If you're under 35 and have seen Chariots of Fire leave a message

I just watched the movie for the first time, and although I like the film, I was very distracted by the horrible Vangelis synth music. It was just SO out of place. Can you imagine watching Upstairs/Downstairs or Downton Abbey, with that horrible "music" blaring out at you?

I'm not saying they couldn't have used electronic music, or even the melodies, but it could have been more subtle. At one point, where they showed the USA Team working out, the noise was so loud I had to turn the volume down. The music was very dated.

Maybe you had to have been an adult in 1981 to understand the music, I guess. I'm a fan of Upstairs and Downton Abbey, and love these kinds of movies, but that music just ruined the whole movie for me.

I would have preferred a simple orchestra.

Over 35 and have not seen it yet but I'd like to see it one of these days.

25.

I watched it when I was 13 and thought it was boring and barely paid any attention to it.

I watched it again tonight, on Blu-ray, and thought it was fantastic. A beautiful film.

[deleted]

I'm 34 until next week - do I still count? ;)

In fairness, I was about 7 or 8 when I first saw this film, it was one of my Grandfather's favourite films and it seemed to be on every time I visited his house as a child. I didn't really understand it at the time, I just loved watching the running bits and got bored in the 'talky' bits.

Like a lot of people, I decided to re-discover the film this year following the London Olympics and really enjoyed it.

I'm 27, I saw this not too long ago, earlier this year. And I'm sorry to say but unlike the other supporters out there, I didn't really like this movie.

It is not that I am bias towards modern films. I love classic. I am a huge fan of The Godfather, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, 2001 Space Odyssey, Star Wars (just to name a few).

However, this film seems to be a bit indecisive when it comes to choosing it's protagonist, the chronological sequence of events seems to jump awkawrdly from Abarhams to Liddell, the acting was a forgetable (at times it was laughable, e.g. Liddell running, almost looked like he should have been in the special Olympics). Also the beginning, the climax & the end seemed cliche and cheesy.

I am sorry but this movie may be a feel good movie. Or a movie that people related to and won their hearts over regardless of the many flaws this movie has.

I have watched a lot of slow movies. Some that have even been deemed as dull and painful like 2001, but I loved 2001. This movie is just as slow as 2001 but the thing is, Chariots of Fire is not equally as good as 2001.

Let me know if you guys agree, dissagree, or have any comments. I welcome any feedback.



"Stick with me, Gordie. Stick with me, man."
"I'm right here."
-Stand By Me

I'm 38 and I think this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

well I am turing 35 next week so I just barely made your cut. I liked it a lot. I liked the score the best which may or may not be a good thing, for it to be the best thing about the movie. But I liked the training scenes and really the whole movie. I was a sprinter myself. I ran the 100 and 200 so when they started doing the 400s that was nuts. I've attempted it. Probably the single most difficult thing to do in sports,such a brutal race. The only thing about this movie I didn't like is, as a sprinter, I can say they had HORRIBLE form.





--------------------------------
I did sixty in five minutes once...