Pants

Ebert's review seems to indicate that the film has numerous Spice Girls references. Is the movie really this dated or is Ebert misrepresenting it? It looks good, but if the filmmakers are this hopelessly out of touch then it probably isn't worth bothering with.

OR, is the movie several years old and only getting a stateside release now? a la Croupier

adamblast

Perhaps the film takes place a few years back? Who knows... But the movie is mostly getting raves and has a great rep, at least for a "girl wants to play on boy's team/parents object" kind of movie...

While the Spice Girls broke up and became passe years ago, they were a really big deal in the UK... They still get plenty of press there as individuals... Perhaps they're still discussed casually as a reference anyway... Especially since one of them married soccer star Beckham, who the movie's named after...

DonnachaOne

It's an excellent film.

The various Spice Girls still have seperate successful careers in the rest of the world, Pants, the fact that Posh is married to David Beckham being a nonissue... hell, they even play a Melanie C song in the club scene.

Of course, I doubt that the Spice Girls refs will be the only obscure (to American audiences) references.

Daytripper

I don't think the worst reviews for this movie said it was anywhere close to being lame (see rottentomatoes.com). But as adamblast mentioned, this movie is getting mostly great reviews. I was in London during the height of Spice Girls mania, and let me tell you, they were everywhere. Every channel on TV, T-shirts, ads on buses, billboards, wall displays in music stores, etc. I had never seen anything like it. We were even at dinner one night and they came on in concert on the TV in the restaurant and we quickly got out of there. We had our fill of the Spice Girls at that point.

Pants

No doubt that's true. But that was what...1996? They're as passé as can be now...here and in the UK. Ginger hosts bad game shows for God's sake. 15 year old girls are into other acts now, like Robbie Williams, and the Spice Girls would be utterly UN-cool in my estimation.

Can anyone confirm my suspicion that this film is actually a few years old and is only now getting a release?

Daytripper

This movie played in the U.K. only a few months ago, so I think it's new. Question is, what year does it take place? If it's circa 1996, then all those Spice Girl references make (more) sense.

BTW, not that I'm a fan of Halliwell's, but she's had a fairly successful solo career since leaving the Spice Girls. In addition to her recent game show stints.

rabbit77

according to imdb:

Filming Dates
18 June 2001 - August 2001

Perhaps the screenplay was written a while back and the director/writer didn't want to change all the references?

Daytripper

Well, according to IMDB, it premiered in London April 11, 2002. I could have sworn I saw it playing at one theatere I walked by last Fall. Maybe it was a re-release. Anyway, so there you have it.

MrPeanut

I saw the movie and didn't even notice many Spice references. The fact that the title character is married to one is relevant, and calling a tom boy "sporty spice" is still pretty common here in America.

Although that doesn' mean you can't call the movie "lame" for numerous other reasons. It was cute, but not much more than that.

But what is a Spice Girl other than a typecast english chick? By that definition I could see how you could call everyone in the film a spice girl.

DonnachaOne

I'm amazed by the insularity of American pop culture... I'm not even a fan, but even I knew the Spice Girls were still out and about... and I'm in Chicago!

No-one even noticed Geri Halliwell's cover of "It's Raining Men" used as the promotional video for Bridget Jones' Diary? (And what a good video it was. No 'raining men', but plenty of wet Geri)

I know some pompous git's going to say something to the effect of "well, Americans just have better taste" or "American pop culture moves too fast for The Spice Girls"... overlooking, of course, Sean Combs, Creed, Christina Aguilera and Lord knows whoever else should have hung up the mic years ago (if they should have picked it up at all).

harosa

Bend it Like Beckham is a great, funny , touching movie. The Spice Girls references could be counted on 2 fingers and if thats your excuse for missing the movie then you should re-check your criteria when it comes to watching movies. Remember, this is a UK movie, they have tons of acts that are huge over there and are a blip over here, the US isnt the end all of pop culture.

bothanspy

it beat Episode II's record opening in India this past week.

Rypro 525

Found your reason for the spice girl references on thedvdforums.com
hope that helps

Phyre

From www.privatejoker.org (temporarily down):

"God dammit. God dammit. What a waste of my time. Seriously, people. Don't even think about it. Jesus, it was worse than I could have imagined. What a pathetic excuse for a movie -- to call it formulaic is an insult to the formula, and I mean that literally: it can't even get the numbers right to go by the numbers. Just when you thought they had trotted out every single hackneyed, stale, ancient cliche, along comes another one to drag out the movie another excruciating 15 minutes. Sitting through this thing finally became pure punishment, and if you think it's so bad you have to see it, then be my guest.

But the only thing I can think of that Bend It Like Beckham has going for it is to see co-star Keira Knightley in various stages of undress throughout the film -- she needs it too, because the strength of her acting ability couldn't knock over a house of cards. Lead actress Parminder Nagra (who looks every bit her 27 years of age but plays an 18 year-old) doesn't fare much better, being forced to either cry on cue, sulk in her room, or stare at Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (Velvet Goldmine). Could they have possibly cast anyone gayer than Rhys-Meyers as the straight male love interest? And even worse, the effeminate prancing "actor" is supposedly a former soccer player -- shaming all real gay athletes who actually have skills. His romantic scenes are painful as he tries to look sexy but comes across as either creepy or disgusted. So I bet you didn't think there'd be a shot of the heart-broken Knightley staring longingly at a photo of her and Rhys-Meyers, crumpling it up, tossing it in the garbage, followed by a cut to a close-up of the trashed picture. Guess again. It is that lame.

But could the film actually yank out the device of the sister's wedding on the same day as the big tournament final? Yes! Will we see oppressive Indian parents who eventually come around to support their radical daughter? Will she have a gay best friend to lean on when times are tough? Will there be 63,000 musical montages set to upbeat pop songs so that the screenplay doesn't have to develop a real story? Yes! Yes! Yes! With each corny Saved By the Bell weekend afternoon television show gimmick that either approximates an incompetent music video or a corny dramatic conflict, the film grates on us like nails on a chalkboard.

But wait, you're thinking, don't expect too much out of this. It's just a fun, inspirational sports movie, right? You just came to see the soccer, right? Forget it. I've never seen such ineptly staged sports action in my life, and that includes student films about wrestling. All the scenes of soccer games stick to close-ups of cleats followed by actresses hitting the turf and then a ball hitting the net. Ridiculous -- you never know where you are on the field, who's doing what, or what the circumstances of the game are. It seems to know virtually nothing about soccer; good play is symbolized by kicking a shot in the center of the goal and hoping the keeper falls down like an idiot. We see maybe one decent crossing ball, no great runs, no swift positionings, and any steals we see are so badly acted that the only response is to laugh in disgust. If The Big Game at the end was supposed to be suspenseful in any way (of course it isn't; the plot is so mechanized that we know everything that will happen 45 minutes before it's telegraphed), Chadha has no clue how to shoot it -- Nagra goes on about playing her best game ever, but we don't get to see it. We see one kick, badly filmed.

Bend It Like Beckham is cheap, gutter filmmaking dressed up with colorful photography, leggy girls in shorts, and loud dance music (Basement Jaxx make out like bandits from music rights). The production is so scatter-brained that Knightley's hair length changes drastically within a few days of plot time, and every scene where Rhys-Meyers is off the field was apparently shot on the same day (he's wearing the exact same starched white dress shirt and black slacks), or else the character has only one set of clothes to his name. Some critics may want to give this rancid dreck a pass because it's warm-hearted, well-meaning, upbeat and spirited, but that's no excuse for lazy writing, horrid acting, inept direction, and an idea that wastes every single element it introduces -- from interracial romance to the under-filmed great sport of soccer. If only the English hoodlum fans had stampeded during the filmmaking to ruin the equipment, I might have had these two wasted hours of my life back."

Pants

THAT is the best review I've ever read. It had me in stitches. And yet, I still want to see the movie.

WiccanPagan

i have wanted to see this movie since i heard of it. looks to be a good culture clash movie. would this be considdered part of the bollywood genre or is it too english?

MrPeanut

not bollywood, just english. it has the culture clash in it though.

I usually despise reviews that are as negative as the one above because they become their own writing, rather than staying as a review. But I can't argue with most of what is written. While it's not as bad as he says it is, he's got his facts right. I'm starting to think that Ebert will give ***+ to any film that features a girl without a shirt in a significant role.

I can excuse a lot of lame plot devices in the right movie. Such as "Like Mike," which I'm sure was filled with every cliche and then some. It was a kid's movie though, and needs to be viewed as what it is. This was not a kids movie though, despite having the plot, characters, and humor of one. If it were, I probably would have liked it a lot. But I don't think the content or language was appropriate for most children.

DonnachaOne

I agree, a very well-done review. I disagree with his opinion, of course...

ChemDoc

Two things: I agree with the idea of the negative review becoming its own writing. Methinks the reviewer was more interested in appearing clever and nasty than in reviewing the film.

Secondly, about Ebert and the "girl without a shirt"...maybe that's his new formula? Hey, a guy has to have standards, and who am I to argue?

-doc

DodgingCars

I loved this movie. Is it original or thought-provoking? Not at all. But it was a lot of fun and very entertaining. I saw it with 4 other people and they all liked it as much as I did.

I will be buying this when it comes out on DVD. Good fun.

AsianImage

I also saw and loved the film. It is a tad old as it was just recently picked up fpor US release.

I saw this film at a acquisitions screening last year in hollywood and I know the film maker...GURINDA CHADHA and her Hubby. really great people. its not meant to be high art here peeps. It just a good movie that makes you smile as you walk out. Nothing more nothing less.

Anyways the film is very enjoyable!

Giantrobo

The owner of my favorite Indian Restaurant was telling me he heard this movie was very good. I'll have to check it out.

Tom Campbell

The negative reviews mystify me. I saw this two nights ago and found it charming, funny, touching, etc. I saw it with a packed house and everybody seemed to enjoy it. And, as pointed out above, you can count the Spice references on two fingers.

Pants

Well I think the issue is that Bring It On is charming, funny, touching, etc. but you would hardly call it art. Same thing aplies here, know what I mean?

Giles

Probably was, when I was in London last August, the film was only playing at Leicester Square. Of course my friend didn't want to see it and having read all the publicity of the film bought the Region 2 DVD when it came out last November.