"Pawn Sacrifice" the movie

So, from what I'm gathering, this is just another hollywoodesque bs, then?

Does it have a teen Fischer montage, pushing pieces around, short cuts fading into each other to some theme song that returns after beating Spassky?
If it does, I'm totally watching it. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/8525984/Endgame-The-Spectacular-Rise-and-Fall-of-Bobby-Fischer-by-Frank-Brady-review.html might be a good read. 

Okay under normal circumstances I wouldn't bother writing a review about a movie but on this occasion I have to.

Quite frankly this movie about Bobby Fischer is utter garbage! First of all, Tobey Maguire should never have been cast in this movie at all. Fischer was tall and slim, a far cry from Tobey who is short, chubby and nothing like Fischer at all. What next? Will this stupid clueless producer (Gail Katz) cast Tony Cox as Barack Obama in the movie of his life? I wouldn't put it past her at all. I saw Gail interviewed about this movie and she said "I met Tobey and I thought he could play Fischer" so she asked him." And like the moronic Hollywood ego maniac idiot Tobey is he said yes!! Now I tried to tell Tobey long before hand not to do this film because he's simply not the right person to play Fischer, but did he listen? Nope! Because Tobey Maguire is a moron who will play any part for MONEY regardless of whether he's right for the part or not. On the other hand it was VERY CLEAR that Christopher Eccleston was perfect for the part. He's a an excellent actor, well established in Hollywood, and he looks a lot like Fischer! Take a look at black and white pictures of Fischer, then compare them to black and white pictures of Chris Eccleston. There's one picture of Chris in a suit where he looks almost identical to Fischer. Chris is the same height and build as Bobby. He would of nailed that role. And even if Chris was unable to play the part because of other commitments then it would of been sensible to have held the movie back until Chris was free to play the part. If Chris had said no, then a very good second choice would of been Nick Cage, again the same height and build as Fischer, and also fine established actor. Both would of be excellent choices for the role, although Chris Eccleston looks a lot more like Fischer than any other Hollywood actor. It was simply ludicrous that Bobby in the movie was shorter than Boris Spassky!! The casting was simply pathetic, and Gail Katz and Edward Zwick are totally to blame for such a massive cock up they should be deeply embarrassed for that alone; there's suspension of disbelief and then there's sheer arrogant ignorance and stupidity, Gail Katz and Edward Zwick fooled no one but themselves! 

Many of the scenes in this ridiculously bad movie never actually happened at all. New scenes were simply made up!! It was just stupid beyond belief. The whole movie was a bad joke and an insult to both Fischer and Spassky. And worse still the whole 'thing' was sugar-coated and did not reveal or reflect any real truths about Fischer the man and his outstanding chess ability at all and the same applies to Spassky. Quite frankly this movie is rubbish from start to finish full of lies and make belief and most of all it's a deep insult to the world of dedicated chess players who clearly know far more about Fischer and Spassky and the game of chess than the producers or the director ever bothered to learn or reflect in their shambles of a movie. No matter how much was spent making this garbage, no matter how pretty or clever they tried to make it look, it failed and not just badly, it failed miserably. If you understand and love the game of chess, if you want to see a story about Bobby Fischer that is both true and a fair reflection of his life and his character, then I wouldn't blame you after seeing it, if you are both angry and deeply disappointed about this clueless excuse for a bio pic movie that fails on every single level. Pawn Sacrifice is rubbish from start to finish.

I felt very simpathetic towards Bobby Fischer towards the end of the movie. Was it Tobey Maguire who played Fischer? Yeah, I agree. I think Nicholas Cage would have been a far better candidate.

I too was underwhelmed, the creator of this film most definitely is not in love with chess. It was a shallow exploration on something incredibly deep but I also accept that if went any deeper the drooling masses would get bored and fall asleep. I just wonder how much research went into it because the poetic lisence taken in places was extreme considering that if Bobby were alive he would never even have allowed a film of his life to be made. Where is the respect for this aspect of his life ? Overall I was disappointed in a kind of unwherlmed way. What a pity but hey that's life.

Yeah. Indeed, the movie was trash.

But maybe it's because, to me, I had many expectations about it, before I downloaded it (just like how did with the Steven Hawkins movie)

You know, it had it's moments. I can't recall which scenes, but yeah, I found myself revetted in those moments with his sister.

The first mistake people make is in assuming this is a movie about chess. It's not (nor are the film makers targeting chess fans in producing it). It's a movie about American-Soviet oneupsmanship that happens to use a chess match as the vehicle drive the story.

The second mistake people make is in thinking that an actor must look, sound just like, and be just as tall as the person they're portraying. They're called "actors", not "lookalikes", for a reason. Odd that I never seem to read such complaints over Peter Sarsgaard as William Lombardy or, say, Ben Kingsley as Bruce Pandolfini (Searching For Bobby Fischer).

A third mistake people make is in expecting/assuming films which use real people to be biographical rather that dramatizations.

Disabuse yourself of these notions and it just might be possible to enjoy, or at least gauge, a film on its own terms. A good case in point is Oliver Stone's The Doors - which actually isn't so much about The Doors and more about Jim Morrison and even then isn't so much about Jim Morrison the person, but rather the myth of Jim Morrison. However, taken on its own merits it's a pretty enjoyable film.

 I'd have to agree with Algar. There's plenty of Hollywood reasons why a movie did or did not work. Ok, the casting was probably out in left field for this one, but they we're also trying to condense a LARGE period of time into about 2 hrs.

I also agree with Darth_Algar and RonaldJosephCote. I enjoyed it.

Pawn Pusher 5: The Dark Side of Chess:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/new-chess-movie-pawn-pusher-5-the-dark-side-of-chess?page=1

Well in regards to casting, Hollywood studios can be seriously risk-adverse. With something that's not a sure-fire blockbuster they're generally going to insist upon someone who's got drawing power for the lead. Are their actors who resembled Fischer more? Certainly. Are any of those actors marquee names? No. Tobey Macguire, on the other hand, is.

The producers of the film might have been better off to have partnered with Netflix, Hulu or Amazon, and released it via streaming media, rather than dealing with the costs and marketability concerns inherent in a theatrical release. That could have given them more room to take risk, cast lesser known actors, etc.

Hmmm,,,,, let's see, of all of you that commented on this movie, how many of you, actually directed, produced, or even casted a blockbuster film? And if you have let's see or hear the reviews from YOUR work. Ok then. Put a sock in it!!

That's a terrible argument.
I need not be a musician to not like a particular genre of music.

Using that logic no one should ever have an opinion on anything.

 Hmmm,,,,, let's see, of all of you that commented on this movie, how many of you, actually directed, produced, or even casted a blockbuster film? And if you have let's see or hear the reviews from YOUR work. Ok then. Put a sock in it!!

What a stupid comment by jfly01 ... by that logic no one should critique anything at all! 

"Well in regards to casting, Hollywood studios can be seriously risk-adverse. With something that's not a sure-fire blockbuster they're generally going to insist upon someone who's got drawing power for the lead. Are their actors who resembled Fischer more? Certainly. Are any of those actors marquee names? No. Tobey Macguire, on the other hand, is."

Wrong, Nick Cage could easily have played the part of Fischer and would of been a heck of a lot better because .... one, he would of at least looked like him, and two he's acting style would of been better than Tobey's ... and three, Nick Cage is an Oscar winner! So he's certainly bankable in the industry. Also, Chris Eccleston is a very well known actor (Gone in Sixty Seconds, 28 days later, Heroes) All were very big hits, he's well known in Hollywood and has been for a long time as an excellent actor, and he looks a lot like Fischer.

Contrary to your opinion, this film was about Bobby Fischer! As can be seen in the many reviews about this movie, the rest of it, the cold war and the game of chess, were the background to the subject matter, and that was Bobby Fischer himself. His STORY carried the movie, that's what it was all about ... your comment that ... "It's a movie about American-Soviet oneupsmanship that happens to use a chess match as the vehicle drive the story." is clearly wrong ... the American - Soviet 'oneupmanship' you refer to is just another layer to the Bobby Fischer story. 

"The second mistake people make is in thinking that an actor must look, sound just like, and be just as tall as the person they're portraying. They're called "actors", not "lookalikes", for a reason. Odd that I never seem to read such complaints over Peter Sarsgaard as William Lombardy or, say, Ben Kingsley as Bruce Pandolfini (Searching For Bobby Fischer)."

The comment above is so patronizing it is ridiculous. We live in 2016, pretty much the whole world is media educated now, as for the comment about Peter and Ben, that just makes it even more laughable, Peter was a secondary character, as was Ben, to the main stars of those particular films. And as for your comment about the 'Doors' movie, at least Oliver Stone cast an excellent actor in Val Kilmer who actually LOOKED a lot like Jim. He could of chosen Jason Patrick at the time, but Val was just as good a choice and did a fine job. In stark contrast, Tobey looked NOTHING like Fischer at ALL. By the logic of Darth, Hollywood could cast Tony Cox as Obama, after all he is an ACTOR not a look-a-like, so we the uneducated movie goers should just as easily accept his portrayal as the first black American President. Right? No, not at all, when the general public go to see a bio pic, it helps suspend disbelief when the ACTOR actually looks and ACTS like the person they are portraying. Otherwise a whole long list of very famous and award winning movies down through the ages would be all the poorer for it as was seen in the movie Pawn Sacrifice. Tobey Maguire was CLEARLY the wrong actor to play Bobby Fischer. Nothing to do with his acting ability in general, which is no better and no worse than many well known Hollywood actors, he simply did not look, act, or portray Fischer the man and the chess player well at all.

Pawn Sacrifice. bad casting of the major character Fischer and a poor movie that could of been absolutely brilliant. 

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.

Ok maybe my comment was a lil mis stated, I agree, I was jus a lil furious on all the negative comments about a great movie about a great game,, maybe every little detail wasn't 100% accurate, I agree, I've also read and seen interviews from Mr Spassky himself, he was too disappointed, casting doesn't have to be 100% either do they?, I'm just like give em a break, you can dislike something, it's jus a better way you can say such things

I agree this movie is poor, but for another reason: it's themed around chess, but it doesn't talk much about chess at all. We only see the pieces now and then, for example. They just write some generic rubbish about the Nimzowitsch defense or something, but we don't see any deeper comment about chess attack and defense – and without this material, it feels like some generic teen drama with some craziness added and a superficial chess skin.

It's not aimed at chess players. It's aimed for general audiences, who would soon become bored out of their minds and stop watching the move if they started delving into deeper commentary about chess attack and defense. Kinda like how baseball themed movies don't start going into sabermetric analysis.