United Passions

Intro:

"United Passions" is often forgotten, as the film was a colossal failure. Making no money, and getting negative reviews. So, I was curious. I watched it, and I was so bored. It was easily one of the worst experiences I had watching the film.

Why I Hate It:

This movie makes no sense, it doesn't clue in people who aren't similar with Fifa, about what's going on. So me, someone who could care less the organization, was totally lost. And the bad, boring dialogue doesn't help either.

The movie is also very biased in the way that it tells you to route for Fifa. It's also way too short, only at 1 hour and 50 minutes, yet it covers 70 years of history. A movie like "Goodfellas" covers 30 years of history in the Lucchese crime family. And that film is 40 minutes longer. The film centers around the three presidents of Fifa up until that point, and none of them are focused on enough for the audience to care. And even though it's short, those 110 minutes felt like 110 hours.

Conclusion:

This film's biggest flaw is that it doesn't allow me to care about these people. I don't care about Fifa, I don't care about the presidents of Fifa, and I certainly don't about the movie. It feels like Fifa propaganda, and I'm not gonna take it without criticizing it.

If your organisation is rotten to the core, harming something billions around the world love, what do you do?

Well, like any shady regime, you pump out propaganda. The trouble is, in this case everyone is well aware of FIFA's corruption, which makes this film not just poor cinema but unintentionally hilarious with great lines like, "Being president of Fifa will bring no glory, no money!"or, when Blatter is introduced with, ""he is apparently good at finding money" (in brown envelopes, we presume).

Like Nicolas Cage winding up in Left Behind, it's baffling how actor of the calibre of Tim Roth, Sam Neil and Gerard Depardieu. I guess none of them are football fans.

You know all those great sports movies about the underdogs and their fight to overcome incredible odds and still win? Yeah, this movie isn't one of those. It's a movie by a sports organization full of shady people about how not shady they are. There, it's like you just watched it.

FIFA has full reigns of this production and used it to make themselves seem like the bestest people in the world, which sounds ridiculous considering all of the scandals they are involved in. As previous reviewers have said, this smells a lot like propaganda. I guess you could enjoy it if you either 1. are a desperate fan boy/girl of anything related to football, or 2. an employee of FIFA contractually obligated to like it.

As a final note, you know a movie is bad when the IMDb tag line sounds sarcastic.

"On June 5, 2015, the film made its North American premiere at 10 movie theaters in New York, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Washington D. C., Kansas City, Miami, Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, and Philadelphia. It grossed $319."

The above quote is from the IMDB trivia section on this film. Additionally, the film ended up losing pretty much all the money spent to make it! But, at the same time, the film is reasonably entertaining and features a pretty amazing cast, such as Gerard Depardieu, Tim Roth and Sam Neill. It also features some nice scenes of Paris circa 1930 as well as come great location shots. So what is the problem with this movie?

Well, the problem is that the film is a tribute to the wonderfulness of FIFA, the international body that governs and oversees football (soccer to us Americans). So why is this a problem? Well, the film came out just after FIFA and its leaders were embroiled in a scandal and arrests were made for bribery and more! So, it's not too surprising that revenues were down for the film. But the problem goes much deeper than this. Apparently most of the cost to make the film was actually provided by FIFA...making this essentially a propaganda film...probably made to try to distract the public from FIFA's legal troubles. And, the public seems to have realized this and they stayed away from the movie in droves! It also didn't help that the film not only talks about the early days of FIFA and the first World Cup but then jumps ahead to today...extolling FIFA's virtues but NEVER seriously addressing the scandals...many of which had broken well before the film debuted! And, sadly, some of the folks the film seems to applaud are those who were later sanctioned by FIFA for fraud.

If you completely ignore the propaganda aspects of the movie, I must admit that it's reasonably entertaining...though a bit sterile and uninvolving. It really lacks heart and warmth and the characters seem more like caricatures much of the time. But purely for the look of the film and SOME of the acting, I'm giving it a 3. It's not all that good and is an apparent attempt to distract the public...but it's not 100% bad as you watch the movie.

For over a century movies have been fascinated with nefarious enterprises. The Mafia movies - which at the time seemed a long commercial bet - proved that audiences really liked to watch the internal workings of an organization, from how it generated its revenue through to how it dealt with opponents and new business rivals.

In a sense "United Passions" is like that: not quite "Donnie Brasco", or "Godfather II" true, but the drama and excitement of making uniform rules and regulations for playing football, or the power plays at board meetings and facing down political oppression n Europe, not to say the daring of Blatter offering sponsorships deals all makes for some pretty heady cinema.

That's not to say that its all good. It really isn't. The historical evolution of FIFA is related like a child's essay and that leads to a collective groan, much as any teacher faced with such mediocre aspirations would do as well. The script tends to platitudes and an overbearing pomposity. A film that has a barely concealed sneer at the English is paradoxically in English. As spoken by some actors it is obvious they are not fully comfortable with its stress patterns and cadences.

At times it teases with audience expectations as when Blatter holds a roadside rendezvous with another official and they discuss the implications of the Russian-US enmity in the late 1970s. It's scene we've all seen often enough: just as Fredo is dealt with by Michael in the boathouse, and usually presages a hit on an unsuspecting person. None, however occurs.

The flirtation with the worst instances of the Bond movie canon lead nowhere, of course, because this is a vanity corporate movie, full of sound and bureaucratic business cant, and naturally, signifying nothing.