Very good in the right venue, but not a super-great film

Rating: Null/10 (1 February 2001)

My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie....and we're not big football fans either. But after reading many of the negative reviews, I feel some aspects of this film deserve some defense.
We first watched this film on DVD projected (in widescreen format) on a 120" screen with over 1000 watts of surround sound. Then late one night I happened to catch it on HBO, and watched it again. This time it was on a regular 35" TV, without surround-sound, and without widescreen (pan and scan).
What a difference, and I don't simply mean that bigger and louder will necessarily make a "bad" movie a "good" film. But what too many people don't seem to understand or appreciate is that many movies today are shot, directed and edited with the idea that they will be seen in an actual "theater"....either the concrete nuclear bomb-shelter at the end of your local mall, or the kind more and more folks are enjoying in their homes (and NO, you DON'T have to spend $50,000 to $200,000 for one either! We have no more than a few thousand dollars in ours).
Basically, if you watched it on a simple TV at home....then YOU DIDN'T SEE THIS MOVIE!
First, if it's not widescreen (letterboxed), then you cannot see a whole 1/3rd of the image that was filmed. Movies are made this way for a reason...we have TWO EYES, not just one. Second, if you have no surround-sound speakers then your ears and brain will not perceive the signals that help you become much more engaged in the images you see, or enveloped within the action. Third, a subwoofer goes a LONG way toward feeling those hits by the players on the field!
It's just like someone who puts the cheapest tires on a new Ferrari and then complains that the whole car sucks! And, has no idea as to why.
Another aspect related to the visualization of this movie is that Oliver Stone does not present images in a mainstream manner...and this obviously alienates some viewers. Fact is, he's playing with the way we humans process visual information, and more often than not, the impact is greater than the simple hum-drum we're fed all the rest of the time. I certainly wouldn't want to see it in every movie (e.g., Godfather, Big Chill, etc.), but sometimes it works (e.g., Private Ryan, Insider).
Some thought there was little or no plot, or storyline. If you had attended and paid attention in English class, you'd have learned more than just the language ('nuff said).
Some also compared it unfavorably to movies made long ago (North Dallas Forty was common), and that there was nothing new here. While I might agree with some of those sentiments, we should all be aware that there is a very sizable audience out there younger than us (I'm 40), who haven't seen those films.......this is all new to them. As far as Hollywood beancounters are concerned, these "kids" represent a huge amount of the revenue. I see a ton of re-tread on film and TV constantly...but us "'ol timers" should keep some prespective. Some might even say there aren't many really "new" stories for movies....at least not ones that would sell anyway.
And comparing this movie to 'Replacements' is like comparing sugarless bubble-gum to a boilermaker (a shot & a beer). Gimme a break!
As for the numerous Europeans & Aussies out there who complained and said American football is for sissies...... HEY! You KNEW what the movie was about before you saw it, and you don't see us (relatively) uninformed and unappreciative yanks whining about YOUR games do ya?!
-end of rant