Misinterpreted.

Rating: Null/10 (16 April 2002)

I am surprised that there has been so little commented on the main theme of the movie: a sociological and philosophical matter that has been the point of conjecture for many years to students and academics the world over. I am of course referring to the notion of "amateurism", which is the main issue of the movie.
People seem to be missing the point - amateurism was a blatant tool for class warfare, no matter how idealistic it's philosophies. This movie offers prime examples of the mechanisms behind amateurism, and give good working examples of the cult of muscular christianity in Edwardian English society.
Now, this my all seem like academic dribble to some people, but it can't be denied that sport plays a huge part in society. And the modern Olympics are the big players in sport. Amateurism and it's enforces have shaped sport and thus society for over 100 years now, and this movie is giving examples of this. It is NOT glorifying anything, as is the opinion of my friends. It is trying to make a statement, and show people some of the perspectives involved.
As I said earlier, amateurism is a tool for class warfare. It's sad people don't get it...