User reviews

A film about FIFA, an organisation which is renowned for corruption and skulduggery, finances a film about itself. This should get the alarm bells sounding immediately. The basic plot is simple, football commences as a global sport, FIFA creates itself to manage this new international phenomenon. FIFA is amazing. The end. This is a film about an organisation in which corruption is rife, which pays no taxes, yet has 'billions' in its bank accounts, and which forces countries which win the bidding to host the World Cup to their change laws. FIFA were even allowed to edit the script to their choosing. If you like watching propaganda, then this is the film for you. Otherwise, I suggest that it is given a wide birth.

It's very strange that the one person here who has written a 10 star review only joined IMDb 2 weeks ago and must have done just to write a heavily biased review for this film.

You know all those great sports movies about the underdogs and their fight to overcome incredible odds and still win? Yeah, this movie isn't one of those. It's a movie by a sports organization full of shady people about how not shady they are. There, it's like you just watched it.

FIFA has full reigns of this production and used it to make themselves seem like the bestest people in the world, which sounds ridiculous considering all of the scandals they are involved in. As previous reviewers have said, this smells a lot like propaganda. I guess you could enjoy it if you either 1. are a desperate fan boy/girl of anything related to football, or 2. an employee of FIFA contractually obligated to like it.

As a final note, you know a movie is bad when the IMDb tag line sounds sarcastic.

If your organisation is rotten to the core, harming something billions around the world love, what do you do?

Well, like any shady regime, you pump out propaganda. The trouble is, in this case everyone is well aware of FIFA's corruption, which makes this film not just poor cinema but unintentionally hilarious with great lines like, "Being president of Fifa will bring no glory, no money!"or, when Blatter is introduced with, ""he is apparently good at finding money" (in brown envelopes, we presume).

Like Nicolas Cage winding up in Left Behind, it's baffling how actor of the calibre of Tim Roth, Sam Neil and Gerard Depardieu. I guess none of them are football fans.

Like many others, if I am honest, I decided to watch this film not with the thought of "this might be good" but rather "this might be awful". I did try as much as I could to put it to one side, but with FIFA it is really hard to give them the benefit of the doubt, and indeed, with the accusations about the ethics report (clearing them totally of any wrong-doing regarding Qatar), it is difficult to come to the film just keen to meet it on an open field with no preconceptions. It was additionally hard to put the ethics report and the many other terrible things they do out of my mind, when the film kept reminding me that really it was just yet another in a long line of spin, defiance, arrogance, and being frankly up themselves.

It is technically well made; the crowd effects green-screen are the only obvious weak spot in the production values that are obvious, and otherwise it seems that at least those technical people have been able to make the film look and sound as it should. So if your own requirement is that the cinematography, sound, location management, and other such things are good, then this film will please you. Unfortunately this is not where most viewers will have their issues.

Much bile has been directed at the cast for taking part, but the real blame must be laid at the writer Deflino and the writer/ director Auburtin because fundamentally the film is a mess in terms of broad narrative and specific dialogue. Perhaps they had other forces at play with their drafts, but whatever happened the film is really something to behold. Starting with the plot, there is no central driving force to the film apart from simply the passage of time. The ending of the film is Blatter getting re-elected and the 2010 world cup going to South Africa; why? Why is this the end? Indeed what was the plot? It trudges through history with little drama, little interest, and really nothing to make you watch apart from how ham-fisted so much of it is. There is really no plot here – just a series of events that occur, few of them in any way interesting. But if it were only this, perhaps it would be okay – but it is not.

Looking at the film is regard to specific scenes or dialogue what we get is a film trying to brush away the perception of FIFA – even if it means making the film version of themselves be in stark contrast to the reality. It is clear whoever added such things knew the public accusations very well, and the film tackles them throughout – but does so in the most clumsy and obvious manner. The unrelated football match that we keep flashing to is the main thing – happy multi-cultural children playing the game for love, with a key focus on the female player. We also get Rimet quick to correct a man being racist and sexist, or Blatter tackling those within FIFA who appear to be corrupt. My personal favorite is the line said by Blatter "we should be concentrating on the women's game"; this made in rewind in disbelief that such a line would be written when really the most well-known position he has ever taken on that is that they should wear more feminine garb – particularly "tighter shorts for example". The film seems to have lots of this sort of revisionism when it comes to Blatter – even making a point of having a scene where he says hello to a cleaner by name.

There is lots of this clumsiness in revisionist history and point scoring; the British in particular are mocked for really no narrative reason. To be fair to the film, the role of sponsorship, money, and internal politics is covered, but it is not explored so much as just mentioned, and what really sticks in the mind is what isn't covered or what appears to be being spun. The cast get paid and go home – little else can be said. Depardieu and Roth are both good actors, so for them to stand in front of a camera and say words is not bother – as such they do functional jobs, but looking at their effort it is pretty clear that this was their version of Michael Caine's Jaws IV ("I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific"). Sam Neill is wonderfully bad in it – despite playing a Brazilian, he cannot get rid of his Peaky Blinders Northern Irish accent, and as result he has bits of that coming in all the time – along with loads of other accents that don't work either. Supporting cast is roundly so-so – nobody is terrible, it is just they have nothing to do, and even the best of them cannot sell this script.

United Passions is not as terrible as many viewers would have liked it to have been – but it is really poor nonetheless. There is really no narrative thread worth mentioning, but worse than this is the terrible attempts to rewrite even recent history, with scenes and lines of dialogue that have so clearly been dropped in for no other purpose than to pretend that the opposite is not true (which of course it is). The film's only actual purpose could be argued to be that it stands as testament to FIFA's self-indulgent arrogance – however even on that front there are so many other, better examples of this, that really even for that one does not need this dry wreck of a film.

For over a century movies have been fascinated with nefarious enterprises. The Mafia movies - which at the time seemed a long commercial bet - proved that audiences really liked to watch the internal workings of an organization, from how it generated its revenue through to how it dealt with opponents and new business rivals.

In a sense "United Passions" is like that: not quite "Donnie Brasco", or "Godfather II" true, but the drama and excitement of making uniform rules and regulations for playing football, or the power plays at board meetings and facing down political oppression n Europe, not to say the daring of Blatter offering sponsorships deals all makes for some pretty heady cinema.

That's not to say that its all good. It really isn't. The historical evolution of FIFA is related like a child's essay and that leads to a collective groan, much as any teacher faced with such mediocre aspirations would do as well. The script tends to platitudes and an overbearing pomposity. A film that has a barely concealed sneer at the English is paradoxically in English. As spoken by some actors it is obvious they are not fully comfortable with its stress patterns and cadences.

At times it teases with audience expectations as when Blatter holds a roadside rendezvous with another official and they discuss the implications of the Russian-US enmity in the late 1970s. It's scene we've all seen often enough: just as Fredo is dealt with by Michael in the boathouse, and usually presages a hit on an unsuspecting person. None, however occurs.

The flirtation with the worst instances of the Bond movie canon lead nowhere, of course, because this is a vanity corporate movie, full of sound and bureaucratic business cant, and naturally, signifying nothing.

Why on earth was this film ever made? Who did they think would care? Apparently 90% of the budget was supplied by FIFA, which just leaves me wondering who the hell put up the other 10%.

By turns hilarious and nauseating, this shining great turd of a self-congratulatory vanity project is so ridiculous that if someone had told me it was a parody, I would have believed them. It's the kind of movie that makes you want to hurt members of your own family just to give you an excuse to stop watching.

It tells the 'story' of those unsung heroes of the world, FOOTBALL FAT CATS. Who, apparently, are all saints. Why? Just because. Don't argue. And they're ENTITLED to luxury goddammit, because they're making dreams come true. It just so happens that the dreams are their own, and those dreams consist of drinking champagne and private jets and staying in luxury hotels - yes, in a multi-million dollar movie starring famous and respected actors, this film literally has the cheek to include not one, but many lines of dialogue attempting to justify football officials indulging themselves.

Sepp Blatter, cast as a sort of modern day crusader (presumably by himself, I can't imagine why anyone else would have), played by Tim Roth, is given close-ups and swelling emotional incidental music as if he is some kind of hero, but nobody, least of all the filmmakers, seems to have any idea why.

It's honestly like a propaganda film biography of el presidente designed to encourage the cult of personality in some tinpot banana republic. ('Look, he pays the wages out of his own pocket when all others around him are corrupt! He is such a man of the people that he knows the cleaning lady's name!')

It ends up just being bizarre, and you feel sorry for pretty much everyone involved with it. Also, weirdly, this film portrays all English people as racist, sexist, stuck-up tossers. Why? Is it coz they wouldn't join FIFA's gentleman's club 100 years ago? Seems a little petty.

Intro:

"United Passions" is often forgotten, as the film was a colossal failure. Making no money, and getting negative reviews. So, I was curious. I watched it, and I was so bored. It was easily one of the worst experiences I had watching the film.

Why I Hate It:

This movie makes no sense, it doesn't clue in people who aren't similar with Fifa, about what's going on. So me, someone who could care less the organization, was totally lost. And the bad, boring dialogue doesn't help either.

The movie is also very biased in the way that it tells you to route for Fifa. It's also way too short, only at 1 hour and 50 minutes, yet it covers 70 years of history. A movie like "Goodfellas" covers 30 years of history in the Lucchese crime family. And that film is 40 minutes longer. The film centers around the three presidents of Fifa up until that point, and none of them are focused on enough for the audience to care. And even though it's short, those 110 minutes felt like 110 hours.

Conclusion:

This film's biggest flaw is that it doesn't allow me to care about these people. I don't care about Fifa, I don't care about the presidents of Fifa, and I certainly don't about the movie. It feels like Fifa propaganda, and I'm not gonna take it without criticizing it.

"United Passions" is a Sport - History movie in which we follow the story of Federation Internationale of Football Association (FIFA) and how a group of passionate people joined their forces to create it. It also presents how from a simple idea it was created the World Cup as we all know it today.

I have to admit that I had high expectations from this movie and I was disappointed by the result since it was boring and the plot was missing. I was expecting something different than what I watched. It was full of conferences, meetings and a lot of talking, something that made it even more boring. I understand that it had to present how FIFA was created and how difficult it was but it was too much since there was not anything to remind football. Finally, I have to say that "United Passions" was not the movie I expected and as I can understand from its rating and the reviews of other users, a lot of people were not satisfied by the result. I do not recommend anyone to watch it because you will waste your time.

A FIFA financed movie about the history of the FIFA. It is at least quite unusual to have a sports movie that is not about sportsmen but about sports administrators (Moneyball is the only one that comes to my mind). Tim Roth plays FIFA president Sepp Blatter as a honest, efficient if tough administrator (you really need to have a very huge ego to finance a movie where you are the hero, though, as one friend told me, at least Blatter had the sense not to hire Brad Pitt to play himself). The production values are fine, which is to be expected given the reported budget of almost 30 million dollars. Not a great film obviously, but not as bad as expected. It is quite entertaining if naturally very one sided. With Gerard Depardieu (in an enjoyable performance) and Sam Reilly as former FIFA presidents Jules Rimet and Joao Havelange and Thomas Kretschmann as Horst Dassler, head of sports apparel giant Adidas. Amusingly, the movie has a quite crude anti– English tone: every English character in the movie looks bad (England and the other British sides initially refused to join FIFA, seeing it as an upstart organization).

"On June 5, 2015, the film made its North American premiere at 10 movie theaters in New York, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Washington D. C., Kansas City, Miami, Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, and Philadelphia. It grossed $319."

The above quote is from the IMDB trivia section on this film. Additionally, the film ended up losing pretty much all the money spent to make it! But, at the same time, the film is reasonably entertaining and features a pretty amazing cast, such as Gerard Depardieu, Tim Roth and Sam Neill. It also features some nice scenes of Paris circa 1930 as well as come great location shots. So what is the problem with this movie?

Well, the problem is that the film is a tribute to the wonderfulness of FIFA, the international body that governs and oversees football (soccer to us Americans). So why is this a problem? Well, the film came out just after FIFA and its leaders were embroiled in a scandal and arrests were made for bribery and more! So, it's not too surprising that revenues were down for the film. But the problem goes much deeper than this. Apparently most of the cost to make the film was actually provided by FIFA...making this essentially a propaganda film...probably made to try to distract the public from FIFA's legal troubles. And, the public seems to have realized this and they stayed away from the movie in droves! It also didn't help that the film not only talks about the early days of FIFA and the first World Cup but then jumps ahead to today...extolling FIFA's virtues but NEVER seriously addressing the scandals...many of which had broken well before the film debuted! And, sadly, some of the folks the film seems to applaud are those who were later sanctioned by FIFA for fraud.

If you completely ignore the propaganda aspects of the movie, I must admit that it's reasonably entertaining...though a bit sterile and uninvolving. It really lacks heart and warmth and the characters seem more like caricatures much of the time. But purely for the look of the film and SOME of the acting, I'm giving it a 3. It's not all that good and is an apparent attempt to distract the public...but it's not 100% bad as you watch the movie.

United Passions is a glorified corporate pat on the back made by FIFA that masquerades as a movie.

It has attracted stars such as Gerard Depardieu and Tim Roth.

The story is thin as it traces the rise of FIFA from characters such as Carl Hirschmann and Robert Guérin who were involved in its creation. The idea laughed out by the snooty British who had a more colonial and chauvinistic attitude to football.

Under Jules Rimet (Gerard Dépardieu) the third president of FIFA, the notion was put forward for holding the World Cup tournament, first held in Uruguay. The decision to hold in Italy under fascist Mussolini attracted critics.

João Havelange (Sam Neill) cultivated supported from Africa and Asia, attracted corporate sponsorship and boosted FIFA's coffers. Treating FIFA as his own personal fiefdom with constant allegations of and financial corruption under his watch.

Sepp Blatter (Tim Roth) is the embattled successor of Havelange. Determined to broaden football to a truly global sport played in all continents and by allsexes and ages. The final scene is South Africa being chosen to hold the 2010 World Cup.

Of course by the time the film was released, Blatter and other FIFA bigwigs had faced arrest for bribery and money laundering. Decades if financial corruption had come home to roost and there was nothing this film could do to whitewash it.

The film is technically well made but it is all rather pointless. Some British film critics were hard on the movie, the Brits who claim to have invented football appear as caricatures and FIFA did has not selected England as a World Cup venue since 1966.

Stanley Rous the British head of FIFA who preceded Havelange was lightly dealt with in my opinion. His regime bent over backwards trying to include apartheid South Africa in FIFA and in the World Cup. You can see how Havelange easily played him by courting black Africa.

the film contains boring script,bad direction,bad screenplay no proper story this movie is only propaganda movie by A FIFA about the history of the FIFA. This film is a metaphor for everything wrong with FIFA. It paints FIFA administrators as saints, which is ironic if you're aware of how corrupt FIFA is. They act as if they do everything for the love of the game, and not caring about money. The script is terrible, with nothing else but propaganda throughout the movie. FIFA were even allowed to edit the script to their choosing. If you like watching propaganda, then this is the film for you. Otherwise, distance yourself from the movie!

but if you are serious FIFA fan and interested in knowing history of FIFA then you can watch the movie for sake of general knowledge. the first 20 minutes of Gérard Depardieu play is good and interesting because of neat historic Reconstruction

Before watching the title, I heard the many bad critic. I prepared for the worst: for a boring FIFA-propaganda. Fortunately it's not completely true.

I saw it in a little cinema in East-Hungary in the evening, I was the only one in the house, so no one disturbed me.

The first 45 minutes was pretty good, although it's maybe the lurdiest part of the film: it presents the first years and fights of FIFA, including the organizations of World Cups. After that there is only the justification of Havelange's and mainly Blatter's work: he is the good guy who saved the group and brought the soccer to all part of world. During its presentation i got fed up with the movie.

Despite of the failures and weaknesses it might deserve a better rating than 3 stars. The reason of the low rating is obviously is the hatred what a lot of soccer fans feel toward FIFA, toward this corrupt criminal group. I do not reckon it as a very bad movie, but I like its falling. I only feel sorry for the actors who played well.

By the way, I didn't get answer, why the 2022 WC will be held in Quatar...

Too many people writing a review here are just simply trolling to destroy the film & are allowing their biases & passions about FIFA to stand in the way of seeing a really good film.

Given that the film was financed by FIFA, I wasn't exactly expecting to get any objective story about FIFA anymore than I was expecting films like "Zero-Minus-Thirty", "American Sniper" & "Act of Valor" to objective about US military adventurism abroad. I saw those other 3 films and not only where they PENTAGON & US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROPAGANDA but they were not very good films in terms of acting, script cinematography or anything else.

Just like "1492 Conquest For Paradise" wasn't exactly the most historically accurate & objective film ever made by Christopher Columbus & his voyages in the Americas, this is not going to be a an objective film about FIFA.

But one thing it does have in common with "1492 Conquest For Paradise" is IT'S A GOOD FILM. If you just pay attention to film for what it is, as a film, and pay attention to the costumes, acting (great performances by 3 great all-stars_, directing, cinematography & everything else that people usually judge a film by -- it's a good film.

You time will not be wasted watching this women, you will learn a few things, and I'm pretty sure everyone is smart enough to pick-up propaganda when they see one, but the point is appreciating this film for what it is -- a good film.

Just pretend it's based on a fiction story for a couple of hours & believe me you will appreciate this film a lot more. Otherwise you passions & biases about FIFA will not allow you to see this film for what it is.

Good Film, great acting, great cinematography, great costumes, interesting takes on Football history & you will appreciate Tim Gerard & the Jurrasic Park Fellow.

It's worth to watch it -- Even if you have to use your Student ID to get a discount card or go during a matinée time so you don't have to full price, I'd say do it! Because the Film was too well made to simply dismissed because how some of us may feel about FIFA.

This film doesn't deserve a full review. Though not as bad as many are saying, this is not good by any means. I give it a four, but a 3.5 might be closer. The first half is a lot of sentimental fluff which tries to make a mediocre script passable. Most of the accents are almost impossible to understand, the rest are just fake. I think it would have gotten more attention if all of the dialog were in whatever language they truly were spoken in and subtitled everything. The second half is strait-up propaganda extolling the virtue of Sepp Blatter. Seeing as he pretty much payed for this, I can't fault him for trying. I also understand why it made only $600 at theaters. Believe what you will. I just kept rolling my eyes.