Delayed Reaction: Chariots of Fire

Premise: Two British track athletes prepare for and compete in the 1924 Olympics.

 

This has to be the most forgettable Best Picture winner in "recent" memory. At this point, I've seen every Best Picture winner from 1974 (The Godfather: Part II) to the present with the exception of Gandhi. Chariots of Fire has to be the least remarkable winner of any of them. If it didn't have that famous score, it would be completely forgettable.

 

That said, that score is pretty remarkable. There's a reason it's been re-used, referenced, and parodied so many times. It's just about the best music for a climactic, triumphant moment. What's bizarre is that the music isn't actually used for the climax of the movie as I always thought. It's used twice: at the opening and close of the movie for a shot of the team running on the beach. It's not used in the climactic moment as one of the two men crosses the finish line. I wasn't ready for this. It's like finding out that a famous movie quote is actually a misquote.

The movie overall is pretty dull. I barely recognized any of the actors. It's British to the point of me needing to turn on closed captioning. I don't know that I would call it a bad movie. It's more inert than anything.

 

I'm done talking about this movie now, but it does lead me to wonder something. Is the 80s the worst decade of Best Picture winners? I may save this for its own post later to really dig into it later, but I think it is. It’s the only decade I can’t point to a stone-cold classic winner. Most of the movies are highly forgettable or even mocked. And Chariots of Fire is the least interesting of all of them. Think about that.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend