MovieChat Forums > Fever Pitch (1997) Discussion > The 2005 version is better

The 2005 version is better

posted 19 years ago by mrx7777
78 replies | jump to latest

First of all, I must say that I saw the “American” version before I saw the “British” version. I personally think the American version is better then the British version in so many ways. I haven’t read the book so I can’t judge the adaptation of the British version, but I can say that I do like soccer/football and I don’t think it showed how fanatic some fans really can be. On the other hand, the American version was a good movie in almost every aspect. The acting was very good, both by Barrymore and Fallon, as was the chemistry between the two. In the British version you had the feeling the two characters hated each other and just put up with one another because they were a great shag. The British version just wasn’t funny in anyway, the jokes were lame and everything seemed depressing. From a Nick Hornby movie I expect to laugh at least now and again, but that didn’t happen in the British version. The music, the history of the game, the sub-plots, and the dramatic ending of the American version kept me captivated through the whole movie, even when I watched it a second and third time. The British movie was as boring as everyday life and I don’t want to take 90 minutes out of my life to see everyday life. I love movies about sports, and I mean any type of sport, be it Bend it like Beckham, The Mean Machine (a British remake of an American movie), Remember the Titans, Coach Carter, The Replacements, Any Given Sunday, The Rookie, The Natural and so on. The British version just didn’t give me anything in return for the lost 90 minutes. This is a case where the remake was superior to the original.

[–] neiltyrer 19 years ago

***Possible spoiler***

You don't have to worry about reading the book, the book is a story of his life supporting Arsenal from when he was a little boy, and into his adult life, he mentions women briefly in it.
I understand your point about the remake being better, and it helps that you saw the remake before the original. But it does show how fanatic the fans are, as in the crucial moment of the game, he tells the woman to do one. Im sure he would have stayed celebrating in the street had she not bumped into him.

I much prefer the original. Obvioulsy the remake had to have a big ending so it would appeal to the american audiences, and I enjoyed it very much, being a baseball fan also helped a bit.

By the way, In England, if a man or woman run onto the football pitch, I doubt they'd get further than 10 yards before being pounced on by nazi-like stewards and given a good hiding too - should see the stewards at my club, Gills, they'd give the romans a run for their money!!

Both enjoyable films, original my favourite by far though.

[–] excellor8 19 years ago

I tend to agree with original poster, though like both movies!

As an Aussie, I have some knowledge and appreciation of football (soccer - a second level sport here, played professionally) and baseball (I'd guess third level sport, main interest at Olympics time, with cricket pretty much taking it's audience and players), with no passion for either.

I'd seen the Colin Firth movie -on TV and video- and thoroughly enjoyed it, due almost entirely to Firth's charms, plus the drama of the awful Hillsborough tragedy. Those great scene's in the original, of them swaying in the stands to going home to the aftermath of Hillsbough on telly and him highlighting his passions, were brilliantly done.

After seeing the movie I read the book and must admit I found it too Arsenal-detail heavy to be very enjoyable. I could relate to bits and pieces and found myself liking the main character, but having never cared for Arsenal -who I thought of (from watching 'Match of The Day' here and there since the mid-70's) as a successful team- I wasn't "moved".

Then along came the remake ('Perfect Catch' in Aus and UK). I was interested all along and when the Red Sox were close again, I found myself tuning into ESPN to cheer them on- as any mutual sports fan with half an interest would. I was happy when they beat the Yankees then clinched the series, but I don't think it mattered when it came to the movie (Lindsey -Drew's character- had no idea of BoSox/baseball history either). Appreciation of any passion -and who can't relate to SOME passion- is all that mattered to relate to the movie. And this movie is good. Very very good.

Without a Hillsborough (gratefully!) for the Yanks to refer to, the Farrelly's found a couple with a great chemistry lacking in the original. Moreover they found a few extra layers to the leading man. Fallon, like Firth, played a very nice, charming, 'everyman' with passion for his sporting team (this 30-something woman would surrender to either of them!). What the latest leading man added was a level of confusion -the man/boy much better expressed imho- and a deeper emotional aspect to the story. I know for a fact, I'm not the only one to cry watching the remake.

We also got more insight into the Fenway Park experience which I really appreciated. Sharing opening day traditions, scenes inside the Park, etc was to me a privilege I'm never likely experience in my life... It added to the movie imo, though the sporting element has sadly turned others seeing one movie or the other. :(

Both are horribly underrated and underseen movies that deserve much better.
My rating; Fever Pitch, Colin Firth; 3.5 out of 5
FP/Perfect Catch, Fallon/Barrymore; 4.5 (-.5 for Yankees fans!)

[–] EyeIsMe 19 years ago

Hey neiltyrer...

Just to let you know, the comment you made about "the remake had to have a big ending so it would appeal to the american audiences" was slightly misguided.

The American version was SUPPOSED to have ended with the Red Sox losing, as they had done and crushed so many of us in previous years (yes, I am a lifelong fan and can relate to the story, on the other side though, because I'm female). But, as it happened, fate intervened and they won the Series. So the ending was reworked because of that.

To comment on something else you said:
I was ridiculously mad (like seething) when I saw Fallon and Barrymore on the field. I don't CARE WTF you're filming, or if you want the moment to be "real" with the fans. That was disgraceful to me that they were allowed to do that, it took something away from those of us who have been lifelong fans of this team and aren't just "acting" in a film.
Yes, I'm a little rabid about it. :)

[–] whats_their_name 18 years ago

Isnt Fallon like some rabid red socks fan though?

[–] EyeIsMe 18 years ago

No, Fallon was not and is not a rabid baseball fan.

He's stated himself that he was neverserious about one team in particular.

[–] dioro 16 years ago

I believe he used to play a character from Boston who was a Red Sox fan on Saturday Night Live.

[–] belleged66 17 years ago

I have to diagree completely... As an American and British citizen... I feel I can say this ........Americans always have to have over the top fairytell endings.English movies are a bit more subtle. Original is better in my eyes .

[–] jockey-1 16 years ago

Agree. Remake is very good but original is outstanding.

[–] silence-19 18 years ago

wow, the 2005 version is pretty bad... if this is even worse, it's not even worth watching! BUUUUT Colin Firth is here... mmm-

+ The sharper is the berry, the sweeter is the wine +

[–] Flexnez 18 years ago

Talking about "which is better" is nonsense. Personally I love football, and, on the other hand, I cannot understand the fuss around this vulgarized version of cricket called baseball. Hence, I can relate to the British version, while all I can think when watching the US remake is that, hey, how is it possible to have such feelings about baseball? To me it is as simple as that.

Another question, of course, is why the yanks have to make their own versions of nearly every movie ever made by European or Japanese directors. I've yet to see a remake being better than the original (but then, again, I'm European, and I understand some European identity still exists notwithstanding the cultural pressure excerted by Hollywood since the end of WW2).

[–] EyeIsMe 18 years ago

The reason people can fuss the way they do about baseball is the same reason that others can natter on about football, or cricket, or hurling, or ice skating or whatever else tickles their fancy.

I don't think that someone's love for something should be called into question because the other person doesn't understand the game, and for that matter, has no desire to. It's not an existential crisis, you know? People like what they like, and as long as their not chucking flaming bags full of retarded kittens into a river, I'm okay with that.

I also don't think that films are as much a part of American cultural identity as they used to be, I mean it used to be a big event to go to the movies. Now, most of us know that 80% stuff coming out of Hollywood is poo, and will seek out the original versions of remakes.

[–] sjoyd24 18 years ago

I don't even know why it is called a remake. They are two completely different movies. If you saw the American one first and then the English of course you would not like the English one better (it would mean that you are American and this version you would understand). They are nothing alike. Different sports, different characters. Drew Barrimore had a family, Sarah had a flat mate. In the book there was only Paul's family, he loved Arsenal, he was disfunctional and a dreamer. The best thing they could have done for the American version would have been to give it a different name and not mention that it was based on a Nick Hornby book - because the truth is - it is nothing like the book. Nick himself liked the English version, which he played a cameo part in, and liked the way Colin Firth portrayed him. I think he would go out and shoot himself if he thought anyone thought he was like the Jimmy Fallon character.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ftlauderdalefilmfan 9 years ago

First of all let me begin by saying that I am American who has always enjoyed a tremendous amount and variety of British TV and film since discovering "Monty Python's Flying Circus" on my local PBS station during my teen years ages ago. I have continued that love most recently by watching every season and episode of the period drama, "Downton Abbey" as well as the hilarious first season of the Ian McKellen/Derek Jacobi comedy, "Vicious." I just discovered the two versions of this film a day or two ago when the famous French director, Pascal Chaumeil, passed away and I looked up some of the films he had made. The first one I watched was a film he directed from 2010 called "Heartbreaker" which I enjoyed immensely. So then I checked out another he directed in 2014 called "A Long Way Down" which I also enjoyed a great deal, and which was based on a book by Nick Hornby.

As they say, "way leads onto way," so I checked out other films based on Nick Hornby's writings and found that I had already seen and enjoyed two of them very much, "High Fidelity" and "About a Boy." I then came across the two versions of "Fever Pitch" and when I saw that the original was a British version starring one of my very favorite actors, Colin Firth, and that Nick Hornby had written the screenplay based on his own book, I just had to see it.

Well, I can't tell you how much I enjoyed the 1997 version. Yes, it may not have been "funny," but it was not supposed to be a comedy. It was based on Mr. Hornby's obsessive love/hate relationship with his football team, Arsenal, throughout his life and the impact it had on his relationship with a fellow teacher at one point which is the basis of this story and film version. In my opinion, it was flawless, from the writing, acting, directing, characters; everything was top notch.

Then before watching the 2005 version I read this thread and thought, how in the world could anyone think that this American remake could be better than the film I had just finished watching? While I always love Drew Barrymore in any role, as well as respecting her for her recent directing and producing credits, I had never seen Jimmy Fallon in any of his films, and knowing that Mr. Hornby left the screenplay writing to someone else, I was a bit more than skeptical as to how good this version of the film could or would actually be.

Well, I was pleasantly surprised. As sjoyd24 stated, the 2005 version shouldn't even be called a "remake" as it bears almost no similarity at all to the original 1997 film. The story is almost totally different as well as the characters. However, and I can't believe I'm writing this, but I really thought that the story and script were really well written, the acting (even Fallon's) was more than decent, the secondary characters were fun and a necessary part of the story, and, yes, it was rather witty and funny in many parts whereas the original, which others thought was depressing, was more realistic and reflected the actual events in Hornby's life, and therefore not as funny.

Anyway, having watched (and enjoyed) both films in the same day, I can honestly say that there really is and shouldn't be any comparison, as they are completely different stories and "types" of films. It is as if comparing any of the "Saw" films to "Steel Magnolias" they are that different from one another. That's my take on the two versions of this film. Take it as you will, comment as you feel compelled (just no trolling or disrespect, please).

[–] nishil_t 15 years ago

the 2005 version is a dumbed down travesty, made just to cater for americans( u voted bush in twice remember) no comparison, the 1997 version is the ONLY version.

[–] ellisone 18 years ago

The British version is better because it doesn't have any hollywood rubbish in it. The bit in the end where she runs on the pitch, pure hollywood fantasy. The british version shows real-life drama while the american one is just 100% fiction.

[–] vestergaard100 18 years ago

I still haven't seen the american remake (only the trailer, which is Soo lame), but I feel the urge to defend the british original, simply because it's a brilliant story, well-crafted and well-acted. The americans have a tradition for sugar-sweet larger-than-life sportsfilms (like a lot of the films you mention at the end) - thats not Fever Pitch. Fever Pitch is first and foremost a film about real people, who are not larger than life. And like all good comedy the humour in the film comes from pain. I guess that the places in the film you felt were depressing are the same places I'm laughing my ass off, but then again.. i'm european, we need more than sugarwater and hamburgers to make us laugh.

[–] kevinsetzer 17 years ago

You just said you never saw the movie. Your description of what you think the movie, naturally, is absolutely incorrect. Don't critique a subject when you have no idea what you're talking about.

[–] colinforever 18 years ago

Fallon sucked!!! There was no chemistry between him and Drew. This was laughable version. Very poor acting. Although the 1997 version is not the best movie I have ever seen, when compared to this newest version, it deserves an Oscar!

[–] josephharrington 18 years ago

The book was Hornby's autobiography, about how his life was filled with uncertainty and the one constant was Arsenal, everything else had to take a back seat. This is the same for many British people regardless of what club they support, and i just don't think this translates to baseball very well. Are there really that many people in America who will travel across the country to watch the reserve team play in the cold and rain? There was no sobering reality of Hillsborough or Heysel in the American version, to put things into perspective.
Also, baseball is so slow, that a season can't really change in the blink of an eye, the way it did for Arsenal in 1989 who won the league in the dying seconds of the game.

This film was a horrible cash-in.

[–] colinforever 18 years ago

Not just that, but the chemistry and acting was far below par. I actually cringed when I saw it (the 2005 version).

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] colinforever 14 years ago

What does this have to do with being American or not? I am American and the 1995 version (which I may also add is a remake) is far better. Matthew had no smolder (although I do like him in other things here he did not work). Kiera just giggled throughout it. To me the whole production did not work. I watched the UK version and the US version of this 2005 take and it just did do it. Yes, everyone is entitled to their taste and the point of these boards is to express them.

[–] bigtrain45 17 years ago

Can't turn the season around in the dying seconds? The Red Sox were behind 3 games to 0 in a best of seven series, and behind 4-3 in the game in the last inning. They had the greatest comeback in the history of baseball, a history that goes back just as far as English Premier League, if not farther, to 1876. It was epic, and completely surprising, given their history of disappointing their fans in so many excruciating ways. A great old saying about the Red Sox is, "The Red Sox will win today only if losing tomorrow will hurt more." Both sports are dramatic, and have legions of devoted fans. One of the many things that makes baseball special and different is the lack of a clock. A game can last 2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, however long. And it is the only game where the defense has the ball, etc. I like soccer/football too, and was fortunate to see people like Pele and Johann Cruyff in person in their primes. I like both movies, but I don't think it's fair to compare them because they are structured so differently.

[–] Verisyse 18 years ago

I just watched both versions and thought they were both kinda cute. But the one thing that bugged me about the UK version was they never explained why the characters like each other. From what was depicted, Paul had no seemingly redeaming qualities to him, and Sarah had almost nothing to do. I didn't buy her going back to Paul the way she did.

At least with Ben they gave him a few scenes that sets him up outside of baseball. With Paul it was all football or nothing.

______
airfarewatchdog.com Unadvertised airfare wars people don’t know! It's free!

[–] m055 18 years ago

In England there is nothing really to do except watch football, work and go down to the pub. So Paul had nothing to set him up outside of football apart from watching it and coaching it. Its the whole point of the film. I found it a great depiction of what life is like in England and the scene where Paul is watching the Hillsborough tragedy is well done as it brings it back what an impact that day had on all football fans and what they was thinking at that moment when they saw it on TV. All round a great film about a very real passion.

FOOTBALL ISN'T A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH.......IT'S MORE THAN THAT!!

[–] bootjangler 18 years ago

From the original post....

"but I can say that I do like soccer/football and I don’t think it showed how fanatic some fans really can be"

Surely the 'don't' should be 'do'. A mistake maybe, and probably because the 'and' in front of it should be 'but' to make the negative point.

I say this because the film obviously showed how fanatical some fans can be.
I think you may be misunderstood due to a grammatical error.

[–] stevoiscool 18 years ago

you can't compare football to crapy baseball

[–] terramax02 18 years ago

I think the original poster missed the point with the British version of the film. He says it's "as boring as every day life" which, unlike the Hollywood remake that (like every Hollywood picture) tries to make a fairytale over every American persons life, British films have always been renowned for their more 'realistic' writing and directing.

In a sense, what us British like most of all is to laugh at our own society (it's called 'irony'). I'm not saying you're wrong in your views, but if you can't understand the context of another countries' social institutions (which I believe a majority of Americans don't - because many don't watch non-American films) then of course you're not going to enjoy this film. After all, are you likely to take a Bollywood film as seriously if you weren't raised on them?

Heroes win the battle, cowards win the war.

[–] noracharles05 18 years ago

I am American, I love many foreign films, and I enjoy watching films with "realistic" writing and directing (which you CAN find here in America, by the way). I am not alone in this. Almost all of my American friends are the same way. Not every American film makes a fairy tale of life, and Americans (many of them, anyhow) don't expect foreign films to do that. (I am not trying to claim that there aren't general differences in British and American filmmaking, because there are, but overgeneralizing is pointless and sometimes offensive.)

I think that it's fair to take the original poster's comments ("boring as everyday life") as a reflection of personal preference, and not of Americans in general. Americans are not without a sense of irony. I'm sorry if I'm being overly adamant about this. I just hate that I am so often taken for a Bush-loving, simple-minded, sleazily-corporate schmuck, when I am none of the above. I know so many Americans who are deeply upset about our country's image, and I'm starting to take it all too personally, I guess.

Anyway, I really loved this film. I liked the American version, too, but for different reasons. I love watching both soccer (or football, as in this case) and baseball, too. And Colin Firth is gorgeous.

[–] resistance01 18 years ago

The original is better...the American version was too hollywoodized, and it's about the Red Sox...ugh.