Winning Time: Reggie Miller vs. The New York Knicks (2010)

So much average

Pretty Good

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Like every middle aged New Yorker, I remember the game like it was yesterday. We didn't hate the Pacers. We didn't hate Reggie. But when he was on, he made us so damn angry- angry at everything, downright ornery. It hit a passion point that we didn't as sports fans know existed.The documentary managed to turn about 8 seconds of game time into a well told hour-ish story. The story of how two sports teams represented the feelings of their entire city for multiple post season series igniting such passion, did what a good documentary should do- evoke emotion.I mentioned the game to my family last week and everyone got so angry- instantly! Each version was slightly different but it was all about two words- Reggie Miller. Maybe it was 8 points maybe 12, maybe 9 seconds maybe less, but it was so personal to each person and clearly an open wound- 20 years later!!! I told them to watch this documentary.

While I enjoy the films from ESPN's "30 for 30" series, I am not the best person to review this particular film, as basketball is one of my least favorite sports. I am not putting the game down--I just have never been much of a basketball fan. Keep this in mind as you read my review--a big b-ball fan might LOVE this episode."Reggie Miller vs. The New York Nicks" is about the rivalry between the Knicks and Miller in the post-season. However, this title seemed a bit overblown. After all, it wasn't like Miller didn't have other teammates and that they spoiled the Knicks playoff bid year after year (it only happened once). So, to me it seemed like a giant no story. Aside from Miller being a trash-talker (don't get me started about that), it just didn't seem that important, as NEITHER team went to the finals! What am I missing?! Why make this film? I just didn't get it. The production values were very nice--I just didn't see a strong enough story to merit the film.By the way, near the end of the film I could have sworn that Patrick Ewing took 37 steps while driving down the lane in game 7 for that final shot. See it and count 'em yourself.

A sentimental look back on the storied rivalry between two perennial NBA bridesmaids, with a special focus on Reggie Miller, John Starks and Spike Lee. Fans of either team, or of the league as a whole, in the mid 1990s should enjoy the trip down memory lane in what was an annual rivalry so dramatic it belongs on film. In-depth interviews with every starter, plus team and media personalities, add fantastic new depth to the story and the backgrounds of its major players, giving the entire three-year arc a variety of competing perspectives and motivations. Hoosiers will find plenty to loathe in Lee's thinly-veiled accusations of racism in the stands, while New Yorkers will seethe at the words and actions of Miller, arrogant in the midst of breaking so many hearts. Detailed, unflinching and unbiased, it's an excellent document of an electrifying time for both fanbases.

In the mid-1990's several things happened to me. Firstly I came to the mainland from Northern Ireland, which in turn caused the next two things. The main one was that I started to play basketball, which changed my body shape and introduced me to a sport I continue to love almost two decades later. The second thing was that I went on a plane for the first time and left the UK for the first time when I went to San Antonio with a friend of mine – a trip he wanted and I went on with the proviso that we spend some time in New York on the way. So I already had fallen in love with the city when my "lots of heart" playing style made me fall for the Knicks – an affair that is yet to really pay off it must be said as Ewing's heartbreak became Houston and Sprewell's heartbreak and so on.Anyway, the point of that preamble is to say that the reason I may have enjoyed this film so much is because it affectionately looks back at a period that I remember fondly. The sport was fresh to me, the NBA was fresh to me and the Knicks and Pacers were full of the passion and heart that I tried to play with. This film captures the moment really really well and it was a welcome relief in the 30 for 30 films given that I had previously watched the heavier Alan Iverson film. Sporting rivalries are always intense but, whether professional or amateur, you always shake hands at the end and this film takes the same approach, being good humoured along with everyone who contributes to it. As a Knick fan the footage still hurts; whether it be Ewing's missed layup or Miller's many near-impossible 3-pointers, it did make me wince to remember, but it was all done in such a way that it gave me "happy" memories – kind of.The contributors all do really well to get the tone right and bring the passion and the feeling but not have any animosity whatsoever – this is important and it does make the film so enjoyable. The editing is really good as the footage mingles with the contributions while also playing the contributions off one another really well (often to comedic effect). As a fan as well it is good to see these players again, particularly since some of them are in that large group of "great" players from the 90's who never got rings thanks to the dominance of Jordan.Winning Time is a fun documentary. I'm not sure how it would play to someone with no interest in the sport or no memory of the events though – probably not well for those reasons, but for a fan it really works. It sums up events really well and does so with a passion and yet a certain amount of affection. A really enjoyable documentary that works as sports programming (for the highlights), documentary (for the history), light entertainment (for the comedy) and as a horror (I'm a Knicks fan – 'nuff said).