Thrilla in Manila

I was excited to hear Joe Frazier's side of the story. However, this documentary is so one sided that it loses it's credibility in it's first 15 minutes.

Early on, Joe Frazier claims that Parkinson's Disease is Muhammad Ali's punishment for the way Ali behaved early in life. That's just disgraceful. The film seems to be trying to rewrite history, to cast Joe Frazier in a kinder light. But it backfires by exposing the bottomless well of bitterness and resentment that fuels the endless complaining done by Joe Frazier and his camp throughout the film.

And I think Ferdie Pacheco is the most entertaining thing in the movie. He calls out the filmmakers for their lack of knowledge of their subject numerous times, and at one point asks "Are you in boxing at all? I mean, are you coming from covering the stock market or something?" Right on, Ferdie.

Several weeks ago, there was a special presentation of this documentary at an event to honor the memory of Smokin' Joe Frazier. Legendary boxing promoter Bob Arum spoke at the function, and although Arum prefaced his remarks by paying homage to the late Joe Frazier, he harshly criticized this documentary, bluntly calling it "disgusting" and an "unfair attack" on Muhammad Ali. However, Arum hit the nail on the head regarding this film, which, as another reviewer on the Web site accurately characterizes, is just "a piece of revisionist propaganda."

There are a slew of inaccuracies, myths, and half-truths presented in this documentary, so much so that if I were to address them all, this review would be the length of a book. However, I would like to dispel several of the most significant myths that this biased documentary perpetuates:

Documentary Myth: During Ali's exile, Joe Frazier nobly helped Ali out by giving him money and diligently lobbying to help Ali get his license reinstated.

Facts: Yes, during Ali's exile from boxing, Frazier would, on occasion, lend money to Ali and even went to great lengths to help Ali get his license back. But he didn't do so for magnanimous reasons, like it's portrayed in this documentary. Joe wanted a mega million dollar fight and knew that a bout with Ali would result in a huge fight payday, given Ali's high name recognition and stature. He facilitated Ali's return to boxing because he perceived Ali as his ticket to Ft. Knox, which is what Ali became. But Joe's "noble" gestures in helping Ali were for his own personal gain, not Ali's welfare.

Documentary Myth: By calling Joe "ugly" or " gorilla," Ali was making racial epithets.

Facts: True, Ali did call Frazier "ugly," but he also called Sonny Liston, Leon Spinks, and Larry Holmes "ugly" during pre-fight stages of his bouts with them as well. (He probably called Liston ugly more times than Frazier. Just view some old footage of everything leading up to the first Liston bout.) In addition to proclaiming to be "The Greatest," Ali would often boast to the press, in a jovial manner, that he was "pretty" and most fighters were "ugly."

It has to be understood that in addition to being a master boxer, Ali was also a master showman and fight promoter. The name calling wasn't meant to serve as personal attacks, and Ali's boasting of his boxing ability and his appearance wasn't conceit, contrary to popular myth. He just used narcissism to promote bouts, a marketing ploy he learned from watching pro wrestlers.

And yes, Ali did call Frazier "The Gorilla" before their third fight. But here again, it was a situation in which Frazier was not singled out because Ali had always created monikers for his opponents as a gimmick to promote fights. He called Frazier "The Gorilla" before their third fight, but he also coined Sonny Liston "The Big Ugly Bear," Floyd Patterson "The Rabbit," George Chuvalo "The Washerwoman," George Foreman "The Mummy," and Ernie Shavers "The Acorn" (a reference to Shaver's bald head).

Given this pattern, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Ali was creating monikers as a promotional gimmick, not as racial taunts. He applied it to many fighters, not just Frazier; it was just that Frazier was the only Ali opponent who spent his entire life whining about it.

Documentary Myth: The Nation of Islam, of which Ali was a member, and the Klu Klux Klan wanted to form a pact and Muhammad Ali spoke at a Klu Klux Klan Rally.

Facts: There's minimal evidence to support this documentary's claim that the KKK and the NOI wanted to collaborate. As for Ali speaking at a Klan rally, there's also no credible evidence to substantiate this assertion, and it most likely never happened. Being that Ali at the time was nothing more than arguably the world's most famous human being, surely news of Ali speaking at such an event would have inevitably leaked to the press. Add to that, the irony of an Afrocentric Muhammad Ali speaking at a rally of white supremacists would have made for such a sensational and controversial news story that virtually every news medium in the world would have reported it, and most likely it would have been a lead story. The long and short of it all is that the media would have had a field day with something like this. Yet there is no film or photographic record of this, nor is there any news report on record of this at all.

The documentary shows a film clip of Ali in an interview supposedly admitting to speaking at a KKK rally. However, the film footage has obviously been edited. Ali was most likely making these remarks as part of a gag. He was always one to clown and joke around, even while being interviewed.

I could go on and on about the myths, biased assertions, and falsehoods perpetuated in this documentary, such as implausible testimonies, a fabricated analysis of the Ali-Frazier fight trilogy, manipulated film footage, and Larry Holmes lying through his teeth by saying that Ali was "overrated" as a fighter even though, ironically, Holmes had always publicly proclaimed that Ali was his idol. But, unfortunately, IMDb imposes a 1,000-word limit for its reviews.

But the bottom line is that the "Thriller in Manila" documentary is, as Bob Arum states, "chock full of inaccuracies and is designed to demean Muhammad Ali" And as he also states, you can watch this documentary if you want, "but don't believe a word that's being said."

I loved the documentary When We Were Kings when it came out but it seems that director John Dower didn't like the fact that Ali was rather elevated in that film in the way that he has been for most of the time since his boxing career ended. Certainly for me and most of my generation, Ali is the epitome of the fast-talking sports star, a true character who produced some great fights and this film confirms some of that while also throwing a slightly harsher light on him. It does this by looking specifically at the relationship between Ali and Joe Frazier, the latter of whom still lives in a room behind his gym in a rundown area of Philadelphia.

The similarities in style between this film and We Were Kings (WWWK) are mostly cosmetic things and are mostly good things but the main difference is in the content. The first film focused on the fight lifting up the black community and having such a cultural impact. However this film focuses more on the negative side of Ali's trash talking and the products of this – a brutal fight and buckets of acrimony. The structure of the film builds to the retelling of the fight in the same way as WWWK by focusing on the social consequence and specifics of the build up before getting to a talk-through of the actual fight itself. Here it does a good job of showing the significance of what Ali was saying – attacking Frazier's "blackness", calling him racial names and so on. When I say a good job I mean that it helps the modern viewer understand the impact of his words – specifically the historical context in which these things were said.

I found this fascinating and the only slight downside is that there is nobody really to speak on behalf of the Ali camp and you can tell that the film has been put together with a certain amount of seeking to redress the balance and give a voice to Frazier. With that it mind, and the clear presentation of the "facts", it is hard not to feel for Frazier, who still to this day has a fighter's heart but also a real bitter streak. This is perhaps not particularly palatable to see but the film leaves it there for us to see nonetheless, as it should. The overall presentation is good, with the fight footage well blended with talking heads and plenty of good soundtrack selections. I thought it was a very good idea to have people watching the fight during the film – specifically Frazier himself – as this did produce some interesting moments.

WWWK is the accessible boxing documentary that everyone knows about but this film is equally as good, even if the rather bitter subject matter is not as fun and uplifting as that film. The structure and presentation is good and the makers present a bitter and tense conflict in a way that is engaging and sympathetic. Nobody really comes out of it well but so be it. Could have done with a little more from the Ali camp during the film but this is a minor niggle and it engages easily.

This is the most biased 'documentary' I've ever seen.

I am a big fan of that era of boxing and am particularly fond of Ali and Frazier. Both great men and what a great trilogy of fights. Sadly, this 'documentary' has demeaned a great fight. Any serious boxing fan knows that Ali deservedly won the fight and he tactically outsmarted Frazier. It was a marathon of a fight in very hot conditions, Frazier's only real chance was to knock Ali out.

Boxing is a tough sport and the fighters always trash talk each other to promote the fight. This 'documentary' has magnified Ali's trash talking and over analysed the trash talking.

Only hard core Frazier fans and Ali haters are up-voting this 'documentary'. Or maybe it's people who hate boxing, every boxing fan knows that trash talking goes on to promote the event. After the fight the trash talking stops. Ali actually said in the post match press conference 'he is a great fighter'

Having said all that, the 'documentary' has some very rare footage and is worth a watch just for that. Also, Ferdie Pacheco gives a great analysis and seems to realise early on that the makers were biased. I was going to give 1 star, but due to Ferdie's analysis and the rare footage I'm going to give it 3 stars

What's the greatest boxing film ever made? Rocky? Raging Bull? Million Dollar Baby? Up until now, I would have said When We Were Kings was the contender for best boxing film ever made, but having seen Thriller in Manila I'm not so sure.

When We Were Kings tells the story behind the George Foreman/Muhammad Ali title fight (billed as the Rumble in The Jungle), which took place in Zaire in 1974. Thriller in Manila (as that fight was hyped), recounts the story leading up to the world heavyweight championship fight between Muhammad Ali and 'Smokin' Joe Frazier. Both films use extensive footage of each title fight to drive home the power of their stories.

And what a fight the contest in Manila was. Fourteen brutal rounds beginning at 10am on a hot, humid Manila morning, just so the folks back home in America could watch it live in the comfort of their lounge rooms.

By 1975 when the fight took place, both men were at their peak as boxers. They had met on two previous occasions, each coming away with one win. Now they were going head to head, for the third and final time. What unfolded in the searing heat of Manila is now considered one of the greatest boxing matches of all time.

This documentary tells its story through the battered eyes of Joe Frazier. It makes extensive use of archival footage, and numerous interviews with many of the surviving key personnel involved in both Ali and Frazier's support teams, including Ali's ringside doctor, and one of Frazier's corner-men.

It shows Ali at his best and his worst, as he stalks Joe Frazier with racial taunts of 'Uncle Tom', as "ignorant", and through constant references to Frazier as a "gorilla". For Ali, this was all part of the 'mental game of boxing', and he was a master of it. He knew how to psyche an opponent out, and he was using every weapon in his arsenal to try and put Frazier off his game. But Frazier was having none of it.

Finally, when all the bluff and swagger, the arrogance and taunts, the hokey poems, and the hours of training are over, all you are left with is the ultimate physical contest between two men inside a boxing ring.

It was probably the first time that Ali had stood head to head with an opponent and slugged it out. No fancy dancing, no jokes or smart quips to the crowd – and no mercy or surrender. By the fourteenth round, both men were physically and mentally exhausted. Joe Frazier could barely see through his puffed and swollen eyes, and Ali's body had taken such pounding to his kidneys, heart and liver that it was beginning to shut down (Frazier states in the documentary, that his constant pounding around the area of these vital organs was a deliberate attempt on his part to inhibit Ali's ability to fight).

In the end, the fight finished not with a bang, but a whimper. Although Joe Fazier wanted to go out for the fifteenth and final round, his trainers would not let him. You can see him in the television footage refusing time and again, to throw in the towel, but his trainer, who had the final call, made the decision that gave the fight to Ali.

In Ali's corner, a separate drama was taking place. Ali had gone back to his seat and demanded that his gloves be 'cut off', a clear sign that he had had enough. Ali was prepared to give the fight to Frazier, but his trainers refused.

One can only speculate now whether Ali would have refused to fight the last round with Frazier. History on the other records that Muhammad Ali won the 'Thriller in Manila'.

One of the most poignant aspects of the film is watching Joe Frazier's face as he in turn watches a film of the boxing match. You see him re-fighting every round with Ali, adding little comments here and there; taking the blows one more time.

While Muhammad Ali went on to make millions by selling his image to a host of advertisers, and through numerous lucrative product endorsements, Joe Frazier still lives humbly above the gym that bears his name in a poverty ridden suburb of Philadelphia.

At 63 years of age (when he was interviewed for this documentary), Joe Frazier does not make a good poster boy for the sport of boxing – and Muhammad Ali even less so. Both have been ravaged, physically and mentally by the constant pounding of sledgehammer-like blows to their heads, and yet I suspect that if either men were asked today, neither of them would probably have any regrets.

This film makes the perfect companion piece to When We Were Kings, which tells the story of arguably the greatest boxer in the history of the sport. Thriller in Manila, on the other hand, looks at this myth through the eyes of one of Ali's greatest opponents, and casts an altogether different light on the man and the myth.

My only reservation about the film is that it is told almost entirely from Joe Frazier's point of view. Of course, Ali himself, is no longer in any position mentally to present his side of the story. In many respects, his own words and actions speak for themselves, and viewers will have to be satisfied with these.

Over the intervening years since that great contest, Ali to his credit, has apologised on several occasions for his racial jibes against Joe Frazier, acknowledging that he had gone too far. Frazier for his part, seems to still harbour resentment for the way he was treated by Ali, and feels that Ali is now paying the price for his arrogance.