Chariots of Fire

Rating: 6/10 (4 March 2016)

As an avid runner, I was more than excited to see Chariots of Fire, I was also perplexed as to why I hadn't seen it yet. Needless to say, I had high hopes for the 1981 Best Picture winner directed by Hugh Hudson. Unfortunately, I found myself largely disappointed. The look of the film was incredible. I have said it before, and will undoubtedly say it after today; I love film. I mean, I love movies shot on film. You don't get the look, like the one achieved in Chariots of Fire with digital films. When the film can lend so much to the story, like the gritty look achieved in the opening shot to distinguish the characters; the film is almost like a character itself. But enough of my monologue of the importance of the Film Preservation Society.
Chariots of Fire tells the story of two naturally-gifted British sprinters, Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson) and Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross). The story depicts how differently the athletes use their gifts in their respective lives. Abrahams, a Lithuanian practitioner of Judaism runs to cope with how different his Judaism makes him feel. Often looked down upon, his running prowess eventually garners him national respect and admiration. Conversely, Eric, the son of missionaries sees running as a way to enjoy notoriety and eventually get back into missionary work himself.
The acting in this film is fine, the story was solid, the pacing was too slow, and the purpose was lost. I am starting to see why I have waited so long to see the remaining Best Picture winners. Ben Cross, although he had a sympathetic character, overacted his plight, for my liking. Meanwhile, I found Ian Charleson more aloof than his character demanded. A larger problem that some questionable acting choices was the purpose of the movie. Other than the obvious statement against racism and ethnocentricism rife throughout the film, I don't know what I am supposed to have learned or gotten out of the film. Perhaps "racism is bad" was the only purpose, which remains an important message, but I believe there was more attempting to be communicated. It could have been that the message was over my head, however, regardless, it didn't strike me. I concede that another viewing will almost always help in situations like these, but herein lies the movie buff problem; if I didn't like it the first time, will I ever watch it again?