Too formulaic to be great

Rating: 7/10 (24 July 2008)

If "Hoosiers" was the first movie I'd ever seen, I'd give it a 10.
This movie has all the elements of a great story. It's, on the surface, an exciting movie depicting a shorthanded boys basketball team from a tiny high school that is inspired to overachieve by a middle-aged coach seeking redemption. Most viewers surely root for the players and coach.
In addition, "Hoosiers" has, on the surface, many very interesting external and internal character conflicts. The coach, played by Gene Hackman, battles the town's old-timers, who are resistant to outsiders and anyone with new ideas and methods. The coach also battles players unaccustomed to working hard on defense and passing as well as a teacher/assistant principal who is more interested in academics than sports.
The stories of a drunk ex-basketball star being given a chance to be an assistant coach and a star player who won't join the team until he respects the coach are also, on the surface, compelling.
"Hoosiers," though, is not the first movie I've seen. In fact, I've watched plenty of movies that have excellent stories like "Hoosiers" does, but also have way more depth beneath the surface. In short, this movie is way too formulaic and unsurprising to be great.
How was "Hoosiers" unsurprising? As I watched Hackman's character meet and argue with the teacher played by Barbara Hershey, I jotted down a prediction that they would have a romance. Check. As I watched the principal tell Hackman that Jimmy, who was not on the team, was a great player, I predicted that he would return to the squad and lead it to the championship. Check. And, obviously, I knew Hackman would win over his players and the town.
Nevertheless, "Hoosiers" would have been outstanding if it had depth and more interesting characters. "Rocky" was formulaic in many ways, but it had quirky characters who were developed, surprising and compelling scenes, and passionate dialogue.
"Hoosiers," though, didn't thoroughly develop characters like Jimmy and the assistant coach played by Dennis Hopper, dealt superficially with subplots, and had dialogue that had the feel of trite coach sportspeak rather than moving in-depth conversations.
Defending the film's formulaic nature by saying it's based on a true story just doesn't cut it because it is NOT close to being non-fiction. In fact, I wonder how people came to believe the movie was based on reality.
Wikipedia's list of differences between reality and "Hoosiers" is very long. This might be typical, but the movie's two major premises differ from reality. The real coach was not a hotheaded middle-aged single guy and Milan High was a preseason favorite, not an underdog.
I know my review focuses on the negative. This is because I am trying to make the point that "Hoosiers" had a chance for greatness, but came up short.
The truth is that "Hoosiers" is still a pretty good movie. I give it a 7.
ZWrite