User reviews

I'm not sure Chariots Of Fire deserved to be the Best Picture of 1981, I think Reds, Atlantic City, or On Golden Pond deserved that honor. But it's still quite the inspirational story of two men on the British track team of the 1924 Olympics who ran to prove something, but not the same thing.

Ben Cross and Ian Charleson play Harold Abraham and Eric Liddell who are among the survivors of a lost generation to enter college, Cambridge to be precise in 1919, the year after World War I ended. It was called The Great War and the contemplation of another was too horrible to imagine. Cross as Abraham was a veteran of the war, though that fact is curiously downplayed in Chariots Of Fire.

What is emphasized is his Jewish faith. Though Benjamin Disraeli had been Prime Minister and Lord Isaacs as Chief Justice and Sir Herbert Samuel never had to convert as Disraeli did for a political career, the very top of British society was still closed to Jews. I wonder if Ernest Hemingway had known the real Harold Abraham because he could have been a model for Robert Cohn in The Sun Also Rises. Abraham is not obnoxious like Cohn, but has reason for the chip on his shoulder as the Cambridge dons led by John Gielgud confront him about employing a 'professional' trainer. Gielgud could have been some mossback running the NCAA.

Eric Liddell is running for his faith as well. He was not in the war, he was in China with his missionary father. Today he'd be a member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, back in the day he typified what was then called 'muscular Christianity', the idea to show that being a Christian was not something for weaklings.

Of course each in his own way makes his point, that in fact is the sum and substance of Chariots Of Fire. With Ian Charleson as Liddell, he makes an issue out of not running in an Olympic event held on the sabbath. I remember back in the day Sandy Koufax refusing to pitch in the World Series game held on Yom Kippur. Of course since the Dodgers also had Don Drysdale and Claude Osteen available at the time that was hardly a detriment. In fact the sabbath dispute over Liddell's views is solved in much the same manner.

Chariots Of Fire is a nice depiction of the United Kingdom during the Twenties. It was not all the jazz age of partying, there were some very serious folk, even young folk at the time. Cross and Charleson play two such.

There might be dispute over whether it was the Best Film of 1981, but the unforgettable musical score there was no doubt about. The awards that Chariots Of Fire won for Costume Design and Original Screenplay were also deserved.

I think the value of Chariots Of Fire is that not only is it an inspirational film, but it takes place during an age when such things were scorned in some quarters. For that reason the film is both a good historical record and of timeless value.

This is the story of two men who run to prove something to the world . They will sacrifice anything to achieve their goals , except their honor . Two young men fighting for their objectives , one a determined Jew Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross) and the other a devout Christian (Ian Charleson) . In a warmup 100 meter race, Scottish Eric defeats Harold, who hires a pro coacher (Ian Holm) to prepare him . After that , both compete in the 1924 Olympics where their courage and determination to be tested . Eric Liddell , whose qualifying heat is scheduled for a Sunday, denies to run despite pressure from the Olympic committee formed by high authorities (Nigel Davenport , Patrick Magee , David Yelland as Prince of Wales) . Eric and Harold win their respective races and go on to achieve fame as missionary and businessman/athletic advocate, respectively . In fact , during the Japanese occupation of China, Eric as a missionary was taken into the Japanese Weihsien internment Camp, where he was to die from a brain tumour just before the camp was liberated.

This is is a sensitive as well as riveting story, being told in flashback , dealing with two young British sprinters , competing for fame in the 1924 Olympics , both of them compellingly performed by Ben Cross and the early deceased Ian Charleson . About six years after the film's release, Trinity College reenacted the quad dash with British Olympic athletes Steve Ovett and Sebastian Coe taking part.

This marvelous film has an all-star-cast such as Ben Cross ,Ian Charleson , Nigel Havers , Ian Holm , Cheryl Campbell and Alice Krige . Great secondary cast formed by prestigious British players and with a number of well known USA and UK performers for the tiny cameo roles such as John Gielgud ,Nigel Davenport , Lindsay Anderson , Patrick Magee , Peter Egan , Richard Griffiths and uncredited Kenneth Branagh as Cambridge student , Stephen Fry and first cinema film of Nicholas Farrell . Brad Davis and Dennis Christopher appeared as a favor to producer David Puttnam, waiving their fees, in order to attract finance from backers who wanted "marquee names" . Besides the lead actors, most of the white-clad runners training on West Sands in St. Andrews during the title sequence are St. Andrews golf caddies .

Colorful and evocative cinematography by David Watkin filmed on location in Edinburgh, Scotland, Liverpool , Cambridge University , Eton College, Eton, Berkshire, England . When the athletes are running off the beach , in reality it results to be West Sands at St Andrews in Scotland , they run towards a large red building clearly marked as a hotel ; this is in fact Hamilton hall of residence, a student accommodation hall belonging to the University .

Lavishly and luxuriously produced by great producer David Puttnam , he was looking for a story in the mold of A man for eternity (1966), regarding someone who follows their conscience ; he felt sports provided clear situations in this sense, and happened upon the story by accident while thumbing through an Olympic reference book in a rented house in Los Angeles , then the screenwriter Colin Welland took out advertisements in London newspapers seeking memories of the 1924 Olympics.

Film debut by filmmaker Hugh Hudson , he originally wanted Vangelis' 1977 tune "L'Enfant", from his 1979 'Opera Sauvage' album, to be the title theme of the film, and the beach running sequence was actually filmed with "L'Enfant" playing in the background for the runners to listen and pace to. Vangelis, however, finally convinced Hudson he could create a new and better piece for the film's main theme - and when he played the new and now-familiar "Chariots of Fire" theme for Hudson, it was agreed the new tune was unquestionably better. But the "L'Enfant" tune still made it into the film : When the athletes reach Paris and enter the stadium, a brass band marches through the field, and first plays a modified, acoustic performance of "L'Enfant" . Vangelis's electronic "L'Enfant" track eventually was used prominently in the film The years of living dangerously (1982). The picture deservedly won Academy Awards for Colin Welland's screenplay , Vangelis' magnificent soundtrack , Mila Canonero's costumes and Best picture .

This true tale of runners and running back in the days when sportsmen could stand in the middle of the track smoking fags between races will always hold a special place in my heart - when I was growing up and we only had two or three video tapes, to watch when my dad rented or borrowed a vcr for the weekend, this was one of them (along with Star Wars, Raiders, and Superman II I think), and it got a lot of play. A lovingly made look at the lives of two great British sportsmen building up to the Olympics and a stab at the greatest glory a track athlete can achieve, this is awash with period flavour, rich in wonderful acting (sadly neither of the two leads repeated their on-screen glory moment, Ian Charleson's early death being particularly tragic), and featuring that unforgettable Vangelis score, this will always be a great film to me and continues to inspire. Despite some of the highlights provoking a "Ooooh, here comes the bit where he falls over and gets up again..." in anticipation, it still has such a richness that some scenes and lines can still evoke new feelings, inspire new thoughts and connections. Fantastic.

I watched this again last night. I had forgotten just how beautifully done it was - both a character study of two very different men and a gripping plot of their attempts to succeed - partly through athletics. the writer and director so well convey both Cambridge and the Edinburgh Presbyterian missionary disciples, in the early 1920s so very well.

The acting is superb - I had never seen a character presented like Eric Liddell in movies - how fine Ian Charleson was in this role, the softness of his voice, his ease and joy in running competitively (especially in contrast with the tense tortured Harold Abrahams). I also loved the more supporting roles - I've read a biography of F.E. Smith and Nigel Davenport is exactly how I would imagine him. The actor who played the Prince of Wales also seemed exactly right with his effortless charm, looks, and lack of imagination. Ian Holm, John Gielgud, Lindsay Anderson - all wonderful.

The actors weren't chosen for glamour either - Liddell and Abrahams are not Leni Riefenstahl images of athletic ideals, Liddell's sister is no beauty - and Abrahams' girlfriend is pretty but not stunning. It made them seem more real. (In nice contrast were the near-pretty boy looks of Nigel Havers as Lord Lindsay - it so suited his character).

The races are riveting - partly due to the music and sound effects.

So many small things are done so well - e.g., when Lord Lindsay has the confidence of his class to barge into a room containing the Prince of Wales, and three other lords (including Birkenhead and the head of the British Olympic Committee) and greets them by name - no need for introduction there (as there was for Liddell). It's small but seems quite real.

As an American, it was interesting and funny to see our Olympic team shown as the numerous, ominous, invulnerable "other"! (something like watching a Rocky movie with Rocky as the product of a Russian or East German success machine!). In fact, the one scene that seemed a bit off was the scene of the American track athletes warming up for the Games - all heavy music, machine like athletes, ferocious coach yelling with a megaphone into people's ears. It pounded too hard on the "these are the scary almighty inhuman opponents" theme in contrast to the cheerful British boys running along the beach.

Something I had forgotten about the movie was how stubborn BOTH protagonists are - Liddell fully as much as Abrahams. Liddell is not overly deferential or bashful when dealing with the Prince of Wales - but instead straightforward and very firm.

I truly can't understand anyone not liking this movie - it is very exciting even on the basic level of "will they win?" and so much more. (For example, Ian Holm's character's reaction to success after 30 years is very moving). Those who write to say that "Reds" deserved the Oscar more - are simply wrong. (Reds was so simplistic that it felt like watching the movie "The Hardy Boys Go to the Russian Revolution"). Those who say they cannot differentiate among the boys or between the Scottish and English accents - well, it sounds like some political statement to me.

Do watch it - it's very fine, very moving, very exciting.

I beg to differ with several previous reviewers. This film is neither bland nor is it solely about professionalism vs. amateurism.

This film is about what drives people to do what they do. Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson) runs for the glory of God, whereas Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross) runs to prove his worth to a society that was anti-Semitic. Even though they run for different reasons, their drive and determination spur them on. They stand up for what they believe in and refuse to sacrifice their principles because it is the easy way out.

The supporting cast is also extraordinary, with Nigel Havers, Nicholas Farrell, Ian Holm and Sir John Gielgud all making important contributions to the final product.

There is absolutely nothing unnecessary in this film. The writing, the direction, the acting, the dialogue are all outstanding. And then there's that haunting score.

Once again, this is truly an outstanding film. One with universal themes that transcend time and place.

I enjoy sports films, especially when they are used to exemplify greater human truths. In that regard `Chariots of Fire' is one of my favorite sports films. What differentiates this film is that it is really a human story about sports rather than a pure sports story. Based on a true story, it centers on two gifted athletes and their quest to run in the 1924 Olympics. The first is Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross), a haughty sprinter with an obsession for winning. Abrahams, who is Jewish, is a man with something to prove, mostly to himself. His rival is Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson), the first man to ever beat him in a sprint. Liddell is a devout Christian and runs for the glory of God.

There is an exquisite interplay of subtle themes in this film underlying the obvious sports tale. There is the contrast of motives. Abraham runs to validate his feeling of personal power, and his preoccupation with winning is actually motivated by his fear of losing. His quest is torturous, and ultimately his victory empty, more of a relief than a triumph. Liddell runs out of a desire to repay God for the physical gifts he has been given. He is at peace with himself, but at odds with all those who want to control him. Their rivalry represents a battle between the forces of the physical and spiritual. Other themes pervade the film. We have undercurrents of bigotry against the Jewish runner, a man of whom Cambridge was begrudgingly proud while berating him behind his back. We have sinister political attempts at manipulation in the face of Liddell's staunch integrity in adhering to his principles. Together, these forces combine to produce a film rich in drama and meaning.

The film has been criticized for its inaccuracies. Some say Abraham did not suffer from anti-Semitic bigotry and that he was wildly popular at Cambridge. This does not necessarily mean he didn't feel inferior. No one can know what childhood experiences might have affected his psyche. Jackson Scholz was quoted as saying he never gave Liddell a note of encouragement on the track. I have to agree that this was a bit of Hollywood drivel that didn't need to be there. Additionally, Liddell knew weeks before that the heats would be on a Sunday, not just before the race as shown, and he was always scheduled to run the 400-meter race. The meeting of political bigwigs that allowed him to switch from the 100 to the 400 was pure fabrication to emphasize his resistance to compromising his beliefs about running on the Sabbath. However, these liberties can be forgiven because they enriched the story and did not change history in major ways.

The direction by Hugh Hudson is powerful. Hudson captures the feeling and excitement of track and field competition, as well as giving us numerous beautifully photographed scenes and a wonderful period rendering. Though nominated for an Oscar, Hudson was unable to capitalize on the success of this film, and he has directed very few, mostly minor films since. The music by Vangelis is also wonderful, and it won the Best Music Oscar.

Ben Cross is fantastic as Abrahams. He brings great intensity to Abrahams' single-minded obsession for winning. Cross hasn't done much film work since, but has had a long and distinguished career in TV. Ian Charleson is also excellent as Liddell, but his career went the same route as Cross'.

This minor film was the sleeper of 1981, nominated for seven Academy Awards and winning four, including Best Picture. I rated it a 10/10. It combines the best elements of human drama and sport to create a potent and engrossing film.

I don't know if this is because of the actors trying to recreate the actual runner's gates or if it is the use of slow motion or what, but all the race scenes are absolutely hysterical looking. The final 400 meter dash is especially goofy and weird. The first time I saw this I couldn't help but laugh out loud at it. This may be more a personal reaction but boy when the sport section of your sport film doesn't work you film is in trouble.

The rest of the film, the tasteful drama about how religion and society interact with sports, is generally OK. It is all far too slow, and far too proper to fully engage. It is rather perplexing that this won Best Picture at the Oscars as it is really a British God and Country film. Re-watching it a few days ago really soured me on the film because the the film feels so 80's, especially the score.

Very weak Best Picture winner

I happened to be flipping channels today and saw this was on. Since it had been several years since I last saw it I clicked it on, but didn't mean to stay. As it happened, I found this film to be just as gripping now as it was before. My own kids started watching it, too, and enjoyed it - which was even more satisfying for me considering the kind of current junk they're used to. No, this is not an action-packed thriller, nor are there juicy love scenes between Abrahams and his actress girlfriend. There is no "colorful" language to speak of; no politically correct agenda underlying its tale of a Cambridge Jew and Scottish Christian.

This is a story about what drives people internally - what pushes them to excel or at least to make the attempt to do so. It is a story about personal and societal values, loyalty, faith, desire to be accepted in society and healthy competition without the utter selfishness that characterizes so much of the athletic endeavors of our day. Certainly the characters are not alike in their motivation, but the end result is the same as far as their accomplishments.

My early adolescent son (whose favorite movies are all of the Star Wars movies and The Matrix) couldn't stop asking questions throughout the movie he was so hooked. It was a great educational opportunity as well as entertainment. If you've never seen this film or it's been a long time, I recommend it unabashedly, regardless of the labels many have tried to give it for being slow-paced or causing boredom. In addition to the great story - based on real people and events - the photography and the music are fabulous and moving. It's no mistake that this movie has been spoofed and otherwise stolen from in the last twenty years - it's an unforgettable movie and in my opinion its bashers are those who hate Oscar winners on principle or who don't like the philosophies espoused by its protagonists.

A young English runner is reviled by The Establishment because he hires a professional trainer. The Establishment feels that this is setting a dangerous precedent. Too many more concessions like this, they think, and the amateur spirit will be lost.

They're absolutely right. Look at the Olympics nowadays: a hive of corruption and even the ping pong players are in it for the money. Moreover the athletes - ESPECIALLY in sports like running - have been trained to the eyeballs to the point where they become specialised machines who consult both coach and sponsor before deciding what shoes to wear. Good on the aristocrats who used to run the games. If only they'd held out longer.

Perhaps I'm straying a little from the point. I suppose the point is this. When you see a group of runners lined up at the start of a race, the positions is symmetrical. A win for one is a loss for everyone else. Exactly one person will win, whatever happens - so why should we want one person in particular to win? We need some fact to break the symmetry: this athlete has overcome overwhelming odds; that athlete is the only one who isn't cheating; this other athlete is such a nice chap. So what are we given in "Chariots of Fire"? An athlete who is trying to steal a march on his competitors by starting a training arms race, and another athlete who has changed events because he has a superstition about the day of the week on which he's been scheduled. I tempts me to root for one of the unknowns.

This doesn't matter if the film is well enough staged. And sure enough, people tell me it's been filmed in such an inspiring way. Maybe they're right. I don't see it myself. I know I've seen races that have made my pulse quicken much more - quite apart from the fact that I was offered little reason to want the two stars to win, in the first place.

What an amazing movie it is... amazing is the word! I saw the movie today - on the 5th of Feb '09. What a pity that i couldn't experience the movie's aura earlier!

Chariots of Fire is an outstanding piece of work which may be easily, and deservedly so, termed as LEGENDARY! Watch this movie and you'll know what is inspiration and dedication...

The characterization is such exemplary that each and every character tell their own little story... The two main characters - Lindell and Abrahams - are such that you'll only want to know them better as you go on watching the movie... especially that of Lindell. The guy is so so dedicated and truthful that i for one would just feel honored to know him closely.

Guys, WATCH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been sitting for many years without having seen all the 1980s Best Picture winners and considering keeping track of the winners is something I do on a regular basis, I may as well watch them now. Chariots Of Fire was quite a pleasant surprise, though one still held back by fundamental flaws. It's pretty hard to try and raise the stakes for this in a meaningful way and it tries in the form of religion, but to a contemporary secular society it's hard to connect to or have faith in. Other than its religious themes, its biggest personality is how it's unbearably British. I can see where all the clichés perpetuated in cartoons come from now, it's all our fault. Otherwise a lot of the film's shortcomings isn't necessarily its fault, just the way film history turned out.

There may not be a familiar face outside of Ian Holm to latch onto but the performances are still impressive at least for their running. Vangelis' score is now more associated with the dystopian vistas of Blade Runner so some moments are hard to take seriously, but some still retain the magic, especially with its unassuming but pleasing golden brown cinematography and keen editing tricks borrowed from the 70s with slow motion and subjective flashbacks. Even ignoring its attempts at religious meaning and its character development which are hit- and-miss beside some heartbreaking talks with the otherwise extraneous love interests, it's still an entertaining rivalry movie. Chariots Of Fire is an underrated and solid best picture winner from the 1980s, if nothing remarkable, but 1981 was a weak year outside of Das Boot anyway.

7/10

The problem with this movie is simple: it is based on a true story. Or more accurately, two true stories, that happened to occur at the same time, and end up in the same place. The problem is, this is a case where fiction would have been better than truth, because the true stories are, shall we say, slim. There's not much story to the story. This is why so many people found it boring, because not very much happens, over a pretty long period of time. I didn't find it boring, I found it disappointing. Disappointing, because I was waiting with interest for the two stories to converge, climax and resolve, to see the chip-on-his-shoulder Jew finally get his rematch against the missionary Christian. But in fact, there's absolutely NO resolution (presumably because there was no resolution in real life). In the end, the early play-up of the Jewish guy's Jewishness went nowhere and amounted to nothing. The big deal about him losing the early race to the missionary guy went nowhere and amounted to nothing. In the end, the whole movie pretty much went nowhere and amounted to nothing.

I normally rail at movie-makers playing fast and loose with historic fact, so I'm not suggesting they should have altered history to make a more compelling story. I just think this wasn't an interesting enough story to make a movie out of in the first place.

On a basic level it is the ultimate British Oscar-winning period piece and influential, uplifting feel-good film. Its two chief qualities are its subsequently strong realism and the resonant Vangelis soundtrack that, as with 'Blade Runner', increases the strength and significance of scenes through sound. Although it has a specific setting or historical background, the music adds an appropriate timelessness to the powerfully relevant human themes. These include winning and losing, of having what it takes to run the race, and of the old gentlemanly values of religion, decency and personal honour. It is the determining of the self, the inner strength, by understanding and will. The real-life characters and events are brought to life with the engaging realization that a climax will arrive at the end. At its core is a rivalry, less of a personal one and more the dilemma of two men wanting to win the same race. However, the climax is not predictable for such a straight-forward competition cannot occur. That is to say, they are both dedicated and honest men, with completely different religions, and it is this combination of resolution and talent which enables them both to win their own race. Around this central thread of training and determination, the film-makers have recreated the world surrounding these university characters in the 1920s. Scenes are filled with the casual, graceful attitudes that are a very British ideal; sophisticated prowess, decency, honesty, religion and intellect, values which seem to be less respected in this modern time. It portrays a credible idealism.

One of the first scenes of the film shows the running students. It celebrates this stage in life of onsetting maturity, comraderie and destiny through this bygone group of individual characters, united by the shared realization of their strengths. Throughout there is also the vague impression of higher powers at work, not so much the embedded attitudes of the old generation, but the position of man's humility in experiencing the challenge of life's great race created for them, and not only feeling the love that can be found, but rising to shine in one's own glory, enabled because of the higher glory. Not many viewers, especially today, accept such adherence and orthodoxy to Christianity, that can be seen as the motivation for the character Liddell. This film reminds us of the prominence and influence it had over so many aspects of society and the beneficial, empowering effects it could give to individuals. Alternatively the character Abrahams is a jew, and relies more on the attributes of his character which include a desperate determinism that reaps a reward of its own, takes him to his limits - although of greater significance is the love of a woman which detracts from perhaps a too heightened focus on himself. Through him we must also realise that there will always be those greater than ourselves, the very fact of our losing, and ultimately swallow pride and feel awe and goodness for the victory of our rivals and our friends. At the end of the film, the race has been run; they have gloriously discovered and revelled in their talents, their time, the fruits of aspiring to something greater than themselves. 'For it says in the good book, he that honours me, I will honour'.

In 1924, a Jew Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross) and devoted Christian Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson) are training to go to the Olympics in Paris. Back in 1919, Abrahams faces prejudice from the Anglo Saxon establishment in the University of Cambridge. He falls for Gilbert and Sullivan actress Sybil Gordon (Alice Krige). Meanwhile Liddell runs in the Scotland highlands despite misgivings from his devout sister Jennie (Cheryl Campbell). He's born from missionaries in China. After Abrahams loses to Liddell, he is devastated and gets coaching help from Sam Mussabini (Ian Holm). At the Olympics, Liddell's 100 meter race heat is schedule for Sunday but he refuses to race on the Sabbath.

These are pretty stuffy true life stories. It's not quite as compelling probably because the attention is split between two characters. Both are compelling historical figures and both deserve the attention. Director Hugh Hudson's style is rather conventionally competent. This is Oscar bait. It's a well made biopic of uplifting historical stories. The most interesting aspect of the movie to me is the music from Vangelis. It is synth heaven. The problem is that the movie can't narrow its focus only on Abrahams because of what happened in the Olympics. However Liddell isn't a very compelling story until the Olympics.

Much more than just another sports movie, CoF analyzes the very different reasons two men have for devoting so much of their lives to training for the Olympics. This in an era when there were no commercial sponsors and no lucrative endorsement contracts. Though there is always fame and personal satisfaction, it seems to be implied that these things alone are insufficient to explain the special forces that drive these two men so much more than all the others.

This is a truly beautiful movie about a different era, about competition and what may serve as motivation to compete--and perhaps about what kinds of motivation are healthy and what kinds are not.

9/10

CHARIOTS OF FIRE is undoubtedly one of the finest sports movies ever made because it isn't just about sports per se. Instead, it's a period picture summoning up life in the 1920s, with deep characterisation, strong and subtle acting from the principle actors, and a great attention to detail. The subject matter explores the topic of religion in a sensitive way, while the various running scenes are artily directed and extremely memorable, thanks in part to that classic theme music which really is something to behold.

The film stars Ben Cross in a strong turn as a put-upon Jew whose bad temper and grievances threaten to derail him; also here are career-making performances from Nicholas Farrell and Nigel Havers, two actors who would go on to repeat the same type of roles they play here throughout their careers. Although the familiar faces of John Gielgud and Nigel Davenport round out the 'elder statesman' type roles, it's Ian Holm who really shines in a part which is a 180 degree turn from his one in ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT.

Having just picked up (1 Feb. 2005) WB's Special Edition DVD of "Chariots of Fire", I am pleased to report that it indeed "Special"! The major improvement over the original DVD release is, of course, the presentation of the feature in its proper 1.85:1 screen ratio. The feature also has the option of a very fine commentary track by director Hugh Hudson.

Disc 2 includes two outstanding documentary films. "Wings on Their Heels: The Making of Chariots of Fire", has interviews with most of the living participants. It is fascinating and very informative. The struggle of the film to get financing is covered as well as the process that took place in finding the lead actors is covered. The excitement of Oscar night, when the film took home the "Best Picture" award, is captured through the comments of those who were there.

The second offering, "Chariots of Fire: A Reunion", was shot in England with the producer, director, cinematographer, and three of the actors recalling their experiences in working on the film. This is an inspired way of letting the creative people involved recall and share their involvement in film that turned out to be the highlight of their careers.

Both documentary films are a joy to watch, as are the 16 minutes of scenes cut from the film, including one alternate that was used in the European release but cut for the U.S. release. There are also a couple of screen tests for Ben Cross and Ian Charleson that are interesting --and a nice theatrical trailer.

An interesting side-note is that 20th Century Fox, who financed half of the $6 million budget, was not interested in releasing the film in the U.S. -- they figured Americans would not have an interest in British runners. Ironically, of the films $50 million theatrical gross, $32 million came from the WB domestic release.

Now we finally have a DVD release that is worthy of that is my pick and the finest film of the 1980s. "Chariots of Fire" is a film that ranks very high on my list of all-time great films.

I am going to come right out and say that I love this film- it is so important to me, that its one of those rare few films that don't want to see too often, so I can preserve some of the original wonder that I felt when I first saw it. It nourishes me as an artist and a human being.

This film is what I think great cinema can be. It has terrific acting, a beautiful simple story, wonderful production values, and of course that score- certainly one of the most beautiful and haunting scores in the history of film.

What it has that is most important, however, is heart. This movie has a wonderful message about what it means to be human, to be alive. What better metaphor for the sheer passion of living than the exhilaration of simply running as fast as you can.

This movie is as close to pure perfection as any movie made in the last twenty-five years. As one woman wrote, watch it with your children. Mine loved it, and it became my son's favorite film as he reached adulthood.

I had never seen this movie until the fall of 1997 and after watching 40 minutes wondered, "What's the big deal?"

Well, the second half of the film and then subsequent viewings have done more than just answer my question.

It's one of the RARE movies in the past 30 years which portrays a Christian in a positive light. Ian Charleson does a convincing job of portraying a 100 percent sincerely good man who walks the talk.

In here is also a good portrayal of a Jewish man, a student at Cambridge, acted well by Ben Cross. This man is too defensive about being Jewish and carries a chip on his shoulder until the end where he comes out a hero and a fine man as well, the bitterness gone.

The story of those two men and their quest for a gold medal at the 1924 Olympics in France makes for an inspiring film. It's also aided by very nice photography and a wonderful score by Vangelis. A recently-issued widescreen DVD finally shows off the award-winning cinematography. The feel- good ending doesn't hurt, either, especially since these main characters were real-life people.

Her extraordinary beauty made Alice Krige an interesting person to watch in the film, and I wonder why she never made it as a "big-name" actress. Perhaps that was her decision.

In summary, a very classy film, that still lives up to its reputation.

Very British, very proper and very dull movie about two English athletes competing in the 1924 Olympics. It's one of those inspirational stories that undoubtedly had audiences on their feet cheering at its end, but now the only thing memorable about it is its theme song.

"Chariots of Fire" came out at a time when Hollywood was beginning to fall in love with British films, and for a while there in the 1980s and early 1990s, everyone equated tasteful film-making with good film-making. If movies perfectly recreated an historical period and did it with reserve, they won awards, no matter how embalmed the final product might have been.

I'll be generous because it does have good music.

Grade: B-

I've been a movie lover my entire life, and I love British cinema and try to see every film nominated each year for the major Academy Awards, but I found this film insufferable. So did the two friends who went to see it with me. For the second time in my life I got up and walked out of the theater. They did also.

Maybe it was because it was the 5th of the 1981 "Best Picture" nominees that we had all seen. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was a fun "movie-movie," "On Golden Pond" contained great acting by Henry and Jane Fonda and Katharine Hepburn, "Atlantic City" had a wonderfully original script and fabulous performances by Burt Lancaster and Susan Sarandon, and "Reds" was a wonderful history of the American Communist Party done as though it were "Lawrence of Arabia." It should have been "Best Picture". The only attribute I can praise "Chariots of Fire" for is the the Costume Design. Boo to Roger Ebert for hustling this snooze-fest into a Best Picture award.

'tis been said that this movie is loved or hated, no middle ground.

I believe I know why.

It touches the most fundamental instincts and feelings in all of us.

The question it compels us to ask is, "Do I have a piece of greatness to offer to the world"?

Those of us who would answer yes, whether we believe is achievable or not, would love this movie, because it epitomizes the potential of our dreams, not just in running, but in any walk of life.

Those of us who would answer no, would hate this movie, because it highlights our acceptance of mediocrity, and of surrendered dreams.

Also, this movie touches those who have succeeded also.

It shows that there are two ways to succeed, the one not shown in the movie, and the one shown.

The one not shown is the one that motivates most truly successful people today. win at any cost, in sports, business, etc. and the consequences be damned.

The way to succeed shown in Chariots of Fire is probably naive by today's standards, but nonetheless noble and uplifting.

It tells us that success achieved through dedication, commitment, honesty and sacrifice is the noblest achievement a person can attain, and provides examples for others to emulate.

Liddell and Abrahams are not examples for runners, they are examples for people, true heroes of the spirit, not sport.

An unforgettable phrase, a torch to some and a knife to others,

" So where does the power to succeed come from?... It comes from within"

Those of us who have it, love it, those of us who do not have it, hate it.

If I live to be 100, I will still have my dreams stirred back to life by the message in this film