MovieChat Forums > Miracle on Ice (1981) Discussion > The movie miracle was better.

The movie miracle was better.


Not to knock Karl Malden but Kurt Russell was a much better Herb Brooks.

reply

what about the goot??

reply

I won't dispute that Russell made for a better Herb Brooks, but "Miracle On Ice" is still the superior film.

reply

One observation that I read on YouTube is that Russell's interpretation of Herb Brooks was deliberately putting on a tough guy act as a means to get the team going and united (even if it was against him). Karl Malden's interpretation just comes across like a straight up drill sergeant (think the Sgt. Hartman character from Full Metal Jacket) .

reply

I wonder if "Miracle on Ice" gets a really bad wrap now (besides the obvious argument that Karl Malden was way too old to play Herb Brooks) due to the fact that unlike in "Miracle", they used stock footage from the actual games in Lake Placid. It just gave the production a very "cheap-jack" type of feel. Whereas "Miracle", being a feature film production from Disney (and not a made-for-TV movie being made just a under year after the actual Olympics took place), was much more polished and slick.

reply

Karl Malden as Herb Brooks is something that you really, really, really have to suspend your disbelief over. Everybody who has seen and reviewed the 1981 movie has attested, and I will too in saying that Malden was no matter how hard he tried, simply way too old to be playing Herb Brooks. Granted, Kurt Russell wasn't exactly the same age that Brooks was during the 1980 Olympics (he was about 10 years older in real life when they shot the 2004 movie), but Russell still looked more vibrant, "in his prime", and youthful to make it believable. Karl Malden just looks like somebody's tired, grumpy old grandpa. And everybody who knows what the real Herb Brooks looked like, knows that he was actually a really slick looking, handsome guy. Malden even without the age discrepancy, was too rumbled and burly looking for the part.

reply