Best

The main thing was thinking about when i watched this film was i can understand why George Best never turned up the premier because if he did he would have gone through some real emotions. This movie was about as negative as you can get about a person .It hardly focused on the truly genius things George Best could do but more on the things ruined his career and some would say his life. I would have like to have seen more of a positive aspect shown but i dont suppose thats what most people want to see , they want to see the headline grabbing incidents that George made , and still does. What i will say about the film is that it is acted superbly by all the cast especially the lead man and the football fotage is mixed well. Not a bad movie at all , but just a little too negative for mine ( and i suspect most peoples) liking. 6 out of 10

There are two big problems with this 2000 film, as viewed in 2013. One is that the life story of George Best (1946 - 2005) is now complete and that the final years (liver disease, sobriety, transplant, relapse into alcohol, death and national outpouring of grief) must be covered in any Bestie biopic.

The other is the casting of John Lynch as Best. Although he is reasonable as the saddened boozed-up older Best at the start and end of the film, the same actor cannot be used as the teenage phenomenon who burst onto the scene in the early 1960s and created the blueprint for the 'pop star' footballer, using his charm and good looks to endorse products (yes he did advertise sausages), open shops and do modelling.

With those two points out of the way, and they are substantial, the rest of the film isn't too bad. I liked the contemporary music (Good Vibrations, Green Onions, In a Broken Dream) but Cockney Rebel was a strange choice for the Northern Irishman. Maybe a bit of Thin Lizzie's Whiskey in the Jar would have suited better for the end credits. The major achievements of his career (1966 v Benfica, 1968 European Cup) are highlighted, though there's no mention of the league title they won in 1967. The almost equally famous team-mates Bobby Charlton, Denis Law, Nobby Stiles, Paddy Crerand are there, even though Tony Dunne appears to have lost his first name. The important father figures of Matt Busby and real dad Dickie Best are there too.

Linus Roche is particularly good as the practical joking Denis Law though Jerome Flynn not as good as hypochondriac Bobby Charlton. Patsy Kensit is surprisingly wooden as, I assume, a random girlfriend. Stephen Fry is another National Treasure but that doesn't mean that he should be shoehorned into every British film, nor that a film is necessarily improved by his inclusion.

This film really lost its way about fifty minutes in. The pace really slowed and it became difficult to watch. Did we really need to see stupid drunken conversations with his mates? However, it was good to see him put six goals past Northampton after a six-week lay-off. That did really happen, though the primal scream that follows in the film did not.

Where was Angie Best in all this? The American years? The international matches? The attempted come-backs at Fulham, Bournemouth, Stockport and Hibs? And the conversation with the deceased Matt Busby - oh dear! Overall, there needs to be a decent movie about George but this isn't it.

Best is a very very boring film. There isn't any reason to watch it: even if you like football you are not interested in this character (I mean just the movie character, not the real George Best). You can't understand, during the film, the reason of his alcohol addiction, of his rebellion to every rules... So this George Best looks like a dumb guy, a star without a brain, able just to throw away all he owns.

Even the other characters are just masks: the good trainer and the bad trainer, the girl who tries to exploit him and the football player who hates him just because he is, above all, the best.

I think that both writers and director thought that would be very simple make a movie from a famous and scandalous football player as George Best, but movies are different from real life. It's not enough saying: things went this way. You might create something different...

I hope to see, soon, a good film about football.

Dissapointing telling of Georges life. It is just montages of him being drunk interwoven with his skills on the footy field. No character is really explored, we see Bobby Charlton recounting the Munich disaster, but that is as far as any characterisation goes. Decent performances, especially Lynch as when he plays the older George Best. The film is not Man United, more like Luton Town Reserves. Shame because it could of been so much more.

You have to be thankful for small favours, so I am thankful for having seen the original version of this movie, 'cos I'm sure an Italian dubbing would have accomplished the hard feat of making this movie worse. First, the lack of continuity is so big it jumps (and dances) in front of you: how come Best's accent is so strong at the beginning and almost gone near the end? how come he arrives in Manchester has a teenager and three years later looks fortyish? This movie lacks rhythm, it doesn't have a story and doesn't go anywhere. This movie lacks insight: we are told the life of a man who was good at football and who one day starts drinking, gambling and womanizing out of the blue. We await for an explanation of any kind, but to no avail. However, Best is portrayed as a "poor victim": a victim of what? Of the fact that someone gave him big money to run around a ball? Please!!! This movie lacks acting, so badly it hurts: only Ian Bannen delivers, but he has to put with lines from an alternative version of the "Symposium" that make him sound like a cheesy Socrates (the philosopher, not the footballer). A particular shame in this department must be bestowed upon females. I would not dare saying "female characters": Sophie Dahl is better than Patsy Kensit (go figure!); the latter would have found it easy to play this role, since she's been married to a lame imitator of Best's excesses (a Gallagher, in case you didn't know), but she can't even draw from personal experience. This movie lacks football, and it lacks it a great deal: if I knew nothing about this sport I would find the "coreographed scenes" ridiculous. Also, why re-enact famous matches only to film them with a 1960's-telly effect?

For this, and many more reasons, this movie lacks directing. It looks as if it's been directed by a large group of people who don't speak to each other, and it feels like a long bad tv commercial (what about that Irish choir?). Oh, and about the music, I haven't seen a single British movie that didn't feature "Come up and see me" by Steve Harley/Cockney Rebel: can some charity up there ship some new music to British Filmmakers? I don't want to go on forever, but the re-enacted scenes are another shame of this movie: you get actors filmed with a lousy filter and then pasted over an 80s (or 70s or 60s) background: it doesn't make sense, and it totally sucks. Like this whole movie.