MovieChat Forums > The Greatest Game Ever Played (2005) Discussion > A good movie ... but lacked clarity in p...

A good movie ... but lacked clarity in parts

posted 17 years ago by mloessel
10 replies | jump to latest

Dirctor Bill Paxton has come a long way from the days of "Weird Science". I'm not a HUGE golf fan but this movie went well beyond the greens of a golf course. Here's the story about a young man Francis Ouimet (played by Shia LaBeouf) who loves golf. Unfortunately Ouimt comes from the lower class in Englad where playing golf is reserved for gentleman or those whos income and status are far above Ouimet's. The movie takes place at the turn of the 20th century where only the wealthy and/or those with a title preceding their name have embraced golf as their sport and those in the lower class can only observe. Such an obstacle didn't deter Ouimet as his love for golf drives him to meet with the members of the Club House where the 1900 British Open is being played. The very precocious Ouimet pleads his case before the arrogant members and they finally acquiesce and say yes to his request if he comes up with the $50 entrance fee. He goes to his dad (played by Elias Koteas) for the $$$ and makes a deal that if he doesn't make the cut he'll forget about this "silly" idea of playing golf and pursue an honest job more fitting his working status. Unfortunately Francis doesn't make the cut and over the next decade the Ouimet's have moved to Boston and Francis has found employment in a local golf shop.
This is the background for THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED. It is now 1913 and Ouimet's memory of his first golf tournament has lingered to the point of having no interest in ever playing golf again. It is ironic that he works in a golf shop keeping his ties to the game he dearly loves. However, while working at the golf shop, Francis is approached by two members of the local Club House where the 1913 U.S Open will be played and, based on what they've heard of his golfing skill, ask him to play as an amateur in the tournament. At first he says no but then, while making a delivery at the Club House, he learns that Harry Vardon is also playing. Harry Vardon is his idol and the thought of playing in a tournament with Vardon intrigues Francis. Francis asks if the offer is still open and the members give Ouimet a second chance.
Now the movie moves into high gear as Francis displays his skill as a golfer amidst the more seasoned professionals including Vardon. To add more intrigue Francis is forced to take on a 10 year old caddie named Eddie. Eddie is pint sized but has a big heart and convinces Ouitmet that he can do the job. The BIG question for Ouimet is can Eddie carry the golf bag that looks larger then Eddie. Eddie has no trouble carrying the bag and confidently offers advice without a hint of reservation. They become a foce as others look on in disbelief.
Once the tournament begins there were some scenes I had to ignore such as the appearance of four men in black top hats. They first appeared in the opening scence when Vardon was a youth then appeared everytime Vardon was teeing off at the U.S. Open. Their appearance was very ominous but Director Paxton chose not to make any real connection. Eventually they went away and Vardon's game improved significantly.
The movie had a good storyline (based on a true story) and the cast was superb. The pacing of the movie was good as each scene flowed into the next. From opening credits to the end THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED kept me wanting more and in the end I shed some tears of joy!!!
I rate this movie at 4.5 on a scale of 1-5 ... only because the men in the black top hats didn't fit for me...

[–] noobzilla 17 years ago

loessl,

it was imagry.. and well added to the movie I felt... The only thing wrong with this movie was perhaps it had been 10-15 minutes longer to develop a background of each sub plot.. and Im sure if had been done would have made the movie even better, imo, which is saying a lot.

[–] tay-15 17 years ago

Unfortunately Ouimt comes from the lower class in Englad where playing golf is reserved for gentleman or those whos income and status are far above Ouimet's.

Well, the film must have lacked clarity. The Ouimets were never in England, and Francis Ouimet was American born (certainly not "from England"). The Ouimets are never shown anywhere but in Boston.

You've confused the earliest segments of the film, showing a young Harry Vardon, with the later segments.

I thought this was what you were going to mention, among other flaws in the film. It was rather sloppily directed, frankly. There are points of confusion (just one other example, only when we see a "Day 3" toward the end can you tell that four rounds of golf were played in two days, not four days - and why all those titles anyway, they really didn't clarify things), and pacing problems. The non-golf scenes needed trimming, and ironically the golf scenes are just really uneven, sometimes jumpy. The flashy special effects tend to distract rather than draw us into the game (although, I did like the attempt to depict an athlete's concentration when the gallery around Vardon melts away).

The acting was also uneven (the white-haired mentor and the female interest are simply flat), the characters tend toward caricature (particularly Ouimet Sr. and the Brits), and the film is often cliched if not corny.

With this being said, the film still had some moments and I didn't mind watching once. Lebeouf seems like a good actor, and the kid who played his caddie was also pretty good. And as often happens, the drama of the events still comes through to some extent, regardless of the delivery.

[–] Wakanohana 17 years ago

Since Ouimet was only 20 when he was working in the shop and was approached to play in the Open, it could not have been 13 years since he was a caddy and lost his first tournament.

As for the overall direction of the film, I think it did not need so many special effects. Yes, it is hard to depict what is going on in a golfer's head (imagine a movie about chess players), but all the shots following the ball from 6" away were unnecessary.

I also didn't care for all the cut-aways from ball to golfer to spectators to opponent, all while the ball was in play. So too many edits, not enough continuity. As a result, while Shia Labeouf did an acceptable job of acting, we can't really tell if he knows how to hit a ball. They could have had him hitting some long putts, even if he had to make 50 attempts before getting one in the hole. I'm not sure if it was him actually making any putts, even the 3-footer.

[–] joycel_91201 17 years ago

"...while Shia Labeouf did an acceptable job of acting, we can't really tell if he knows how to hit a ball. They could have had him hitting some long putts, even if he had to make 50 attempts before getting one in the hole. I'm not sure if it was him actually making any putts, even the 3-footer."

Who cares? It's a movie. He's an actor. Heard the story about Dustin Hoffman and Sir Lawrence Olivier in "Marathon Man"? For the torture scene Dustin Hoffman stayed up several days, didn't shower, didn't shave, and came to the set looking like he'd been tortured. Seems Olivier isn't a method actor, and said "Why don't you just act?" So, why does Labeouf have to know how to play golf if he can act like it?

I do agree, however, that the continuity did lack clarity. While I personally loved the graphics, they did tend to pull away from the moment and be a reminder that it's a movie.

[–] Wakanohana 17 years ago

In "Jerry Maguire", Cuba Gooding Jr looked like a football player, even if a stuntman took those tumbles on the field.

In "The Pride of the Yankees", Gary Cooper looked like a baseball player. So did Kevin Costner in "Bull Durham."

Golfers come in all sizes, shapes, and colors, so any actor can pretend to be a golfer. (Again, Costner comes to mind, or even Adam Sandler.)

But Shia Labeouf does not automatically come to mind as someone able to play the role of a golfer. So I think there is an issue of credibility. I think we saw him miss-hit a couple shots, but did we ever actually see him (him, the actor) hit a good shot?

AFAIK, Labeouf learned how to hold the club and how to swing the club. I have no idea whether he ever learned to hit the ball.

[–] dbach66 17 years ago

That's the stupidest argument I've ever read. Sandler comes to mind as a golfer, but LeBeouf doesn't? Have you ever seen Billy Madison? The Waterboy? To say someone who played Billy Madison and Bobby Boucher comes to mind as an actor capable of playing a golfer, but anybody else in the world doesn't is asinine.

[–] Wakanohana 17 years ago

Well, I think you're wrong. Perhaps the problem, er, my problem with the film is that there were so many special effects, that we don't know if Shia LeBeouf can actually hit a drive or knock the ball out of a sand trap. Sandler and Costner at least appear to be taking their own shots. Same with Jim Caviezel in "Bobby Jones: Stroke of Genius".

To be fair, I've seen Costner and Sandler playing in celebrity golf events. So perhaps that's why I think they take their own shots in the films... though of course I also know that they're not good enough to make all those shots.

[–] rohonnag 16 years ago

this is what happens, when dim wits see a good film....

I mean wasnt it clear that this was vardon & ouimets story ?

both come from relatable backgrounds....

what made u think that he lost in 1900? the poster of vardon winning the 1900 championship at the shop ??

wow u r really dumb...

This is YOUR LIFE and it is ending one minute at a time!

[–] jeffandersson 16 years ago

I thought the good outweighed the bad. It was a good film. Most films I can't watch more than once. This one I could.

[–] bodyspiritsoul 8 years ago

everyone who couldnt play golf had golf lessons from the pros for months before the movie was shot. i mean do you ask if someone is proficient at killing people when their making an action movie? its a movie not a golf documentary

Uh....oh,oh, it's the pancakes! You don't like pancakes, I will get you somethin else!