*** Official MIRACLE Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Chris_Morris]

In America this is being promoted as a stand up and cheer, feel good movie.

I can only assume that in Canada, it is being promoted as a tear-jerking tragedy.


Chris

 

[Merimac Hamwich]

I meant I couldn't tell if your post was sarcasm or not. Thing is, it probably would flop becuase it is an American team winning. No canadians want to see that.

Very true Chris_Morris.

 

[Jay Foster]

Hey,

I hope it doesn't flop anywhere. It was still a great movie.

 

[Dan Paolozza]

I doubt Canadians would care in this case - since it wasn't Team Canada in Russia's place, there's nothing to be emotionally invested in (or against). For the most part, it's a hockey movie, and that will draw in a modest Canadian crowd.

 

[MarkHastings]

I never went to Notre Dame, yet I loved "Rudy"

Or it's like saying I can't relate to the movie "John Q" because I'm not black.

The movie is about team spirit and the underdog prevailing. If you're only seeing this as a USA movie, then you're only looking at the surface.

 

[Jay Foster]

Mark,

I have to agree. It is about the underdog doing what they should not have been able to do.

 

[Shea]

If the US ever became better at hockey than Canada, I wonder if the Canadian population would commit mass suicide. Since it's the most important thing in the world to them, I don't think they'd have anything else to live for other than freezing their butts off.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

ROFL

Mark I have to agree with you on what this movie is really all about very well put.

 

[MarkHastings]

I was just thinking of this thread while watching Lawrence of Arabia the other night. The fact that I am not British, Arab, nor Turkish, and this movie was still awesome. The fact that Lawrence crossed a desert that everyone said couldn't be crossed was more exciting to me than me thinking "I can't relate to this because I'm not British or Arab".

I would hope that everyone can view this movie (Miracle) from a different angle. Sure, Americans are going to see the patriotism side of the story. The hockey fans are going to like the hockey part of it, and others will love the comradery aspects of a group of men teaming together as a unit to defeat a dominant foe.

Dan, if you've already dismissed this movie because you can't find an emotional attachment, than I ask you to look at other movies that you love that may not have any attachment to you. How about Gladiator? That had nothing to do with the US or Canada, so should we immediately dismiss it? Should we not see Lord of the Rings because we don't live in Middle Earth or New Zealand?

It sounds pretty shallow to not want to see a movie because it doesn't involve your country.

 

[GARY C]

Well you're all still here and the Jays beat you twice.

But who cares.

A good movie is a good movie.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Yeah, but how many on those Blue Jays teams were Canadian?

 

[Jordan_E]

Just saw MIRACLE and liked it a lot! I am old enough to remember those games and yet the movie still had me anticipating that famous line. Hope Kurt Russell does a commentary on the DVD release.

 

[Jay Foster]

Hi,

I saw it "Again" and it is still great. I'm no hockey fan either. I live down South and we only had a minor league team for a few years but football is king down here but I still loved this movie.

 

[Jordan_E]

"Who do you play for?"
I'm not a hockey fan either, except for watching SLAP SHOT every once in awhile, but really enjoyed this movie, one of the few I may catch again in the theater.

 

[BrianShort]

Miracle finally made it to the local theater, so I went out and watched it last night. What a terrific film! It's definitely right there near the top of favorite sports films, and I too hope that we see a DVD SE that includes the actual game in its entirety (they could even include TV commercials from the era ).

I was wondering something while watching it. Was the Al Michaels commentary during the game recreated, or did they use the play by play from the actual broadcast? Along those lines, how well did they match up the hockey play in the movie with the actual plays made in the real game? I was only 2.5 years old at the time, so while I probably saw it, I definitely don't remember it.

Brian

 

[Eric Fisher]

It is the actual Michaels' game commentary. They tried to recreate all the plays accurately in the on-screen game.

 

[TonyD]

no it wasnt.
i just watched it and on one of the docs they show him recording the new commentary.
the only commentary from the real game is the last 10 seconds or so.

i guess there is no dvd review up yet.
seems like this one would have been one that would get priority, unless he didnt get a copy yet.

good movie but the section on putting the team together were much more interesting then the actual game scenes because i thought it was just to hard to see the game play due to the heavy am't of close-up camera shots.

not enough pull back shots to be able to see the action play out.

 

[MarkHastings]

I kind of liked that about the movie. The close up action made it easier to get into the movie because you were just focusing on the action (which created the drama). If you saw wide shots, I (a hockey fan) would probably have been picking out the flaws in play or just concentring on the moves which would have definitely pulled me out of the movie.

 

[TonyD]

i'm a hockey guy tooo, but all i could see during most of these scenes were heads and arms and legs.
it was hard to tell what part of the ice they were at and who the players were.

i also hated michaels voice over.
it was too fake sounding.

it reminds me of what the phils(and maybe other teams) did after they won the world series in 1980.
they recorded a vinyl record of highlights from the series, but since the networks had exclusive rights the phils recorded all the voice work after the games were over and you could tell.

 

[MarkHastings]

I hate (especially in tv shows) where there's a scene outside and they switch from dialogue that was recorded at the time of filming to ADR that was done later in the studio.

It's obvious that the mic was further away at the time of recording (which gives a different timbre to the recorded voice) as opposed to the re-recorded voice where the actor is obviously closer to the mic (in the studio), which gives the voice a different/deeper timbre.