OK... if ever there was a movie that needs to be taken with a pinch of salt then this is it. In the final present day scenes the voice over actually says "still considered the greatest upset in World Cup history" which actually made me laugh out loud. I'd be interested to know who actually thinks that. So let's get a few facts straight.
England (and I do mean England not "the Brits" as they are referred to in the movie) were not considered the best team in the world, that was Brazil. The World Cup in 1950 was not the event it is today. Many of the best teams were not present due to the cost of getting a team over to Brazil. The game was a first round group game, so nobody won anything, or even progressed. In fact the US lost their other two games and England proved they weren't the best by losing to Spain as well. All of this seems to be conveniently omitted from the movie.
However I will forgive all of this and focus on the single event, which seems to be the movies intention. "The Game of Their Lives" as a title is somewhat off the mark. A better title might be "The Day England Couldn't Hit A Barn Door", or perhaps "The Keeper Played A Blinder". These kind of games happen all the time in football. The best team hits the woodwork several times, their striker misses a sitter or two, the opposition keeper plays out of his skin. Then the underdogs get a dodgy penalty, or an own goal or (as in this case) a deflected shot goes in. And there we have it 1-0.
And that's the problem with the movie, it just wasn't that big a deal. This has happened many times in World Cup history. Korea beating Italy in '66, Algeria beating West Germany in '82, Cameroon beating Argentina in '90, Senegal beating France and Korea beating Italy (again) in '02. All these wins were against World Cup winners and are certainly considered bigger upsets in the scope of World Cup history. Even looking at this from the USA's point of view it's skewed. They made the semi finals in 1930 and in 2002 reached the Quarter Finals beating Portugal and Mexico along the way. Both these performances are more worthy than the 1950 exploits.
So if we view the movie as an uplifting piece of fiction it doesn't really work. Nobody scored a miracle goal. The team didn't become champions. So in this sense it fails too. The movie is well made and the cinematography is great. Solid performances but very clichéd characterisations. It just seems to me the screenplay picks and chooses which facts to go with and which ones to blatantly ignore. Including the first game against Spain would have added to the story. At least there would have been the element of winning off the back of a defeat.
There are many better underdog movies out there, most of which actually stick to the facts.
England (and I do mean England not "the Brits" as they are referred to in the movie) were not considered the best team in the world, that was Brazil. The World Cup in 1950 was not the event it is today. Many of the best teams were not present due to the cost of getting a team over to Brazil. The game was a first round group game, so nobody won anything, or even progressed. In fact the US lost their other two games and England proved they weren't the best by losing to Spain as well. All of this seems to be conveniently omitted from the movie.
However I will forgive all of this and focus on the single event, which seems to be the movies intention. "The Game of Their Lives" as a title is somewhat off the mark. A better title might be "The Day England Couldn't Hit A Barn Door", or perhaps "The Keeper Played A Blinder". These kind of games happen all the time in football. The best team hits the woodwork several times, their striker misses a sitter or two, the opposition keeper plays out of his skin. Then the underdogs get a dodgy penalty, or an own goal or (as in this case) a deflected shot goes in. And there we have it 1-0.
And that's the problem with the movie, it just wasn't that big a deal. This has happened many times in World Cup history. Korea beating Italy in '66, Algeria beating West Germany in '82, Cameroon beating Argentina in '90, Senegal beating France and Korea beating Italy (again) in '02. All these wins were against World Cup winners and are certainly considered bigger upsets in the scope of World Cup history. Even looking at this from the USA's point of view it's skewed. They made the semi finals in 1930 and in 2002 reached the Quarter Finals beating Portugal and Mexico along the way. Both these performances are more worthy than the 1950 exploits.
So if we view the movie as an uplifting piece of fiction it doesn't really work. Nobody scored a miracle goal. The team didn't become champions. So in this sense it fails too. The movie is well made and the cinematography is great. Solid performances but very clichéd characterisations. It just seems to me the screenplay picks and chooses which facts to go with and which ones to blatantly ignore. Including the first game against Spain would have added to the story. At least there would have been the element of winning off the back of a defeat.
There are many better underdog movies out there, most of which actually stick to the facts.