This movie is unrealistic big time, contains some spoilers - Saint Ralph (2005) Discussion

[–] esamansk 19 years ago

I was waiting for a post like this. I didn't want to start one, but I was hoping someone else would. I agree with most of what you said, and have been a runner (although not a very good one) for about 12 years.

What makes me scratch my head is that the director was a Canadian marathon runner! He said he needed to set the story in the 50s in order to make it realistic; otherwise, Ralph would be going up against a bunch of Kenyans, which wouldn't be very good for the story. Nevertheless, this story is not realistic at all, and I, like you, was hoping to see him fall flat on his face during the marathon. That everyone knew he did not have a chance, but he kept trying anyway and won people's respect.

Two things: I wouldn't compare the 2003 Boston Marathon that your coach ran to the 1950s marathon they show in the movie. They are two very different races, and I think it would be possible for the best teenager today to be up in front in the marathon in the 1950s (although I don't have facts to back that up). Also, as my friends point out, any mention of Alan Webb has to include the fact that he is bald. Alan Webb is bald!

The mile repeats in the movie were pretty farfetched. When I heard 4:25, I was thinking km since the movie is from Canada, but that would be a very slow pace. Then when I realized he was running miles, I rolled my eyes. 4:25 for the 20th mile? No way. It looked like he was taking 5 seconds rest between each.

reply

[–] elee-11 18 years ago

I have a serious problem with anyone who criticizes this movie for being "farfetched" or "not realistic at all." Given that this is largely a movie about faith, is a little suspension of disbelief so much to ask? Like most of you, I picked up this movie read that it was about a 14 year old kid who wants to win a marathon. I thought, "hmm that could never happen, but I am interested nevertheless." You don't approach a movie like this as a skeptic looking for critical flaws in the realm of reality.

"But I think a movie should at least make sense in the reality within the film." So do I, and it does hold in this film. For the majority of the population who doesn't know how fast a 4:25 minute mile up hill is or how competitive the Boston Marathon is, these "unrealistic" events simply aren't an issue. But the director chose the Boston Marathon and he chose 20 one-mile repeats at such a fast pace precisely for all you track nerds out there because you, who truly know and appreciate what this kid is doing, should be the most impressed of all. This movie isn't below you because you are a runner and you know better. This movie was MADE for you.

This is a movie about the incredible, lost causes, hope, and faith. If McGowan had made the events more "believable" he would have been making an entirely different movie with differnt themes and a different purpose. The fantastic occurrences within the movie are absolutely essential to the movie's impact. Condemning the movie because some events depicted are unrealistic, or thinking things like "I would know cuz I'm a runner and it just couldn't really happen!!" means you missed the point. Completely.

I personally liked the movie quite a bit. Ralph is the king. I hadn't run in a week on account of I fell off a building. But after watching this movie I was so inspired that I went out and ran a few miles in my ankle brace at 3 in the morning. I liked the themes and I bought into the ending. But whether you liked it or hated it, if you're criticizing the movie for being unrealistic you shouldn't have watched it in the first place. You lack the imagination that is essential for the appreciation of any fictional work and should never watch a movie again.

reply

[–] billiejoebatman 18 years ago

No you wrong cuz kids cant run and stuff. Im track and I know you're stupid because i'm better then some ralph.

reply

[–] midnightbarber 15 years ago

Nice grammar.
"I'm track."

Snarky comments aside, would the original poster like some cheese with their whine?
It's a movie! Not everyone who's watched this is a serious runner. So unless people like you come one these boards and pick out every little incorrect detail, we'd never know the difference.

---
NOM.

reply

[–] jaymcandrew23 19 years ago

A few of things about your post:

A. marathon runners do more than 8 x 1 mile repeat. In the 1960s huge mileage was standard. Ralph was ahead of his time.
B.The kid was good enough to contend in Boston so to think his last mile could be that fast is not entirely unrealistic given the premise of the film.
C. If you think that's so unrealistic, what not take issue with running in the air and talking to Santa Claus? Clearly there's a little poetic license happening.
D. He wasn't running on a track. He was running through a forest. Maybe Ralph's measuring devices weren't calibrated properly.

reply

[–] esamansk 19 years ago

About C: I took the Santa Claus, flying scenes to be part dream-sequence, that is, obviously figments of Ralph's imagination. That's why I can "believe" those scenes, while still find the rest unrealistic.

You may be right about A. I don't know much about how marathon training was done in the '50s and '60s.

B: If he were able to get 2nd in Boston, maybe his workout could happen. It seems a bit much for a kid who just started training 6 months ago, though. Again, that workout would probably not be done today, but in the 50s and 60s, I don't know.

reply

[–] moviebuff90 19 years ago

I agree with esamansk with that u cant compare the 2003 with the 1950s boston marathon. And also with the whole Alan Webb being bald thing. It seems as if a ton of these fast runners bald really early, like Mark Matuzak, who was California's 1 mile and i think national mile champ in high school. That guy is freaking balding too! And I couldn't name others off the top of my head, but at tons of races, a lot of the front runners look like 30 year old men. It is pretty scary. And plus, Ralph running a 4:25 mile THROUGH a park and woods and also up a flight of stairs on his twentieth one is not realistic at all. And also, the rest of the movie stunk with all the weird things like him getting an orgasm from a pool jet. That was just way, way too corny and it seemed like just some stupid little scene to help fill the other 70 minutes that didnt include him and his mom or the running.

reply

[–] ollie501 19 years ago

So it's unrealistic.. who cares? It's entertainment. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Dawn of the Dead, James Bond, the Wizard of Oz.. all classic films in their own right... harldy brimming over with realism though are they?
This film is FUN, and to a degree inspirational. Granted it's no Shawshank Redemption, but it's still a damn good film.
If I want realism I can look at the window or switch on the news to look at a crappy world with more than enough realism thank you very much. If I want to lose myself from the outside world for a couple of hours, this film is a good way of doing just that.
Realism is seriously overrated - the film doesn't puport to be a true and accurate story of someones life. It's purpose is to entertain, not educate.

reply

[–] esamansk 19 years ago

Sure, but I think we all want a film to be somewhat realistic in its own world, if that makes sense. I mean, Shawshank Redemption would have been a lot less fun if (SPOILERS I guess) the Tim Robbins character had suddenly been able to tear down prison walls with his mind during the final half-hour.

Here, in Saint Ralph, I was hoping for a more realistic portrayal of what a person can accomplish within half a year's time, not "if you train for 6 months you could almost win the marathon." That is, I hoped to see him get beaten down but still get the respect he deserved. That would have sent a clearer message to me. It seemed that the rest of the movie (that is, the parts not about running) was quirky, but not out of the realm of possibility. Then reality seems to go out the window (SPOILERS) with his running and his mom suddenly waking and being lucent.

I think your comparisons with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Dawn of the Dead (which I love, by the way. The original, anyways), James Bond, and The Wizard of Oz are misplaced. Those are more-or-less in the realm of fantasy, whereas Saint Ralph is in the realm of realistic fiction, in my opinion.

reply

[–] eurotrashperson 18 years ago

It is unrealistic, I agree with you. And while I normally detest unrealistic action flicks like the ones you mentioned, I wasn't bothered by Saint Ralph much because it's made very clear that it is unrealistic - it's suppost to be a miracle, and that's not the way it would be if it was realistic. That's the whole point of the movie, so I'm willing to overlook the fact that it strictly isn't possible. Sure he didn't get his miracle but he get awfully close.

reply

[–] bobbobbob123 17 years ago

I mean, Shawshank Redemption would have been a lot less fun if (SPOILERS I guess) the Tim Robbins character had suddenly been able to tear down prison walls with his mind during the final half-hour.

Wait, you're saying that he couldn't tear down prison walls with is mind?? I must have watched an alternative ending.

reply

[–] buddman921 16 years ago

Isn't a lot of running a marathon tearing down walls with your mind. The kid was devinely inspired and blessed to be able to do this in the movie. I think God could have given him the ability to do that with no training.

reply

[–] ya1973 18 years ago

You definately cannot compare this film to Star Wars, Indiana Jones etc. because they are in the genre of "Science Fiction" whilst this film clearly isnt and that's why I also think him being 2nd in the Boston marathon somewhat spoils the whole message. He did not need to be that extraordinarily succesful (and, obviously, impossibly so) in order to be respected or for the film to be touching. I smiled and was touched by the movie most of the time but the end unfortunately spoils a lot - less is more, I believe.

reply

[–] ollie501 18 years ago

You definately cannot compare this film to Star Wars, Indiana Jones etc. because they are in the genre of "Science Fiction"

I'm not "comparing" them at all. You missed the point of my post. The genre is completely irrelevant; take ANY film you like; If you want me to compare it to drama, then forget I ever mentioned Star Wars etc, and insert Stand By Me, Shawshank, or any other succesful drama. Reality and film have to part company at some point. If people want 100% realism, then 90% of all the films made are going to sorely disappoint them. The point is, it's entertaintment. So what if it's not completely realistic. Neither was Home Alone, but it didn't stop it being a very sucessful comedy. It's A Wonderful Life isn't exactly realistic... doesn't stop it from being an incredible film.

I get plenty of realism every day.. Movies are an escape from that. If I want to watch something informative and realistic, there are plenty of documentarys or heavy going films. This one is just a light hearted and very entertaining piece of fiction.

And for anyone who says a 14 year old can't run a marathon... Check out these articles.

http://www.marinemarathon.com/thereleasesAWARDS.php

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20051127/society.htm#2

http://www.rjfisher.lgusd.k12.ca.us/newspaper/sports/ian.html

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=47639

http://www.halhigdon.com/kidsrunning/

reply

[–] ya1973 18 years ago

I dont think I missed the point of your message, I rather think you didnt make yourself clear, but I see what you mean now ;-). Anyway, I believe the movie would still have been a very good (and more refined) "escape", without the kid having to be second in the Boston marathon.

reply

[–] alden1010 18 years ago

Don't let genre labels dictate your mode of interpretation. Don't be a slave, and don't make the film a slave, either. The movie is about the contemporary sainthood of a 14 year old boy; it's hard to have a saint without a miracle, and the miracle in this movie has to do with the Boston Marathon. Remember all those lines about believing in something you have no reason to believe in? That was more than dialogue between characters. It was a call to faith for the audience.

reply

[–] hanazdad2-539-506199 14 years ago

I agree. Some of these running freaks take themselfs far to serious and think what they do is such a big deal. Gee, how could he have seen Santa Claus? Santa Claus is not real. You are so right it is just a movie not "Oh he was in HS and could only do a 4:25 mile or maybe a 4:05 if he was so and so. That is not real" blah blah. Runners Go take a hike. Reminds me of Star War Star Trek freaks argueing about how the transporters were unrealistic. How they really should like like this. Hey dweebs there are no such thing as transporters, so how can one imaginary thing look less realistic then another imaginary thing.

Maybe if the runner crybaby critics could get a date they would get a life as well.

reply

[–] mcerik-1 18 years ago

I'm 33 and have a whole head of hair, thank you very much ;)

reply

[–] TrueTurk 18 years ago

jaymcandrew is right, and as a runner training for the 2006 chicago marathon, I was not disturbed by the unrealisticness of the film. If there are movies about robots taking over the world and guys somehow manipulating electron flow in something called a "light sabre," what's wrong with a movie about a kid who is good at running? I say chill and enjoy the humour of the film, which I thought was above standard. And yes, people run way more than 8 x 1 mile repeats.

reply

[–] rwc7777 18 years ago

Oh my god, this movie is unrealistic. Here is the actual finish of the 1953 marathon: . Keizo YamadaJapan 2:18:51
2. Victor KarvonenFinland 2:19:09
3. Karl LeanderssonSweden 2:19:36
4. K. NishidaJapan 2:21:35
5. J.J. KelleyGroton, CT 2:28:19

I don't see Ralph there anywhere. Oh my god, this ruins the story for me. I believe in Santa Claus and priests that don't abuse little boys. Now, Ralph didn't finish a close second. What next? A story that says George Bush is a good president?

reply

[–] drickard-2 18 years ago

I too am a runner. I have run Around the Bay 3 times, and 4 marathons. Countless 5 and 10k races etc... I have been running for about 5 years now as a sport and for most of my life in other sports. I run a 4:00:00 marathon give or take depending on the day. When I'm working on my speed I do mile repeats, building to my last maraton my heaviest day had 10 mile repeats. So are you going to tell me that nobody runs more than 8 mile repeats?

Of course I would need to cut almost 2 hours off my time to Win Boston, and nearly 1 hour just to qualify. So if I run 10 mile repeats on my heaviest speed session how many do you think guys like Cherigat run to win these races in 2:15:00 or so?

Also you forget that this movie is set in the 1950's marathon times have come a long way in the past few years. Even in the lat 1960's the winning times were around 2:30:00 for Boston.

Sure the movie is far fetched, it is a movie. I would think the first indication of it being a fantasy would be Ralph seeing God in the form of Santa, or Ralph flying (actually leaving the ground and running in the air) when running all the repeats. Oh yeah, and the start for Boston was nowhere near the 30,000 people that run it every spring.

reply

[–] brianjdurham 18 years ago

I, too, am a runner and knew the mile repeats were way too fast and that he should have no chance at winning the Boston Marathon 6 months after taking his first running steps (after throwing down a cigarette no less).
Also, IMHO, to make the movie a bit more realistic, Ralph should have been a couple years older, maybe 16 or 17. You would have to think, even at that age, with the stress of his family life and all, he may still have been working dilligently towards his 'miracle' and the rest of the story could have stayed the same as well.

With all that being said.... I was still engrossed in the race and was rooting for him the whole way... but was actually glad he got outkicked by the reigning champ too.

reply

[–] skyhawk0 16 years ago

I believe that being 16 at the time, an orphanage wouldn't have been an issue. So, 14 was the oldest he could be for the set-up to work.

§« There's a fine line between genius and insanity, and you just snorted it. »§

reply

[–] briantherunner123 18 years ago

You run a 4 hour marathon? You're pretty slow buddy. Unless you are like a 50 year old woman. If that's the case, then your times are decent.
But if you are a relatively young, healthy man you should be capable of much faster times. How many miles are you logging per week?

reply

[–] drickard-2 18 years ago

Sure I'm slow, never claimed to be fast. So what's your Marathon time?

BTW a 50 year old woman running 4hrs would qualify for Boston with time to spare so your ligic indicates that respectable times must be times that qualify for Boston. So briantherunner123 you have run 3hours then?

reply

[–] TrueTurk 18 years ago

Wow brian you're really cool. Go insult people somewhere else, this is a place for relfecting upon a movie. Not showing off marathon times.

reply

[–] trumpdaddy 18 years ago

Folks, get a grip on yourselves. This movie steps into the world of fantasy. It's a beautiful film, even though much of it is unbeleivable. I think we all need to get in touch with our inner-adolecent and watch this film as a happy event.

reply

[–] obfh 18 years ago

I 'm glad I am not a runner. It would have ruined the movie for me.

reply

[–] polaroidsmiles 18 years ago

I love when someone who actually DOES the selected sport/job in the movie, chimes in with how "it's not real" and ruins the spirit of the MOVIE for everyone. It's nice, isn't it.

It's a movie, and BASED on fact. Not a documentry. The movie shows that if you try your hardest, you *can* accomplish your goals. Not that you *will*. It's a "never give up" sort of movie, not "this is how to win a marathon" movie.

reply

[–] xxsilverrevolverxx 18 years ago

I loved this moovie. Im a 16 year old, and I ran the L.A. marathon in 2005 (3:37:12), and this movie definately was entertaining for me.

So maybe it was directed at a younger audience?

reply

[–] sunnydazy 18 years ago

I am a runner too, training for the marathon but I just suspended my disbelief and accepted that some of the training methods were outdated. For example, everyone running around in such low-cushioning running shoes. I couldn't imagine running in Converse Chuck Taylors!! But of course, running shoes weren't around then. Also, it was funny how the nurse told him to do weights, highlighting that one Norwegian runner used to do weight training. Hilarious, that lifting weights was such a "radical" idea for a runner!

I mean, if you really want to dissect what is "realistic" about the movie, you could wonder at why it ws so light out when he picked the girl up for the date... it was at 7:30 pm in the month of October in Ontario, and it was as bright on that porch as noon. (Was that before daylight savings time???) C'mon, can't possibly take things so literally... it is just a movie.

I loved it, not just because it conveyed the true joys and life-changing benefits of running but also it was just a great feel-good movie.

reply

[–] sunnydazy 18 years ago

PS Silver revolver... wow that is amazing!!

reply

[–] xxsilverrevolverxx 18 years ago

:-)thx sunny dazy

reply

[–] vp_p 18 years ago

THe part where he's running in the air...me too, at first I thought he was running in the air, but guys I think the guy was running on the hill,even if it looks like hes runnning in the air.

reply

[–] xxsilverrevolverxx 18 years ago

No, he's running in the air, cuz u cn see his shadow separate from where his body is touching the ground.

We all know he was running on the hill...it was probably just a mental thing of him running in the air...like how easy and free he felt, or something.

reply

[–] kdu719 18 years ago

I'm a 60 year old man, but loved this movie. It has the feel of a Rudy, or even Seabiscuit. It may have been intended for the young, but it hits the target for all ages. The young Mr. Butcher was amazing in this role & Jennifer Tilly was great as the nurse. I don’t know how I missed seeing this at the theatres? It must have had a terrible distribution campaign in its theatrical run? If it wouldn’t have been for my brother telling me how great it was, I would never have known about it.

Great movie! For all ages!

reply

[–] sleddawg63 18 years ago

I think you take this film too literally. Yes some of the split times are a bit far fetched...however the more I thought about this movie, the more it seemed like a fantasy in the mind of the main character.

(spoiler alert!)

Consider a 14 year old in the same situation. His mother is in a coma, he's an outsider in a very controlled world. It's quite plausible to dream up a fantasy where he trains for the marathon, performs the miracle and gets the girl. You might say the fact he doesn't win Boston destroys the theory of it being a fantasy...but the character struggles with his faith. Second place in the race theoretically becomes his pergatory...his punishment for his inability to believe. It doesn't become his failure.

Maybe I'm stretching it a bit. What I do know is that I expected excellent things from this movie...that is usually the kiss of death...but I was still impressed and would love to catch it again.

reply

[–] phillip_thomas_sam 18 years ago

Ccome on guys does it REALLY matter?... It was a light feel good movie that made me smile. Thats the important part isnt it. Why do we feel the need to critique the hell out of everything?
Just Kick back and enjoy it for what it is and not what you expect it to be!!

reply

[–] ca-pedersen-1 18 years ago

This whole debate just confirms that you "runners" are a sorry bunch of tossers. The discussion about a the realism of Ralph running a 4.25 mile or not completely misses point of the movie. We are following a kid here with an imense amout of motivation and probably a huge talent. To hear chorous of talentless pseudo-runner argue about what can be obtained through a certain amount of training is just absurd. To the "runner" doing a marathon in 4h after year long training; find a another sport (sumo wrestling) and/or cut down on the Big Macs!

reply

[–] illinifan04 18 years ago

amen phillip.

talladega nights--- a bit farfetched
the descent --- a bit farfetched
the barnyard --- well, gary larson taught me that cows talk, so pretty realistic

my point-- the movie didn't brand itself as a true story or "based on a true story" -- it's a movie about faith and i thought it was a pretty good movie.

i am also a runner and found myself the next day running a little harder.

2nd to last line of the movie:
"if you're not chasing after miracles, what's the point?"

it's about miracles-- i can suspend some disbelief and enjoy this well told story.

reply

[–] samagbamu 18 years ago

to be honest, who really cares whether the movie is realistic or not. no one complains about Superman being "far-fetched". Its still a good movie.

reply

[–] tylernugent 18 years ago

I just worry that some fools might watch this movie and think that it's actually possible to decide to pick up running and sixth months later be able to compete in the marathon at a world class level. Nobody could do it, especially not an underdeveloped prepubescent boy. Even the most talented 14 year old in the world could not place high at the Boston Marathon, even with years of training under his belt. It takes considerable talent and years of consistent training to reach that level of the sport (i.e., a sub 2:20 marathon). As has been mentioned, his interval workout is ridiculous. We see this kid slogging up STAIRS at about 8:00 mile pace and then are supposed to believe that he is running sub 5:00 miles again and again. Ha! Oh, and they were clearly fast forwarding the camera during one point of that scene. Watch his stride rate, it's superhuman! Finally, nobody that age should even attempt to run a marathon. Bad, bad idea! Wait until you are fully developed physically. I love seeing running getting recognition in movies, but as a serious runner myself, this movie's ridiculousness absolutely ruined it for me.

P.S. The back of the box says he is made to join the track team. Never once does he even step foot on a track. Proof that nobody even knows the difference between track and cross-country. That's my rant. Thank you.

reply

[–] richbward 18 years ago

I just finished watching this movie a few moments ago and I have to say that I agree that this lack of realism did distract me. It was a fine movie and I enjoyed watching it - but I agree with other posters that it could have been made more powerful if the age, times and scene selection were more legitimate.

I found it rather amusing that other posters would write back and say to chill - it is just a movie - and then make comparisons to fantasy movies. If that is the case, that this is a fantasy movie, then why base it on the Boston marathon? Let me make a comparison: could you imagine what Breakfast at Tiffany's would be like if it was filmed in - oh, I don't know - Cleveland? And none of the obviously NY scenes were of the actual places? Like Tiffany's itself, Central Park etc.? In other words, don't use places and events that everyone knows if you want people to suspend disbelief. If it really is fantasy, well, there is no need to suspend disbelief, right?

Sense of place plays a very important role in any film; Plot does as well. Hitchcock himself would take pains to ensure his stories were tight as a drum even though they were, almost all, entirely fictional stories.

As for briantherunner123, have you even run a marathon? And as for you, ca-pedersen-1 - I'd say you are the loser. I've been running for quite awhile now. I've completed the Boston marathon 8 times. It is quite the course - you could well do a movie on that - and it is a shame they did not spend more time on it during the movie: from the beautiful running through the wood-lined road out of Hopkinton, to the deafening shouts of the women at Wellesley to the hills in Brookline to those great moments (for me, anyway) when you cross over from Brookline into Boston - and the Red Sox fans - to when you turn that final corner onto Boylston.

I have run 20 marathons - I'm sure a drop in the bucket to others out there - from NYC, LA and Chicago to Berlin, the Swiss Alpine in Davos and Paris, to name a few. While they have all been amazing in their own right none compare to the history and the fans of Boston.

In my younger days I was a half decent runner. I won a race here and there with my 5k PR of 14.55 and my marathon PR of 2:37.56. However, anyone who goes out there and finishes a marathon has, in my book, accomplished something to be admired. And that would make an inspiring movie.

OK, I'll step down off my soapbox. Go ahead and flame me.

reply

[–] mydoofy 17 years ago

(many spoilers)

Who cares about track times in a movie that's not about track times? If anything, this is one of the corniest films I've seen in a while. The story is not bad but the way it was played out was what wasn't realistic. Too much blatant foreshadowing and cheesy scenes. So cheesy that you actually feel awkward just watching it. To me, it's the same old movie you've seen before. Same idea, goals, situations, drama build-up...etc. I give this film a 6 out of 10. It gets a 10 out of 10 for being incredibly and painfully corny. I find myself rolling my eyes and saying "Oh, God." with sarcasm and then wonder how could it really be as cheesy as it really is. Sand paper on the knees, the way Clair hits the fence, the slow motion and glorious music that plays when they make eye contact. Same goes for when he's drunk and lying in the front yard with his home ablaze. Then you have the Shawshank Redemption spin off of the marathon being played over the loud speaker and the Father gets angry yet there's still defiance. All the miracle bickering got old... Just another movie we've all seen before. The formula and flow is the same as all others.

reply

[–] ten_lbs_poop 17 years ago

Ok I read this whole thread so I think I can flame everybody. First to the guy that complained about the pool scene, why were you evevn watching this movie if a scene like that bothered you? This also goes for the guy caling the kid prepubescent, obviously he wasnt.

To all the runners complaining about the realism, I am a runner, but I only do it for health and let me tell you I cant ever imagine running 26 cosecutive miles, what the hell would you want to do that for? that didnt stop me from enjoying the movie though. If you require a movie completely realistic go watch a documentery. Im sorry there havent been a ton of running movies (I can think of 3 or 4 others) but I played and loved lots of other sports and there have been tons of movies about them, and most of them are pretty cheesy, so get over it hollywood does badly with all sports. That doesnt mean you cant enjoy the film.

To the guy who stated, "I was hoping he would fall flat on his face when he got to Boston." Again his just seems kinda sadistic and mean and seems like you were so upset by the fantasy you couldnt enjoy the movie so why watch it. And to the guy "worried" that people seeing this movie would believe it was possible and hur themselves. Come one that is such a bs statement there have been tons of movies gloryfying so many bad things (drugs, crime,violence) that Im pretty sure the one that gloryfies running is pretty harmless. Besides its pretty obvious from this thread alone that anybody with any kind of unrealistic dream will have it stomped out pretty quickly. And for the guy just above me who was upset about the lack of focus on the marathon itself clearly you missed the entire idea of the movie and should have rented, or should try and make a documentery of it becasue I didnt give a crap about the stuff you described about it, it means nothing to me and it would have annoyed me. This was a movie for the general population, not subsribers to runners world.

reply

[–] socnicklin 17 years ago

Didn't bother to read through most of this, just skimmed. Most of you are morons. Plain and simple.

To the original poster, I am sure your coach is the end all be all of your running life but he probably isn't that good. And you exclude one kid from your basis of argument, who is to say that Ralph wasn't that one kid, some freak of nature.

Also, you have to use some time context. This occured in the 1950s when their was little to no such thing as a professional athlete. NFL players had to have off season jobs to pay their rent. They didn't train 24/7 like athletes today. Also, guessing by the winners from someones post that blacks weren't allowed to run in it, so no Kenyans.

This is a movie about a kid who single mindedly attacks his goal to save his mother. The mile repeat scene was just something to show his determination.

At no point in this movie does the movie claim to be based off true events. So try to have some amount of suspension of disbelief.

reply

[–] tibieryo 17 years ago

Replying to all posters previous; skipped to the last page and it seemed that this point hadn't come up yet.

Ready? Three, two. . .

It's a miracle.

Did Jesus actually feed that many people with so few loaves and fishes? Do you care when you read the New Testament? Did Moses part the Red Sea? Do you care when you read the Old Testament?

It's a bloody MIRACLE. In a movie about a boy trying to make a MIRACLE. So, while it's unrealistic that he got to place second in six months, IT'S A FRIGGIN' MIRACLE. This kind of willing UNsuspension of disbelief kills me when people watch movies. It just sucks the joy out of the entire experience to have one guy in the crowd say "Yeah, that could never happen, y'see. . ."

Stop looking at movies as fact. If they were fact, they would have happened outside your door, not on your TV screen. Movies are not made to be realistic, they are made to be entertainment. (Unless of course, the movie is made to be realistic--and those are often boring--or it's a documentary--those are interesting.)

Because it's a movie, three things are true:

1) Ralph talked to God.
2) Ralph flew.
3) Ralph placed second in the Boston Marathon after six months of training.

Done and done.

reply