Let me get this straight. In order to enjoy a film, I like it to either have a new slant on a subject, have something deep to say, or at least have some good acting. This film had none of these said attributes.
It is simply a string of uninspiring scenes involving stupid golfing shots. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of watching films that dabble in acts of improbability, but only when they are done in an amusing manner. In my opinion this was the equivalent of the as yet unmade "Earnest plays golf", but without anyone funny and less of a love interest. The all-conquering Happy Gilmore released in the same year was almost based along the same lines but was immeasurably funnier, thrilling and dramatic.
This was indeed an example of how to make a big budget film and leave it with almost no redeeming features. This sort of film is always along the same lines. We get to see events through the eyes off the main character who has a clearly defined adversary from the very start. Glory will fall into the hands of either the person that we are seeing events through (the "good" guy), or to his main rival (the "bad" guy). It is never a case of them both being thoroughly good blokes of unquestionable moral integrity. It never falls into the hands of a third, unmentioned party. If the film is from the ranks of Hollywood then it is almost certain that victory will go to this supposedly "good" guy. There is no need to get excited at the end when the victor is to be decided.
If you are a golf fan and want to watch an unfunny dramatisation of your sport, then you've found the right film. If, however, you just want to watch an amusing golf film, then go for Caddy Shack or Happy Gilmore, even if you have seen them 100 times before.
Please, avoid watching this banal and cliché-laden offering UNLESS you are of the type that: actively avoids thinking; watches soap operas; listens with your mouth open and writes with your tongue sticking out.
It is simply a string of uninspiring scenes involving stupid golfing shots. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of watching films that dabble in acts of improbability, but only when they are done in an amusing manner. In my opinion this was the equivalent of the as yet unmade "Earnest plays golf", but without anyone funny and less of a love interest. The all-conquering Happy Gilmore released in the same year was almost based along the same lines but was immeasurably funnier, thrilling and dramatic.
This was indeed an example of how to make a big budget film and leave it with almost no redeeming features. This sort of film is always along the same lines. We get to see events through the eyes off the main character who has a clearly defined adversary from the very start. Glory will fall into the hands of either the person that we are seeing events through (the "good" guy), or to his main rival (the "bad" guy). It is never a case of them both being thoroughly good blokes of unquestionable moral integrity. It never falls into the hands of a third, unmentioned party. If the film is from the ranks of Hollywood then it is almost certain that victory will go to this supposedly "good" guy. There is no need to get excited at the end when the victor is to be decided.
If you are a golf fan and want to watch an unfunny dramatisation of your sport, then you've found the right film. If, however, you just want to watch an amusing golf film, then go for Caddy Shack or Happy Gilmore, even if you have seen them 100 times before.
Please, avoid watching this banal and cliché-laden offering UNLESS you are of the type that: actively avoids thinking; watches soap operas; listens with your mouth open and writes with your tongue sticking out.