Best (2000) User Reviews

A superficial biopic, unworthy of a sporting legend

[denny-16 · 5/10 · 13 May 2000]

As George Best has said, it is always difficult translating a sportsman's life to film, and this is no exception. In fact, the viewer needs to know the story of Best first to be able to follow the quick changes in character. We see George Best arriving in Manchester as a naive kid, experiencing a rapid rise to stardom, and just as swift a decline into alcoholic stupor, but without any idea of why. John Lynch co-wrote the script but seems all wrong for the charismatic Best. He remains sombre throughout, even when the team are on top. Ian Bannen gives a solid reading, in one of his last roles, as team manager Matt Busby, but again, the part is unlightening about his relationship with George. Of the supporting cast, I can only single out Linus Roache who is remarkably like the real Best teammate Denis Law, in speech and mannerisms.

The picture does have a lot of digitally retouched football footage, adding the actors into the action, but it is often shown from odd angles that lessen the impact. Why didn't they just use the actual players for these sequences ?

So, this joins the list of disappointing sporting lifes. Better to watch a documentary about the man instead to see the real magic.

Unlike the name, this is not the Best

[billyqpr · 5/10 · 14 May 2000]

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.

A ad and rather negative film about the life of footballer George Best.

[CharltonBoy · 6/10 · 12 May 2000]

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

one of the "worst" film I've ever seen

[robbie-30 · 1/10 · 12 May 2002]

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.

Not Worth It

[jfor232907 · 14 May 2000]

As a Manchester United FC fan, I eagerly awaited the release of this picture. What a disappointment! It focuses on George Best's addictions to gambling, womanising and alcohol with a lets-get-out-the-violins perspective. The errors in the plot were glaring, for example, John Lynch (Best) is not the petite build his character was. The only actor to come out with credit was Linus Roache as Denis Law. But the director's habit of missing out years between scenes left me confused as to where it was up to. I should have liked this movie (I was in the crowd at Old Trafford when they shot one of the scenes) but I didn't - I was glad when the credits rolled.

Absolute rubbish

[David-O-Brien · 1/10 · 26 March 2007]

This is dreadful. Jon Lynch is not handsome enough to play the part of George Best. We see nothing of the wit of the real character - merely a paranoid alcoholic. This film doesn't capture the soul of George Best at all. I am sure even ardent fans of Man United (which I am not) will find this film appalling. It's time to do a newer version now that the real George has passed away. With regard to other characters in the film, Linus Roache does a passable Denis Law, Ian Bannen is convincing as Matt Busby and Jerome Flynn is a good enough Bobby Charlton. One thing I found laughable though was that the same actor played the barman and Tommy Docherty - once with a wig, the other time without. Did they not have enough money to pay two actors ?

There needs to be a decent movie about George but this isn't it

[ogdendc · 4/10 · 3 June 2013]

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.

brilliant John Lynch

[clement_ · 10/10 · 17 November 2004]

As opposed to nearly every comment on this site... I really liked this film, being a fan of John Lynch I found this film no exception - intelligent, "thoughtful" actor, reflecting various types of human characters, here George Best. I don't

understand why John Lynch and the co were not supposed to be shown

playing, it's not like we're watching an actual documentary of the great player...if you want to see the original games as a whole, there are many documentaries

to give you that information, this is a film... The music is great and portrays the inner battle of the character, I especially enjoyed the part with Rod Stewart's In A Broken Dream.....brilliant, brilliant. This is a film by John and his wife, the director, so there is a lot more thought to this film than John just being a random actor. Personally I am not disturbed by John (born 1961) acting George from the beginning of his success to his retiring, like I said, it's a film, not a documentary and looking identical is hardly the most important criteria here. John has

credibility and grace, charm and arrogance, "Best" is a wonderful film. PS. As John Lynch is in the leading role, maybe he should be listed first in the credits (not last, on page 2...), no? Tried to correct that but the system wouldn't allow me to do it, can someone try again? Thanks.

One of the worst movies I saw this year

[minavagante · 1/10 · 10 July 2002]

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.

Best rocks, movie sucks!

[bh-4 · 1/10 · 31 August 2003]

I really wanted to like this movie because I like George Best. I don't like football and I don't care much for Manchester United but het, this is the George Best story. Unfortunatly the movie is boring and not actually interesting. Neither is probably this summary but George Best is good and I guess I would have seen the movie even if I knew how bad it was.

terrible casting

[freecloud89 · 4/10 · 30 October 2006]

its very hard i imagine to make a movie about a real life legend, the most important thing is to get the casting right of the subject the movie is about, thats the problem with this movie, from the first moment you see john lynch it hits you, the guy is a good actor and you cant blame him for taking the part, but he does not look anything like george best, if it was the pete townshend story he would have looked perfect, apart from being a genius footballer player george best had an incredible face, its so hard to watch this movie without thinking the whole time how unconvincing he is not because of any bad acting but just he is so badly cast, he looks like a forty year old man in a wig trying to look like a guy in his early twenties, one day someone will make a better movie about the life of george best, but you can be sure they will cast someone in their early twenties who is as near to or equally as good looking as best himself , only then will it be convincing and believable..

A roller coaster ride in the life and times of George Best.

[Kingkade · 12 May 2000]

Being a Man United fan probably makes me a bit biased on the subject of George Best.Hence the views expressed herein would not befit those going to watch a film to entertain them.

Although the movie's attempt has been made to please audiences with no taste for the game of football(soccer)it still has a fair amount of jargon on the game.I am afraid that someone in the States or any other country which football is not prominent or not as popular will never have heard of Manchester United least George Best.

In the film we are taken in a roller coaster ride with the life of the very famous Irish lad,Best.Since he arrived at Old Trafford to his last days in the club.At first the film gives you the impression it will show you what made him a legend in his field but slowly we are dragged into his persona and feel as drunk as he is.The overall view of the movie is actually making you sense what the man went through in a life of turmoil and confusion but soon has you displaced somewhere between limbo and Vodka.The acting is slow at times with John Lynch(George Best) as baffled as the part he is playing.Its only when we catch Ian Bannen(Sir Mat Busby)in a scene, that the plot all of a sudden comes alive with some rationality.The direction is erratic at times and we are moved from scene to scene at a hectic pace not really knowing what year all these events are unfolding.Its only those who know the history of the club that have an idea.But as expounded before, Mary McGuckian tries not to indulge the cinema goer with anything to do with the game,only to illustrate what made George Best tick inside.

All in all a poor attempt to portray a living legend without actually showing good coverage of the sport he excelled in.The glimpses we catch him playing,albeit well camouflaged with real shots of Best from afar and close shots of Lynch,are few to analogue his rise and fall.Its only when we see the real thing that we can understand what a genius Best was.

5/10 rating for Best. 10/10 for George Best