"Pawn Sacrifice" the movie

But then, what's the purpose of the movie? It's not good in being a chess movie; it's not good in being a documentary; it's not good at being a biography.

The purpose is to make a dramatic movie that will be entertaining to general audiences.

It's clearly not working.

The movie didn't do that hot at the box office, but that's because the distributor didn't book it in many theaters and barely advertised it (which, from what I've read, seems to be a trend with Bleeker Street Media). Overall it's been reviewed and received fairly well from critics and general audiences who have seen it.

 About the lies in the movie:  I really don't understand why those filmakers do things like that.   Take, for exemple, Amadeus.  There were complaints (and also sues, I think) from the Salieri's family.  Even the fact that Salieri never ended Mozart's Requiem, it was Sussmeyr, a Mozart's pupil who did it.  It is said that Salieri did not do the bad things he does in the movie.  I read once that they modify something to make the movie better, that it works better with the public.  But I agree that sometimes they change a lot and tell lies, which sometimes make people think wrong ideas about the portrayed ones.  

Even if the movie says that's "based on a true story" or something like that, people will get out of the theater (as I did with Amadeus) with some wrong thinking, and will take some time until they know what really happened.  

My Pawn Sacrifice movie review: 

https://www.chess.com/blog/thejacka1/pawn-sacrifice-movie-review

While accepting that any movie is going to employ dramatic license there were a few things about Pawn Sacrifice that bugged me. For one, I thought it was more than a little unfair towards Regina Fischer. The line about Paul Morphy committing suicide in his bathtub was just bizarre. And to go by the movie one would get the impression that Boris Spassky was champion for decades and never aged.

 "Look at the stuff Nicolas Cage is doing these days - most direct-to-video shite or theatrical releases that are near universally panned and fail to earn even their budget back. Nick Cage just isn't a box office draw anymore. And yeah, he's turned in a handful of good performances in his career, but for the most part he hams on a level beyond hammy. Nor does he look at all like Bobby Fischer, apart from being white and male. Though he could maybe be made up to look like a passable hobo Bobby Fischer."

I see, so picking out the fact that Nick Cage has made several garbage movies in the last few years was the best you could do to defend this crap excuse for a movie? Despite the fact that Nick Cage has been very good in several earlier in this career, particularly 'Leaving Las Vegas' for which he deservedly won the Oscar. And if you'd paid attention you would noticed I mentioned Chris Eccleston, who looks far more like Bobby Fischer and is a great actor in his own right. It's pretty clear you have no idea about the movie industry at all. You certainly don't work in it. Your clueless comments prove it. 

It took you that long to think of a retort to my post and you still missed the point by a mile? Good lord....

The point wasn't specifically a defense of this movie. and the point absolutely was not what Nicolas Cage has done earlier in his career. The point was where Nicolas Cage is at now, in 2015/16. Whatever he may have done in the past his is no longer a marquee name. His name no longer brings people to the box office. That's why he's pretty much a direct-to-video tier actor these days. This Ecclestone fellow - as far as the general movie-going public are concerned "who?". That's not a judgment on him as it actor, it's just a statement that he's not a marquee name. Tom Cruise, for example, is a marquee name. He's a craptastic actor, but he puts asses in seats (for some unquantifiable reason).

There's plenty of brilliant actors out there who will never see their name on a marquee, will never land the lead role in a major production, and will never draw people to the theaters. (Case-in-point: the excellent Richard Jenkins, who, in more four decades of professional acting, has had exactly one lead role in a movie, and that was in a small, low-key production). And there are actors who are terrible, who can only play one basic role (Tom Cruise, Will Smith, etc) who get the lead in just about every production they agree to and who put rears in the seats.

And that, my friend, is just how it is.

I saw the movie it was so so...not a great movie IMO..

Darth-Algar - "It took you that long to think of a retort to my post and you still missed the point by a mile?" 

The reason I took so long to reply (as with this one, you thick fucking cunt) is because I rarely use this chess site. Your comments prove once again you're a stupid fucking bastard. By all means have the last say you little fucking bitch.