Title
1

What makes Hoosiers (1986) a good movie?

I’ve witnessed a lot of Internet arguments and debates in my day, but one hotly contested topic I’ve never understood is the admiration and isolation of Hoosiers. If you say anything remotely negative about it, people jump down your throat faster than you can say "triangle offense." My question is why? To me, Hoosiers is boring, Gene Hackman’s character isn’t even remotely likeable, the team’s players are garbage both dimensionally and hoops-wise (minus Jimmy Chitwood, I guess), and it doesn’t even focus on the more compelling team: South Bend. Analyze why Hoosiers still stands the test of time for so many people, and why it should still be considered required viewing for sports fans.

  • I think the writer should show how the movie emphasizes teamwork while at the same time giving Chitwood a second chance. Even the coach even gets a second chance after hitting a player years before. Is there a contradiction? Should Chitwood have gotten a second chance? What does that say about teamwork? When Chitwood rejoined the team did winning then become the only thing? Was the coach the anti-Wooden, a coach who never told his players to win, but to do their best? And, speaking of anti-Wooden - who sat his Indiana State team for the 1946 NAIA tournament because it barred his lone African American player - is Hoosiers racist? – Tigey 5 years ago
    0

Want to write about Film or other art forms?

Create writer account