So basically I have to like it because you do and the BFI do. No freedom of thought or opinion in your world then.

This will shock you, I rarely rate the films that win Oscars - in fact most of them don't hold a candle to Spielbergs best and he's never won best film.

So again I don't rate it, I think it's poor and only holds a place in our hearts because of it's subject matter. It's wider aclaim came of the back of the Northern film boom of the early 1960 when frankly Pingu would have won an Oscar if voiced over by Brian Glover.

I'm speechless and for me, that's noteworthy in itself.

Personally I'd have thought you'd have picked up on the Pingu gag which I thought was the actual high point.

To clarify, never won best film as far as I'm aware - should have been clearer.

You are right though, you're rarely speechless - still can't be helped.

Ah I get it, a connoisseur of Czechoslovak New Wave and French Art-house. The oeuvre of Lindsay Anderson far too lightweight and accessible. Very esoteric!

Schindler's List won best picture 1994 dir. Steven Spielberg

Good, it deserved it.

You should meet Bren you could patronise each other to to death (though I hope Bren wins).

So despite not being the man of wealth, taste and intellect that you clearly are I will say it yet again, I DON'T LIKE THE FILM - live with an alternative view or go boil your head - either way I'm easy.

Well for once Vastman I find myself agreeing with you. This Sporting Life has a terrible storyline and does RL no favours. I find it depressing and pointless. The character Machin is a domestic thug and all I can say is I'm pleased he played for 'city' and not Trinity.
The only pleasing thing about the film to me is catching glimpses of my old boyhood heroes, the Dolphin pub and the old Mecca-the latter being long gone! Apart from that don't like it!

Whether or not it ranks in the top 100 British films of all time, it didn't fire the imagination of the British public when it was released, and crashed at the box office. In fact, it probably signalled the end of the genre of kitchen sink drama as such, until directors like Mike Leigh and Ken Loach appeared.

Popularity shouldn't be a measure of how good or bad something is, but I'm with Vastman on this one - it's a dreadful film, IMO. It lacks balance, not helped by the fact that the director had a crush on Richard Harris, and probably over-egged the misogynistic elements as a result.

I disagree with sandaltrinityfan about the storyline, though. I think it's a strong one, but it was rendered poorly. I'd love to see a modern remake.

I have my foot in both camps here, I actually thought Rachel Roberts was fantastic and the storyline had potential which it never actually fullfilled. Richard Harris on the other hand I thought was rather limp and looks disinterested.

I always look forward to watching it (mainly due to the Trinity connections) but halfway through I get rather bored
and it always leaves me feeling a tad despressed.

I do agree with RR though about seeing a modern remake. That would be very interesting.

I suggest Alan Carr plays Frank Machin in the remake - would make a great comedy



Arthur Lowe was brilliant in the original, prototype for Captain Mainwaring if ever there was.

It's a dead end story of desperation, futility, of being a pawn, of class of have's and have not's.

Whatever Machin did, his future was written. I don't think we were ever meant to like him.

It is not meant to represent Rugby League or Wakefield Trinity, but the bleak life of a worthless man (trying to use sport to break those chains), in a Northern industrial town.

It's a black film, meant to portray black times. This it does (to standards recognised by the Academy Awards nominations).

It seems it's not jolly/uplifting/Hollywoodised enough for some on here...but if it was, it wouldn't be "This Sporting Life".

That is very unfair and not your normal standard. I can do dark and depressing - hell man I have watched Trinity for 25 years! It doesn't have to be jolly for me to be good, it just has to be good and some of us clearly don't see it as such - why so defensive over a film that as you rightly state is not about WT or RL for the most part.

As for the Academies opinion and that of the cinema going public they have more often than not been at odds with each other and not mutually inclusive. HTH.

I haven't defended the film and haven't conveyed a personal opinion about it.

Simply saying that it should be judged for what it is and what it is meant to be.

It feels like some people are unhappy that the "hero", doesn't see the light and denounce spousal battery, find his feet within the team and lead them to victory against all odds, whilst convincing the nasty mine owners to let the workers have a day off each week (2 days at Christmas).

It's not ing Jerry Maguire!

Don't like Jerry Maguire either - show me the money! show me the exit please

I am comfortable with people not liking it, but not because it's grim with unlikeable characters - it's meant to be like that.

Anyway, you had me at "hello"!

You "complete" this message board!

It does this brilliantly for me with Harris perfectly suited with the brooding intensity he brings to the part he plays.

[size=150=#FF0000Gobbledygook post of the day![/size

And this is where it falls down for me. Machin doesn't have to be likeable, you don't need to empathise with him either, but Harris' portrayal is just too one-dimensional for me. I've read the critics' comments about the tension in every scene and that, but it lost its effect for me half way through the film, and I just ended up stifling the yawns.

I understand why people don't like it.
It’s ok not to like it; it’s an opinion after all.
My nephew thinks Field of Dreams is rubbish...it would be in my top 10...that's just how it is.

The black kitchen sink dramas of the time are not easy watching.
Wasn't that easy back then never mind now.

The difference for this argument is when you judge the film, are you judging the type of film, or the quality of it against others of its type.
It obviously has qualities, otherwise it wouldn't have won any awards, but is it better than the likes of Saturday Night Sunday Morning or Look Back in Anger, or even How Green Was My Valley? In my opinion no, but equally with the exception of HGWMV, I'm not that keen on any of them.

What it is to me however, is a monument.
It is firstly an indication of what the times were like in that era for working class in the north. Life's changed since then of course but you can look back without looking down on it.
The important monument for me though is seeing my father's heroes (and mine of course) and seeing Wakefield Trinity players and Belle Vue in its pomp of 1963. That surpasses the quality of the film and will make it a monument worth visiting every now and again.

What I notice about films of that period is that the main stars neve seem t get the regional northern accents right.I t was only the bit part players who got the west riding accent correct