That Championship Season

Rating:
Summary: An Anthem for The Klan
Review: A very disappointing and tedious exercise that will hopefully prevent Paul Sorvino from directing another film. Except for another fine performance by Gary Sinise, don't expect to be moved, either physically or emotionally. It flows like a series of cliched bigotries, with no specific direction. The dialog spoken by the coach (Sorvino) is as vitriolic as the Edward Norton character in American History X, (and would most certainly be embraced by neo-Nazi groups). But at least in that movie, Norton's character experienced some ultimate redemption. In this film, the audience receives nothing in return for spending 2 hours with a quintet of pathetic white males. Yuck.

Rating:
Summary: THE ORIGINAL HERE...
Review: Hello, people, this is the ORIGINAL theatrical version (short, as its run was. It played longer on cable.) of the Jason Miller-directed film--NOT the Paul Sorvino-directed cable version (even though he ACTS in this one)!!!

Do we have that straight now??? That sort of eliminates some of the reviews below, as they aren't even correct as to which version they are reviewing.

Anyway, I must confess to being a bit prejudiced to this film being from Northeastern Pennsylvania. Jason Miller loved his Scranton, Lackawanna County in NEPA, so when it came time to shoot this film (It took him some time to arrange that.), he insisted that filming had to be done there, even though the majority of the film takes place in the coach's home (which was replicated in Hollywood from an actual residence in Scranton.).

The Scranton locales are meant to show the actual conditions of the city at the time of filming--hard times. Such was the 80's, when the malls ruled supreme. A run-down center city, the blue-collar-based population, but yet the small-town atmosphere of everyone knows everyone and "all politics is local".

This is a "good ol' boys" story, to be sure, and the language and bias are sure to offend some. It's nothing that doesn't exist in other pockets all across the United States. These are basically "good" people.

There are other, more important and relevant, themes to explore here. Friendship betrayed, alcoholism, corruption (both political and business), midlife crisis, adultery, mortality, family commitment and the list goes on. There are enough themes here that we can all relate to at least one of them--all tied together by the 25-year bond, weak as it is or strong as it is, between 4 former high school basketball players and their coach at the time.

The power that holds friends together for a lifetime in spite of all that tears and pulls them apart is the much more compelling story here.

Yes, there are still people in Scranton like the Mitchum character. This was the time of the Archie Bunkers. A breed that is slowly dying out, as Scranton and many cities and towns like it, are today more integrated than ever.

Just as the run-down train station was a repeated focus in the film of the Scranton's failures and collapse, it is today, in real-life, a symbol of how far the city has come since this film was made.

Not a bad reason to view this film and to take a visit to Scranton.

Rating:
Summary: the best drama iv'e seen in a while
Review: I cant beileve that this movie has only rented seven times in the video store i work in. It is the best drama iv'e seen in a long time great acting from everybody especially Paul Sorvino. It will make think about your life and what happens when you get close to too 40. And also being betrayed by your closest friends

Rating:
Summary: winning play
Review: It's not often a playwright gets to direct the film of his own play so Jason Miller's production of the Pultizer Prize winner, which took 10 years to reach the screen, brings great expectations. Miller seems to have opted to concentrate on the performances of his 5 principle players, as opposed to trying for any visual style, which is appropriate for this kind of ensemble Eugene O"Neill-ish drama. The stage origins of the material are still in evidence, by having the actors constantly moving from room to room but this hardly matters when the actors engender such good will. The set-up is the reunion of the 1957 high school state basketball champions of Scranton, Pennsylvania, at a time when Bruce Dern's Mayor is up for re-election. Thankfully the life as sport metaphor isn't pushed too much, and the coach that the four men all worship isn't revealed to be a phony. You may wonder why these grown men still seek the juvenile approval of a schoolboy teacher, but the reason is in the way he understands them, knows how to sooth their anguish, and still inspire them. He is a father who is both wise and loving. The deep-voiced Robert Mitchum brings both his strong masculinity and a delcate emapthy to the character. His coach doesn't need to swear or raise his voice. Just the laying on hands is enough, though his rejection of one of the men as a ploy strikes a false note, perhaps since this is the only time we see Mitchum reduced to phyisical violence. Perhaps I was also put off from this moment since the rejection follows the Edward Albee-ish mention of the player who has refused to reunite. The play's narrative doesn't cover any new ground but it does allow actors like Dern, Stacy Keach, and in particular Paul Sorvino and Martin Sheen to have richer and longer screen exposure. Sorvino is a revelation, perhaps explaining why he instigated a remake, and Sheen very funny, especially when he laughs. Of note is the quiet side to Bill Conti's score.

Rating:
Summary: powerful acting and true reality
Review: The movie is definitly unique and not for everyone but in my opion the best movie iv'e seen in ages.The diologue in the movie is very sophisticated and the acting very powerful there is so much going on you really have to listen.After having a close circle of friends iv'e started to realize what the movie is all about doubting your friends and being betrayed by them.And also realizing that your not were you want to be in life each character is very diffrent and is dealing with diffrent issues. This movie in some respects is better than these action blockbuster hits if your in to serious and sophisticated drama. This movie is for you watch it i garauntee you will be moved watch it when your happy or sad it doesent matter.This film cant be bashed except for the fact there is to much swearing. You might say oh it sounds to deppresing it is at times but so is real life that's what this movie is. True and sad reality and haning on to friendships.If you think this movie is bad you'd best email me and tell me [e-mail]

Rating:
Summary: Excellent theatre that doesn't translate well to film
Review: This is the second attempt to bring this thought provoking play to the mass market, this time through a TV movie now in rental. Thoreau is quoted as saying: "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." This play peels away the layers of self delusion to reveal such desperation in the insecurities, disappointments, unrealized potential and mediocrity of four men and a coach who's lives peaked in high school when they won the state basketball championship.

It is, unfortunately, a depiction too familiar to the many who never escaped their small town or neighborhood and live trying to salvage some feeling of dignity from the mediocrity and despair to which they have allowed their lives to sink.

At the 20th reunion at the coach's house (Paul Sorvino) the characters gradually reveal how pathetic their lives have become. There is the bitter coach, a unabashed bigot who still talks to grown men like they were teenaged basketball players and who believes all of life can be summed up in sports aphorisms.

James (Terry Kinney), a junior high school principal, is by far the most self delusional of the five, clearly a loser who never changed with the times, he believes he has a bright future in politics when he couldn't get elected to a sanitation post.

George (Tony Shalhoub) plays the mayor of Filmore, who has bungled his term in office and will imminently be voted out. He spends most of this time trying to convince himself and everyone else how popular and wonderful he is, when it is clear to everyone that he is a fool.

Phil (Vincent D'Onofrio) is a spoiled little rich boy who inherited his father's business which is now raping the environment for profit. He supports George's campaign so he can get variances that allow him to profit from this abuse.

Tom (a fabulous performance by Gary Sinese) is James brother, a vagabond alcoholic who ironically is the only one who sees the situation with any clarity. He is openly cynical of himself and the others and constantly speaks with justifiable disgust about all his peers and their miserable lives.

The problem with this and most plays that try to go to film is that unless the director adds uniqueness visually, or through the set, location, props or costumes, it just looks like you are watching a play through a window. Since you have lost the power of the live performance, it always loses something in translation.

Sorvino, as the director, failed to do this. He clearly focused on the actors performances (which were all exceptional) and did a brilliant job of recreating a great play on film. That did not make it a great film. It made it seem overly long and tedious. As a play I would give it a 9, as a film a 6.

This is not a film for everyone. One needs to get into a philosophical frame of mind and prepare to see an interesting character study of some very miserable characters. If you are an avid theater goer and can handle a downbeat drama about the failings of common people, I strongly recommend it. Otherwise look for some lighter fare.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent theatre that doesn't translate well to film
Review: This is the second attempt to bring this thought provoking play to the mass market, this time through a TV movie now in rental. Thoreau is quoted as saying: "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." This play peels away the layers of self delusion to reveal such desperation in the insecurities, disappointments, unrealized potential and mediocrity of four men and a coach who's lives peaked in high school when they won the state basketball championship.

It is, unfortunately, a depiction too familiar to the many who never escaped their small town or neighborhood and live trying to salvage some feeling of dignity from the mediocrity and despair to which they have allowed their lives to sink.

At the 20th reunion at the coach's house (Paul Sorvino) the characters gradually reveal how pathetic their lives have become. There is the bitter coach, a unabashed bigot who still talks to grown men like they were teenaged basketball players and who believes all of life can be summed up in sports aphorisms.

James (Terry Kinney), a junior high school principal, is by far the most self delusional of the five, clearly a loser who never changed with the times, he believes he has a bright future in politics when he couldn't get elected to a sanitation post.

George (Tony Shalhoub) plays the mayor of Filmore, who has bungled his term in office and will imminently be voted out. He spends most of this time trying to convince himself and everyone else how popular and wonderful he is, when it is clear to everyone that he is a fool.

Phil (Vincent D'Onofrio) is a spoiled little rich boy who inherited his father's business which is now raping the environment for profit. He supports George's campaign so he can get variances that allow him to profit from this abuse.

Tom (a fabulous performance by Gary Sinese) is James brother, a vagabond alcoholic who ironically is the only one who sees the situation with any clarity. He is openly cynical of himself and the others and constantly speaks with justifiable disgust about all his peers and their miserable lives.

The problem with this and most plays that try to go to film is that unless the director adds uniqueness visually, or through the set, location, props or costumes, it just looks like you are watching a play through a window. Since you have lost the power of the live performance, it always loses something in translation.

Sorvino, as the director, failed to do this. He clearly focused on the actors performances (which were all exceptional) and did a brilliant job of recreating a great play on film. That did not make it a great film. It made it seem overly long and tedious. As a play I would give it a 9, as a film a 6.

This is not a film for everyone. One needs to get into a philosophical frame of mind and prepare to see an interesting character study of some very miserable characters. If you are an avid theater goer and can handle a downbeat drama about the failings of common people, I strongly recommend it. Otherwise look for some lighter fare.