I just saw this film and was a bit stunned. 70% of this film (at least) is about a guy who can't get an erection. Seriously. For 70 minutes of the film it's classic lines like "it's still not hard" or "why can't you get it up?"
Gives new meaning to the phrase "road to victory."
The "plot" is laughable, the writing is worse. Julia Anderson is solid as the female lead and that's about it.
It's a shame but it needs to be said.
I disagree with you. I thought the writing was good, as well as the acting. How could this film not be what we may think? The plot clearly states that it's about a guy who cannot perform sexually, so that's obviously the big dilemma of the story. Anyway, I enjoyed Road To Victory.
shareThis is actually a terrible movie. It was so bad it became funny and many people at the theater where I saw it began laughing at the terrible lines and even worst acting. Nobody could take it seriously. It was incredibly bad.
I am surprised to read positive reviews of this movie. Really, it's not very often that we get to watch a movie this terrible.
I have been a movie buff my whole life, and I like controversial films, like this one. I like originality, and films that have the guts to show us something we may not be comfortable with (such as sexual dysfunction in Road To Victory).
But, controversial films breed controversial reactions. However, if a film (such as this one) has won this many "Audience Awards," and has so much critical acclaim, and someone has a negative reaction to it, then it is most likely that the controversial subject matter provoked something personal in the viewer, or was mis-read by the viewer. If anyone is curious as to why the film has received such accolades, the best way to understand "why" would be to read the actual reviews, which are posted on every IMDb page under "External Reviews".
Personally, if there is a film that I don't like, but receives a lot of critical acclaim, then I will read the reviews, and usually make it a priority to see the film again, and as a consequence, I often like it much better on a 2nd viewing.
Truly independent films tend to get criticized too quickly by naive audience members because the audience doesn't give the filmmaker enough credit. If the same film were shown with the name of a master director attached, then people would analyze the film accordingly, for deeper meaning. I have even had films that I have liked made that much better by watching them a 2nd time after listening to the director's commentary, as I was far more aware of all the little things that made the movie special.
A film like Road To Victory cannot experience such glowing critical acclaim, or win so many "Audience Awards" (they have won 4, in two different countries) without doing something right. That kind of third party validation deserves respect, if nothing else.
If you can't understand why the film has been so successful, then it is quite possibly a reflection of you, and not the film.
(Large audiences are even more prone to make this mistake. When "Saving Private Ryan" was released in 1998, a teacher took her 7th and 8th graders to see it, and they all broke out laughing during the opening sequence on the beach. The same movie made WWII vets weep, and the majority of audience members tremble. But the audience of students, with their friends, there to be social, and perhaps too young, reacted very inappropriately.)
I urge you to read the reviews, and then see the film again, on your own. It can't help but be a completely different viewing experience.
First of all, thanks for the answer. I appreciate it that you took the time to write it. You make some good points and even though I don't agree with you in a lot of it, I thank you for writing it.
Well, I've been a movie buff since I learned to read and this is probably one of the worst films I've ever seen. And, to be honest, everytime someone writes nice comments about it, I wonder if they worked on it or are relatives to the director or the cast. That's the only excuse people have to write anything nice, really.
This is what I honestly think. :)
I watched Road to Victory at a film festival I was working at, last year, in Lisbon, Portugal. And I'm being pretty honest when I say it's terrible. From the script to the acting, it's laughable. But not because it's controversial, because it's lack of sensibility. It's about a guy unable to have erections. This is a subject that deserves to be treated with sensibility. And yet, the characters were both shallow. The girlfriend was the funniest, with the way she pressured the guy to have sex, it was like she didn't have any feelings for him. She was upset about the lack of sex and she expressed it in a way that would hurt his feelings. Her outbursts made it clear that she care more about sex than about him and his health. If she loved him, she would understand his condition, be supportive and try to help him in his recovery. But instead, she was constantly complaining. And yet, I can't feel sorry for the guy because he allowed her to humiliate him in a way adults just souldn't. It was an unhealthy and unsupportive relationship.
Besides, they are both very bad actors. Probably the movie wouldn't be so bad with better actors.
Road to Victory didn't win 4 audience awards. It won 3, in the USA and Canada, and my explanation for that is that the other filmes in the festivals were even worse than this one. It's possible, in such small festivals.
Not all film festivals are filled with original, witty and great films. And I know this because I watched Road to Victory precisely at a very bad film festival. I'll probably never work there again because the festival was very bad. There were only a few good films, and a small retrospective of polish cinema. The festival was mostly about the parties, and bad movies everyday. I have worked in a film festival that I am proud of (IndieLisboa) and this one was a hug disapointment.
And in such a bad festival, Road to Victory didn't get any awards. It was probably the worst movie there.
About the audience finding it funny, I have to say I watched it at that festival and the theater was almost empty. Most of the people who saw it were the festival's staff, the jury and one or other person who had enough curiosity to pay for the ticket. We probably weren't more than 20 people, who know and love cinema, and can recognize a bad movie when they saw it.
Yes, the audience found some lines in the movie funny. It was an honest reaction to such a bad script.
About the positive reviews, I have to confess I'm puzzled by them. I read several and I believe most the things in those reviews are purely not true. They claim that the actors do a good job, that their relationship is believable, that the ending is poingnant. These reviews are a mistery to me, honestly.
But something I want to make clear is that I don't think the film is successful in any way. It wasn't realeased, was it? It has been shown in festivals for over a year, getting positive reviews by unimportant press and blogs, and audience awards. But not getting distribution. It has only 62 votes on IMDB, and the average is 5.8. This is not what I call a successful film. I gave it a 4, by the way. So, the general opinion is not far from mine, I guess.
About not giving the filmaker any credit, that's probably true for a lot of people, but not for me. I watch a lot of movies from many countries, many genres. And I always try to enjoy the good in every film. Even bad movies or directors I don't appreciate are capable of making a beautiful tracking shot, a wonderful line or move me to tears. It can happen. I try to judge a movie with an open mind. But this movie was very bad, and it would be very bad if it was directed by Scorsese or Tarantino.
So, I have to say that I liked the begining of the film, the cinematography was excellent. I was actually enjoying it, until we were introduced to the characters and their drama.
Finnaly, about seeing the film again, I have no desire to. There are so many movies to see. Besides, it wasn't released here and I would have to try downloading it from the internet which I don't do because of the poor quality of most divx files.
I go to the movies at least 2 times a week and I watch almost everything (from american blockbusters to the most obscure european auteurs). The thought of watching Road to Victory again seems pointless and a waste of time. Sorry.
I am portuguese. I hope you understand my bad english. :)
[deleted]
I take issue with user anabelat's post, because it conveys a number of falsehoods that truly independent filmmakers simply should not have to deal with.
With all due respect, after reading your more detailed response, I think that there must be a HUGE cultural gap that disallows an understanding of what you saw. Ostensibly, you saw something as silly, that two people could behave a certain way towards each other in a given situation. What you don’t recognize is that in America, where 25% of the adult male population suffers from low testosterone levels (a fact stated in the movie) and many young women model themselves after Britney Spears, many do in fact behave this way. Even dating back to the 1960’s, the studies conducted by the famed researchers Masters and Johnson showed couples unable to cope with this situation.
I saw this film at the Sacramento Fest in a large crowd of "paying" audience members (about 300 people, where the film deservedly won an Audience Award), the entire crowd was into the viewing experience and applauded loudly once the credits hit with the majority staying around for an intriguing and positive Q&A session with the young filmmakers. In America, where Viagra sales total half a billion dollars annually, and have done so for the past 8 years, this film was a breath of fresh air.
And all the acting that you take issue with has been praised by the critics because the performances nailed these cultural values to a tee.
Which brings me to another tremendous cultural gap:
If you had done a little research in terms of the people you have conveniently attempted to deem as "unimportant press", you would have quickly realized that the critics who have reviewed this film are all members of professional North American associations for film journalists and scholars, such as:
- The Online Film Critics Society (Frank Ochieng, Felix Vasquez Jr., James Wegg):
http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com/pages/about
- Broadcast Film Critics Association (Mark S. Allen, Roger Tennis):
http://www.bfca.org/about.php
- The Chicago Film Critics Association (Brian Tallerico):
http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/
- WAFCA (Christian Toto):
http://www.dcfilmcritics.com/about/
- New York Film Critics Online (Ted Murphy)
The fact that you call these professional North American journalists "unimportant press" simply because you have never heard of them is laughable. These are individuals who watch, analyze and articulate feature films on a daily basis as part of their profession. If there is any portion of society: "who know and love cinema, and can recognize a bad movie when they saw it", it is a professional film critic, and the majority of the critics who have reviewed Road To Victory have praised the film.
Truly independent filmmakers do not have the clout to influence critics, and the concept that over 20 critics from reputable sources could be family and friends is simply ridiculous.
- As far as Film Festival Audience Awards in North America:
Again, if you had actually taken the time to do some proper research on the festivals this film has been honored at, rather than simply assume, you would have realized that this film won its Audience Awards at well respected North American Film festivals. In terms of your attempt at an "explanation" to "why" Road To Victory has won this many audience awards, I'll point out to you that it competed along side Sarah Polley's "Away From Her" (staring Julie Christie) and Werner Herzog's "Rescue Dawn" (staring Christian Bale) at the Silver Wave Film Festival, and competed with Ryan Eslinger's "When A Man Falls in the Forrest" (starring Sharon Stone and Timothy Hutton) at the Sacramento International Film and Music Festival. Audience awards are awarded to the filmmaker by audience members who have actually purchased a ticket (or pass) to attend the screening(s) and fill out ballots afterwards; not the festival staff or jury. It is actually the highest honor a film in competition can achieve at a festival, as it is the public who are voting. And yes, there are 4, as Road To Victory won Best of The Fest at First Take Film Festival, as voted by the audience.
I think that these four festivals would take a great deal of umbrage with your derision, especially since you obviously have never attended any of them.
- The last point which may be among the most important is of the IMDb Weighted Average:
Again, if you had actually taken the time to do a little research in terms of how the IMDb staff compiles "user ratings", you would have quickly realized that ALL of the averages on this site are "Weighted Average Ratings," which are actually constructed and manipulated by IMDb staff members.
If you had taken a further look, you would have noticed that this films raw data average / (Arithmetic mean) is actually a high 8.6:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0982922/ratings
Here it is quickly evident that of those 62 total votes, only 7 people, (who may or many not have actually seen the film), have given Road To Victory a "low" vote. So in reality, your "opinion" is actually in the MINORITY in terms of the general consensus of this feature film. A more clear indication of a feature films true status within the industry is compiled over at www.rottentomatoes.com, where Road To Victory currently holds an 88% "fresh" rating:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/road_to_victory/
Sorry, but these manipulated / "Weighted" IMDb averages you've attempted to use for your "explanation" are NOT a valid indication of weather a film has been "successful" or not. If you are interested in knowing more about how IMDb manipulates its "Weighted Average Ratings", and why no one within the film industry can actually take them seriously, take a close look at this current thread:
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000042/thread/106072134
As an independent filmmaker, and film lover, I get sick and tired of watching other independent filmmakers get stuck dealing with asinine issues such as these. These message boards were intended to promote intelligent discussion of films, actors, and filmmaking. If the film were a trashy B Horror Film, you could argue about the value of the genre, cheap thrills, etc...
But as Liz Hobbes of of MovieScope Magazine put it: "Road To Victory represents everything that a good independent film should be," because it tackles something new and fresh, and even if it didn’t have 4 Audience Awards in two different countries (which it does), it is a critical darling, and we rely on these critics to bring to our attention the small films worth seeing that get over-looked.
And to prove my point, I will leave with a quote from Rotten Tomatoes critic, Brian Tallerico, and his thoughts on this film:
"There’s something so great about a movie that comes completely out of nowhere. Road To Victory is honest and daring work. The subject matter was risky and deserves credit. It is a film that deserves your attention; it’s not only worth your time but better than a lot of the widely released films. This film will almost undoubtedly find its way off the festival circuit and into the multiplex."
- Brian Tallerico
The Deadbolt
http://www.thedeadbolt.com/news/104322/roadvictory_filmreview.php
Yes, this movie actually is about, what it says its about. What moron wrote this?
Maybe you should stick to Disney films.
Of course the film is about sexual dysfunction, and infidelity, and the crisis within a relationship that this type of predicament can cause.
Try reading the reviews on a film next time before you go to see it, so you aren't so shocked:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/road_to_victory/