Four Minutes (2005)

How sad is this?

Absolutely the worst movie.

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

I rather enjoyed this biopic (at least up until his sub-4 minute mile triumph) of the great English athlete Roger Bannister. While athletics is more difficult than most other sports to make exciting, I thought the director did a good job employing a variety of shots to convey the excitement of the races, in particular his historic run of 6th May 1954, although one senses the omission of his pivotal failure at the 1952 Olympics was likely due to budgetary constraints, with the race instead being played out on radio - possibly archive footage could have been utilised.The concentration on Bannister's running exploits in an already shortish running-time means the characterisations are a little light, but Jamie McLachlan, besides his strong physical resemblance to Bannister, seems to catch the spirit of an initially single-minded loner who relents on himself to make friends with his co-athletes, the two Christophers Brasher and Chataway, fall for two girls in the film and most importantly accept the coaching and encouragement of aged, retired, wheelchair-bound coach, Archie Mason well played by Christopher Plummer, although I was disappointed to learn that this was an invented character, presumably for dramatic purposes, Bannister's real coach being a perfectly healthy Austrian.Perhaps this production treats its subject too reverently and is likewise light on characterisation. I noticed that the source book entwined Bannister's ultimate achievement with Hillary's conquering of Everest, which would explain his numerous references but for me distracted from the story here.Evocation of place and period (the rarified atmosphere of Oxford), although you'd never know the country at large was still on rations, while there's an attractive background score skilfully interwoven into the action. The acting is good too, especially Plummer who cleverly restrains himself from hamming it up and the recreation of the famous record- breaking race is rendered convincingly.I found this on the whole a refreshing watch, no intruding profanity, sex or violence and certainly on a level with say, "Chariots Of Fire" in terms of entertainment.

Not a bad TV movie and based on a true story but cannot help wonder that it has been considerably "embellished". There is a lot of "Chariots of Fire" in here. From the opening sequence running along the beach to the coach who can save minutes/seconds, the "reluctant" hero, the Oxbridge setting (I suppose this last bit can't be helped as both films used factual locations) but you get my drift.Saying that, an enjoyable hour and a half of anyone's time but particularly sports fans or people who respect Sir Roger Bannister's achievements.Although a very British subject there is not a British feel to the film and being a US TV movie it is also "sanitised" (probably a bit too much for my personal liking) but therefore suitable for a family audience. I think the subject matter probably earns it an extra point or two in the rating as it is a great story.

The one professional review of this film is much more accurate than the distorted ravings of the one idiot you have quoted so far. This was a well done film, showing insight into the character of Roger Bannister as an athlete and a person, something lacking in most sports movies. He fails to understand the significance of this record at the time by comparing it to other track and field records that have lasted longer. Both the medical and physiological implications of the feat that was made very clear as well as the apt comparison in the film to the conquest of Everest puts it in much better perspective, but like the height of Mt. Everest, this is about 29,000 feet over his head. I suspect he is also too young. Those of us who were alive and following sport at the time recognize its significance, which was extremely well presented and should have been clear to anyone viewing it with an open mind.PS, I wrote this because of my irritation over the review you printed. Should you chose to edit out my negative remarks and simply print my reaction to the film, you are welcome to do so.

I had seen this movie advertised for weeks and it looked very lame. Then one day I caught a replay of it on ESPN Classic and since it was the only thing on that was worth watching I kept it running. Good choice.Four Minutes is the story of Roger Bannister, the first human being to run a mile in under 4 minutes. It's based on a true story but certain events were dramatized for the sake of entertainment which is nothing new but it felt kind of cheap at the end of the movie knowing that some things may or may not have ever happened, but all the same it's a fun movie.It starts out slow with Roger the medical student and his tryings for the school sports teams. He is advised to try rowing but ultimately fails and picks up running instead. Throughout the course of the movie Roger is battled with decisions to become a doctor or a runner, ultimately choosing both.It's a by the numbers sports story. Unassuming hero has love problems, becomes good at what he does, starts to doubt himself but eventually overcomes his insecurity to triumph. You know from the get go something is good is going to happen but it suspends your belief enough where the thought of him actually triumphing starts to wain, but obviously he does.Good movie and I highly recommend it.