Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

When the movie started i was amazed how flashy, fast and impressive the photography was. I thought I was in for a great ride. How could I have missed such an important picture with Gene Hackman and Robert Redford starring in it? I thought I had overlooked a precious movie for many years. But I was wrong. My first thoughts were right on the money: how can a picture about skiing be interesting other then for sport fans? It cant. Not this one. I wont reveal the story to avoid spoilers, although there is not much to get spoiled because the story is going nowhere. That is just the main and only true fault of this movie: an utterly boring story. Unless you are into skiing...What is really good about this movie is the photography. Mind you, this picture was shot in 1969, for those days the speeding downhill camera shots were really revolutionary. Even to this day, the camera work is really enticing. Gorgeous shots. Acting is good too. How couldnt it be, with young upcoming stars like Hackman and Redford. The soundtrack fails miserably though, more suited for a war movie. But hey, they experimented with lots of modern classical stuff, so I praise them for trying to do something out of the ordinary. All the techniques used in this picture are truly up there with the best. But the story is NOT.All this experimental soundtrack stuff, the truly mind blowing camerawork and the great acting still cant hide the obvious fact that the story is dead boring. Still wanna know what the story is about? A new young ski talent goes to the Olympics and becomes successful. Wow. If you think that is a thrilling story, then this is the movie for you. I thought it was going nowhere beyond what one can already see on t,v. during any other sports tournament.

Even if you love Robert Redford and you love skiing movies, I can't recommend you sit through Downhill Racer. My preference lies with the former category, and since he won a BAFTA Award for his performance, I was looking forward to seeing some high-quality acting. There was no redeeming quality about this movie, and for the life of me, I don't know why he was honored for it.Robert Redford plays a skier with hopes to join the American Olympic team. He's arrogant, rude, and a total cad with the women in his life. Gene Hackman plays the team's coach, and while it's fun to see him and Dabney Coleman so young, it's hardly worth seeing the film all the way through.The script feels nonexistent, the acting feels ad-libbed, the plot is thin, and there's more boredom evoked than suspense. Michael Ritchie's directing style feels extremely European, and I don't generally like that artsy, noncommittal, aloof style of film. Besides Havana, this just might be the worst Robert Redford movie ever made.DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie is not your friend. Most of it is filmed with a hand-held camera, and the skiing scenes seem to be filmed by the skier himself, and they will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

It becomes very hard to watch this one from early on as the sequences appear to be just highlights from an afternoon on ABC's Wide World of Sports which used to run on TV when this movie was made. Yes, the skiing is okay but nothing special. No, it will not shift to the Harlem Globtrotters or Boxing during the movie.Redford is too old for the role as a stud skier going to the Olympics to win a gold medal. He meets a woman and has some very mechanical overnight exercise with her. His coach, Hackman, try's to motivate him though Gene does not get any really inspired Hoosier type speeches here. The film is about as bland a Redford movie as can be found anywhere.At least there are the lovely vistas that show up at times but often they are so short you see them for a few seconds and then pow your back to looking at bland stuff. What plot there is seems to be trying to capitalize on US Nationalism as the feeling of the thrill of victory for the US Skier is supposed to excite you at the end. Instead of that it is almost as bland as a poorly animated cartoon. Maybe that is why this one just does not come off.

For the record, the race involved is not the Super G, it's the Downhill. At the time of the movie, there was no Super G; the Alpine Skiing events were the slalom, giant slalom and the downhill. The Super G was added as a World Cup event in '82 or 83, and included in the Olympics for the first time in '88.The Super G is not as long or as fast as the Downhill. The skiers in the movie were the fastest of the fast.In the 1968 Olympics, Jean-Claude Killy of France won all three Alpine skiing disciplines, an amazing display or all around skiing prowess.The changes in equipment and technology since the movie was made are significant, but the courage and ego required to do this successfully are amazing. Although a different breed of cat, I've always likened Downhillers to Big Wave surfers. The natural forces involved are awesome, the consequences (for inattention) possibly fatal.The movie captured the quirky nature of the gunslinger type that is drawn to this sport.