The Terry Fox Story

Yes, here might be a movie where you have to break out the Kleenex and start sobbing. No, this real life drama/true story bypasses all of that, avoiding the sentimentality's, what have you. Real life cripple Eric fryer, playing Terry with honesty and realism, not overacting primarily makes this film. He's a very angry and bitter man, Participating in a walk for charity, with one leg, the other just a mechanical foot attached to a spring, which makes the journey harder, but inspirational, we follow the pitfalls, where at times, Fox gets really stormed up, at times, almost wanting to pack it in. Rosalund Chao, as his girlfriends adds some romantic moments, where Duvall, is great as the abused driver, transporting Fox, while Makepeace is likable as Fox's younger brother. Avoiding all that sop sop, a thing I really like about the film, it has a realist nature about it, and Fox's journey is one vastly travelled where he suffers a few hiccups, collapsing at one stage, while bleeding from his fake leg, where the end is an ultimate predictability. His anger and effrontery does get to you at times. This is a very entertaining drama, one I liked very much, where a similar film, of the same year, Running Brave, is one to check out too.

Due to my age, I can only vaguely remember when Terry Fox was running across Canada, but his story is definitely a legendary one here in my country. This is a solid film that begins with his life immediately before his leg is amputated, but it focuses on the actual "Marathon of Hope". Some of the dialogue seems a little unrealistic at times, and the film often moves at too brisk a pace, but the acting is fairly good, and in spite of the flaws, this is a story that needs to be heard if you are unfamiliar with it. Terry Fox is widely regarded as a great Canadian hero...here's your chance to find out why.

Terry Fox is a Canadian icon. Perserverance and triumph through unspeakable tragedy. This portrayal is an abomination. Early in the film we see a fellow patient sketching a flower vase. The "artist's" chalk is not even touching the canvas in the scenes. Rank amateurs attempting to cash in on a proper hero. Throw in Robert Duval in one of the penultimate scenes and you have a package toi sell. Clumsy and terrible. Avoid this film at all costs. Exploitation and offensively poor. Shame on everyone involved. There is nothing in this film that portrays the heart of overcoming personal tragedy to the spirit required to run across the country on one leg in a harsh climate to help strangers. Instead it is an exercise in misunderstanding and exploitation.

It's 1977. Athletic university kid Terry Fox (Eric Fryer) is diagnosed with cancer in his knee and his leg is amputated. With the help of new girlfriend Rika Noda (Rosalind Chao), brother Darrell Fox (Chris Makepeace) and best friend Doug Alward (Michael Zelniker), he starts running in races and decides to run across Canada to raise money for cancer research. After breaking up with Rika and with little support, Terry and Doug start from Halifax as he runs home to Vancouver. He's later joined by Darrell and Bill Vigars (Robert Duvall) from the cancer society in Toronto.

The first part is functional TV affair. It's nothing spectacular but it works. The movie really gets going once he's on the road. Terry and Doug's relationship is compelling. It shows Terry to be not simply a saint but an actual human being. The receptions he gets are the real tearjerker. The movie then adds the great Robert Duvall to the mix. Obviously, Fryer got the job because of his amputation and his likeness to Terry. He is still a competent actor who is able to hit certain notes. Zelniker is amazing as Doug. This is a solid TV production of an inspiring figure.

I first fell in love with this story a few years ago after seeing the 2005 film. Just this week I found out about this version and was able to view it on You Tube. Like others have said the tone is unnecessarily negative and it's portrayal of Terry is unnecessarily negative. Terry probably very much did have his cranky moments - we all do - and especially considering just how much physical as well as emotional pain that he must have been in he probably did. Those things however were not the whole of his personality. The fact that he did want to give to the people of the cancer community in terms of his time and in terms of his service shows just what a giving person that he must have been. This film focuses primarily on the negative and in doing so does a disservice to Terry and very much fails in appropriately honoring him. No one routinely 100 percent of the time treats their family and friends as badly as is portrayed in this film. There is also the issue of the unnecessary language in the film that further tainted Terry and the film unnecessarily. I cannot believe that the family or the Terry Fox Foundation ever approved this travesty.

Skip this one and instead watch the 2005 version. it does a much more appropriate honoring of Terry. The actor - smile - Shawn Ashmore - is more attractive - smile - and easier to look at (what was with the goofy look in the 1983 version that they gave this actor before and after chemotherapy) the pacing is much better and doesn't leave you hanging at the end as the 1983 version does, the music is much more compelling and the film as a whole is far more positive.

Both films however don't appropriately honor the parents. In both films Terry's parents, siblings, and friends are portrayed much less than positive. I hope some form of documentary or film is made one day that does give the parents especially the honor and portrayal that they deserve.