed. In fact the US lost their other two games and England proved they weren't the best by losing to Spain as well. All of this seems to be conveniently omitted from the movie.
However I will forgive all of this and focus on the single event, which seems to be the movies intention. "The Game of Their Lives" as a title is somewhat off the mark. A better title might be "The Day England Couldn't Hit A Barn Door", or perhaps "The Keeper Played A Blinder". These kind of games happen all the time in football. The best team hits the woodwork several times, their striker misses a sitter or two, the opposition keeper plays out of his skin. Then the underdogs get a dodgy penalty, or an own goal or (as in this case) a deflected shot goes in. And there we have it 1-0.
And that's the problem with the movie, it just wasn't that big a deal. This has happened many times in World Cup history. Korea beating Italy in '66, Algeria beating West Germany in '82, Cameroon beating Argentina in '90, Senegal beating France and Korea beating Italy (again) in '02. All these wins were against World Cup winners and are certainly considered bigger upsets in the scope of World Cup history. Even looking at this from the USA's point of view it's skewed. They made the semi finals in 1930 and in 2002 reached the Quarter Finals beating Portugal and Mexico along the way. Both these performances are more worthy than the 1950 exploits.
So if we view the movie as an uplifting piece of fiction it doesn't really work. Nobody scored a miracle goal. The team didn't become champions. So in this sense it fails too. The movie is well made and the cinematography is great. Solid performances but very clichéd characterisations. It just seems to me the screenplay picks and chooses which facts to go with and which ones to blatantly ignore. Including the first game against Spain would have added to the story. At least there would have been the element of winning off the back of a defeat.
There are many better underdog movies out there, most of which actually stick to the facts.
England (and I do mean England not "the Brits" as they are referred to in the movie) were not considered the best team in the world, that was Brazil. The World Cup in 1950 was not the event it is today. Many of the best teams were not present due to the cost of getting a team over to Brazil. The game was a first round group game, so nobody won anything, or even progressed. In fact the US lost their other two games and England proved they weren't the best by losing to Spain as well. All of this seems to be conveniently omitted from the movie.
However I will forgive all of this and focus on the single event, which seems to be the movies intention. "The Game of Their Lives" as a title is somewhat off the mark. A better title might be "The Day England Couldn't Hit A Barn Door", or perhaps "The Keeper Played A Blinder". These kind of games happen all the time in football. The best team hits the woodwork several times, their striker misses a sitter or two, the opposition keeper plays out of his skin. Then the underdogs get a dodgy penalty, or an own goal or (as in this case) a deflected shot goes in. And there we have it 1-0.
And that's the problem with the movie, it just wasn't that big a deal. This has happened many times in World Cup history. Korea beating Italy in '66, Algeria beating West Germany in '82, Cameroon beating Argentina in '90, Senegal beating France and Korea beating Italy (again) in '02. All these wins were against World Cup winners and are certainly considered bigger upsets in the scope of World Cup history. Even looking at this from the USA's point of view it's skewed. They made the semi finals in 1930 and in 2002 reached the Quarter Finals beating Portugal and Mexico along the way. Both these performances are more worthy than the 1950 exploits.
So if we view the movie as an uplifting piece of fiction it doesn't really work. Nobody scored a miracle goal. The team didn't become champions. So in this sense it fails too. The movie is well made and the cinematography is great. Solid performances but very clichéd characterisations. It just seems to me the screenplay picks and chooses which facts to go with and which ones to blatantly ignore. Including the first game against Spain would have added to the story. At least there would have been the element of winning off the back of a defeat.
There are many better underdog movies out there, most of which actually stick to the facts.
For sports movie fans only.
downward20 May 2005
When I first heard about this movie, I hoped it was a Hollywood version of the 2002 British documentary The Game of Their Lives, which was about a North Korean team's surprise bid for the 1966 World Cup. Even when I found out the 2005 film had nothing to do with the earlier documentary, I gave it a chance. It is definitely for people who like movies like Hoosiers and Boaz Yakin's Remember the Titans, and want to see that kind of movie repackaged over and over and over again. The writer (Angelo Pizzo) and director (David Anspaugh) simply pulled out all the clichés of the underdog sports movie, set it on a soccer field, and then shot it. My gosh, the inspirational locker-room talk before they go attempt to topple the giants was like something you'd hear in a high school locker room (coaches quoting from bad films). Let's see... Anspaugh and Pizzo have applied their formula to basketball and football and now soccer. Set your watches... we should have a stand-up-and-cheer baseball movie from them in about... two years. CAN'T WAIT!!!
A group of unknowns make soccer history
maeindenver11 July 2005
This is a super story with lots of human interest and great soccer footage. Teaches you some sports history that most of the world is unfamiliar with -- especially since most Americans don't think the U.S. HAS a soccer history.
The acting is pretty darn good. They strayed a bit from some of this historical truth -- the Haitian guy was NOT into voodoo. But I guess that's par for the course in any movie. Would have like to know what happened to everyone following the game that is highlighted in the movie, as well as which team won the 1950 World Cup. But it made me go out and do some research -- always a good thing.
Definitely worth watching.
The acting is pretty darn good. They strayed a bit from some of this historical truth -- the Haitian guy was NOT into voodoo. But I guess that's par for the course in any movie. Would have like to know what happened to everyone following the game that is highlighted in the movie, as well as which team won the 1950 World Cup. But it made me go out and do some research -- always a good thing.
Definitely worth watching.
Did you know a Scotsman, Eddie McIlvenny, captained the USA in Brazil 55 years ago?
niall-odonoghue25 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Did you know that a Scotsman, Greenock-born Eddie McIlvenny, captained the USA team for that 1-0 win over England in Brazil 55 years ago?
Or that another Scotsman managed the USA team?
No, of course not, how could you, when Eddie McIlvenny's memory, and that of the team's Scottish manager, has been airbrushed out of the movie.
In the movie depicting that game, "The Game of Their Lives", it is an American footballer who wears the Captain's armband.
So, even if the game is otherwise watchable, I have voted 1 (awful) just as a reaction against that revisionist historical account of that game.
Or that another Scotsman managed the USA team?
No, of course not, how could you, when Eddie McIlvenny's memory, and that of the team's Scottish manager, has been airbrushed out of the movie.
In the movie depicting that game, "The Game of Their Lives", it is an American footballer who wears the Captain's armband.
So, even if the game is otherwise watchable, I have voted 1 (awful) just as a reaction against that revisionist historical account of that game.
We got Game!
callmomrad24 April 2005
O.K., how many of you know that the U.S. beat a heavily-favored English team in a 1950 World Cup Soccer upset? No? No-one? Researching the annals of Sports headlines would not necessarily provide you with the correct information, as the win was so astonishing that the final score of 0-1 was assumed by British journalists to be a typo, and was reported as an English victory of 10-1! And the American Press was too busy covering the onset of the Korean War to pay much attention to the unexpected triumph by a hastily thrown-together U.S. team in a sport which had not yet caught on in the States.
The Game of Their Lives exists to correct this glaring omission in Sports History. David Anspaugh (Hoosiers, Rudy) has directed the quintessential Soccer movie, compelling in its simplicity. Forced by an extremely limited budget to pare this true story down to its bare bones, what emerges is a straight-forward accounting of the American Spirit. On my way to the St. Louis premiere, an African taxi driver put it succinctly, yet enthusiastically, commenting, "Yes! Yes! That's what you Americans do! You make up your minds, pull things together and get things done!" The minimalist story is told in flashback.
Patrick Stewart (Yes, Star Trek) lends his authoritative voice to narration, in the role of Dent McSkimming, the only American reporter to cover the game in Brazil, traveling at his own expense. The setting is primarily "the Hill," a working class Italian-American neighborhood of St. Louis, MO. Against a visually accurate if somewhat nostalgic depiction of post-WW2 optimism and Family Values, the team players selected just weeks before the first round World Cup matches are introduced. It is immediately clear from their devotion to the game that Soccer is a thinly-veiled metaphor for Life for these amateurs. Against this backdrop of a simpler time, a result-oriented male psyche is exposed.
Gerard Butler gives a stand-out performance as Frank Borghi, the steadfast Goalie who is the heart of the team. Mr. Butler has demonstrated incredible range in recent films, going from action hero (Tomb Raider II) to big budget musical (Phantom of the Opera), to independent foreign film (Dear Frankie), to this near-documentary Sports ensemble piece. Just as Borghi is the glue which cements the U.S. team, Butler holds the cast together with an unrelenting presence. His measured determination is balanced against the frustrated pessimism of the titular Team Captain, the less-than-charismatic yet eminently practical Walter Bahr - who went on to coach at Penn State, played by Wes Bentley (American Beauty). Also turning in notable performances are the Mandylor brothers, Costas and Louis, together in a movie for the first time, portraying unrelated players. The personal stories rivet the audience to the chain of events which culminate in the eponymous game.
The match in question was played and shot on location in Brazil. Despite foreknowledge of the outcome, game play is heart-stoppingly exciting and the camera angles place you in the thick of the competition. There is some real Soccer being played on screen! Although I am not an avid Sports fan, I was surprised to find myself on the edge of my seat and carried away by the immediacy of the action. At the premiere in St. Louis, it was heart-warming to see several of the original players in person, including Frank Borghi, being finally honored after 55 years for their remarkable achievement.
The Game of Their Lives exists to correct this glaring omission in Sports History. David Anspaugh (Hoosiers, Rudy) has directed the quintessential Soccer movie, compelling in its simplicity. Forced by an extremely limited budget to pare this true story down to its bare bones, what emerges is a straight-forward accounting of the American Spirit. On my way to the St. Louis premiere, an African taxi driver put it succinctly, yet enthusiastically, commenting, "Yes! Yes! That's what you Americans do! You make up your minds, pull things together and get things done!" The minimalist story is told in flashback.
Patrick Stewart (Yes, Star Trek) lends his authoritative voice to narration, in the role of Dent McSkimming, the only American reporter to cover the game in Brazil, traveling at his own expense. The setting is primarily "the Hill," a working class Italian-American neighborhood of St. Louis, MO. Against a visually accurate if somewhat nostalgic depiction of post-WW2 optimism and Family Values, the team players selected just weeks before the first round World Cup matches are introduced. It is immediately clear from their devotion to the game that Soccer is a thinly-veiled metaphor for Life for these amateurs. Against this backdrop of a simpler time, a result-oriented male psyche is exposed.
Gerard Butler gives a stand-out performance as Frank Borghi, the steadfast Goalie who is the heart of the team. Mr. Butler has demonstrated incredible range in recent films, going from action hero (Tomb Raider II) to big budget musical (Phantom of the Opera), to independent foreign film (Dear Frankie), to this near-documentary Sports ensemble piece. Just as Borghi is the glue which cements the U.S. team, Butler holds the cast together with an unrelenting presence. His measured determination is balanced against the frustrated pessimism of the titular Team Captain, the less-than-charismatic yet eminently practical Walter Bahr - who went on to coach at Penn State, played by Wes Bentley (American Beauty). Also turning in notable performances are the Mandylor brothers, Costas and Louis, together in a movie for the first time, portraying unrelated players. The personal stories rivet the audience to the chain of events which culminate in the eponymous game.
The match in question was played and shot on location in Brazil. Despite foreknowledge of the outcome, game play is heart-stoppingly exciting and the camera angles place you in the thick of the competition. There is some real Soccer being played on screen! Although I am not an avid Sports fan, I was surprised to find myself on the edge of my seat and carried away by the immediacy of the action. At the premiere in St. Louis, it was heart-warming to see several of the original players in person, including Frank Borghi, being finally honored after 55 years for their remarkable achievement.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
