pawebster I was very familiar with the 1988 version (The Four Minute Mile) before seeing this newer one. This film is less true to history, most seriously in replacing the real coach, Franz Stampfl, with the shadowy imitation one portrayed by Christopher Plummer. It also brings in Roger's future wife long before he really met her, in a crass attempt to add love interest. In addition, it somewhat misrepresents the weather problems on 6 May 1954 (see below). This newer version also omits any depiction of Landy and Santee's efforts and turns Roger's important and illustrious friends and helpers (Chris Chataway, Chris Brasher and Norris McWhirter -- see their entries in Wikipedia) into mere cyphers. These are serious omissions. On the other hand, this 2005 version has a much, much better Roger Bannister, which counts for a lot, given that he is the main character in the story. Jamie MacLachlan is believable as an athlete and does a great job in showing Bannister's combination of brilliance, modesty and stubbornness. He also convincingly embodies the post-war period in which the events take place (despite the garish American ties he is given to wear).This version also does moderately well at recreating the Iffley Road track in Oxford where the key event was run. The fact that the tower of Iffley Church in the background is clearly made of something akin to cardboard is not too detrimental. Anyone who has heard Norris McWhirter speak about that day -- the overseas channel BBC Prime has shown a clip of this hundreds of times -- knows that the main problem on 6 May 1954 was the wind -- and not so much the rain, as shown here. Roger decided to run when the flag on top of Iffley Church went limp, showing that the wind had dropped. Here, the film-makers have carefully provided the church and the flag, but the latter sadly continues to flutter merrily the whole time.There are other minor blunders, such as the wrong kind of telephones and the phrase "Get the hell out of here" ludicrously put into the mouth of a crusty old Oxford professor, but I can forgive these.It is well worth seeing -- but try to catch the other version, too.

raf-366 The movie depicts reasonably accurate the event(s) leading to this achievement. Considering the passage of 50 plus years, the producers have accomplished a creditable job in their production. It should be emphasized that the part played by Christopher Plummer is pure fiction, but for entertainment purposes, understandable. Present generations should not be too critical. The event was of great significance at the time. I am happy that it has been recorded for present generations information, and to honor the participants. I was particularly impressed by the imaginative use of the location facilities in Toronto in depicting the Oxford and Princetown locale(s) The cast selection was also impressive.

dwightbiggins Obviously, this is a sports movie so its going to be predictable. I really enjoyed this movie because the individual aspect of track and field makes it extremely hard to make an effective movie about it.Roger Bannister's breaking four minutes for the first time is probably the single greatest event in track history. It was a huge mental barrier which stood for nearly 20 years as something man couldn't break. Al though this movie didn't perhaps focus on that as much as it could, it still got that point across well. It was also very good at showing the world of sport back then - very white, gentile, amateur and elite, especially in Britain. And Roger Bannister was someone who personified all of it. That was shown well in Four Minutes, with him struggling to choose between medicine and running. The only real discrepancy I noticed was that they changed who was coaching him (it was in reality Franz Stampfl, an Austrian).Overall, this was a well-done movie which really covered all the bases in terms of the story of Roger Bannister. It showed who he was, what he was up against, and how he pulled it off.

bcndahous It is your typical sports film recalling (or loosely based upon historical events) where you know at some point the protagonist is going to triumph at some point - or why else would they make a feature film on his life? Even though it follows the typical historical sports film steps and format, it is worth the two hours to watch it. I stayed up late one evening watching it until the end on ESPN Classic because it is enthralling. Roger Bannister is painted as a dedicated and intense young man who's focus can never be diverted. This is very likable and the viewer identifies with him and wants him to succeed; despite some moments of him being distant, unfriendly, and on occasion a bit pompous. Although a disclaimer at the beginning of the credits explains that this is based on fact, some fictitious moments have been added, I still was drawn in by the filmmaker's attempt to capture personality and character in Mr. Bannister. It left me curious if the filmmaker's interviewed and got to know the real Sir Roger Bannister before creating the film, and included some traits of him in the character in the film. The film is also successful in creating interest in the rest of Sir Bannister's life after his running career. I'm sure there are dozens of books on the man's life, and after searching the IMDb I see other TV films and documentaries have been made (although these seem to be about the mile-running portion of his life). This film focuses on his dedication and skill at being a medical student; there indeed was curiosity raised about his life after sports, and how successful he became afterwards. Also left out of this film was how the Olympics influenced his life later on, if at all. Bottom line, this film is very interesting and makes the viewer aware of human achievement, especially in the wake of WWII when the power of machine was never more apparent. I gave this an 8 out of 10, definitely worth your time.