Thrilla in Manila

I was excited to hear Joe Frazier's side of the story. However, this documentary is so one sided that it loses it's credibility in it's first 15 minutes.

Early on, Joe Frazier claims that Parkinson's Disease is Muhammad Ali's punishment for the way Ali behaved early in life. That's just disgraceful. The film seems to be trying to rewrite history, to cast Joe Frazier in a kinder light. But it backfires by exposing the bottomless well of bitterness and resentment that fuels the endless complaining done by Joe Frazier and his camp throughout the film.

And I think Ferdie Pacheco is the most entertaining thing in the movie. He calls out the filmmakers for their lack of knowledge of their subject numerous times, and at one point asks "Are you in boxing at all? I mean, are you coming from covering the stock market or something?" Right on, Ferdie.

Thrilla in Manila: 8 out of 10: This is what great documentaries are all about, changing ones perception by teaching something new. Thrilla in Manila also has that British tradition of targeting the preconceived notion without remorse. The sacred cow in target this time is that American icon Muhammad Ali. The film uses Ali’s only real nemesis Joe Frazier as its tool.

Thrilla opens up in North Philadelphia in a dilapidated gym in the midst of a ghetto where Joe Frazier lives and works. My first thought was what happened? My second thought; so this where Sly Stallone cribbed his last six Rocky movies; I loved the last Rocky Balboa film but thought Stallone’s characters borderline poverty lifestyle unrealistic… I clearly stand corrected.

The film does an excellent job finding relevant interviews with everyone from Imelda Marcos to Ali’s fight doctor. In addition the movie integrates the fight footage in a way few documentaries have (You can feel the heat of Manila in the ring).

This film asks a simple question. Why is Muhammad Ali rich, famous, and beloved? While Joe Frazier toils in poverty? The film then paints Ali in a most unflattering light. Claiming he is a racist and a member of a cult. All of this is very well documented, with Ali discussing his own participation in Ku Klux Klan meetings a real revelation. Ali is shown attacking Joe for being too black and strangely enough an Uncle Tom of all things. In addition, Ali is shown calling Joe ignorant, ugly and a gorilla.

Ali is clearly the villain in this piece and Frazier is the victim. Yet a strange thing happens over the hour and a half. The more Frazier brags on how his punches caused Ali’s current mental and physical state one cannot help but wonder that Ali’s blows caused as much permanent damage to Frasier in the form of bitterness and self-destruction.

Here is a film giving Frazier a chance to display his own self in a good light and pull himself and his family out of poverty. Instead, he comments, while watching Ali light the Olympic torch that he wished Muhammad would fall in and burn to death. Ali’s doctor got one thing right; Joe Frazier is a stupid man.

Several weeks ago, there was a special presentation of this documentary at an event to honor the memory of Smokin' Joe Frazier. Legendary boxing promoter Bob Arum spoke at the function, and although Arum prefaced his remarks by paying homage to the late Joe Frazier, he harshly criticized this documentary, bluntly calling it "disgusting" and an "unfair attack" on Muhammad Ali. However, Arum hit the nail on the head regarding this film, which, as another reviewer on the Web site accurately characterizes, is just "a piece of revisionist propaganda."

There are a slew of inaccuracies, myths, and half-truths presented in this documentary, so much so that if I were to address them all, this review would be the length of a book. However, I would like to dispel several of the most significant myths that this biased documentary perpetuates:

Documentary Myth: During Ali's exile, Joe Frazier nobly helped Ali out by giving him money and diligently lobbying to help Ali get his license reinstated.

Facts: Yes, during Ali's exile from boxing, Frazier would, on occasion, lend money to Ali and even went to great lengths to help Ali get his license back. But he didn't do so for magnanimous reasons, like it's portrayed in this documentary. Joe wanted a mega million dollar fight and knew that a bout with Ali would result in a huge fight payday, given Ali's high name recognition and stature. He facilitated Ali's return to boxing because he perceived Ali as his ticket to Ft. Knox, which is what Ali became. But Joe's "noble" gestures in helping Ali were for his own personal gain, not Ali's welfare.

Documentary Myth: By calling Joe "ugly" or " gorilla," Ali was making racial epithets.

Facts: True, Ali did call Frazier "ugly," but he also called Sonny Liston, Leon Spinks, and Larry Holmes "ugly" during pre-fight stages of his bouts with them as well. (He probably called Liston ugly more times than Frazier. Just view some old footage of everything leading up to the first Liston bout.) In addition to proclaiming to be "The Greatest," Ali would often boast to the press, in a jovial manner, that he was "pretty" and most fighters were "ugly."

It has to be understood that in addition to being a master boxer, Ali was also a master showman and fight promoter. The name calling wasn't meant to serve as personal attacks, and Ali's boasting of his boxing ability and his appearance wasn't conceit, contrary to popular myth. He just used narcissism to promote bouts, a marketing ploy he learned from watching pro wrestlers.

And yes, Ali did call Frazier "The Gorilla" before their third fight. But here again, it was a situation in which Frazier was not singled out because Ali had always created monikers for his opponents as a gimmick to promote fights. He called Frazier "The Gorilla" before their third fight, but he also coined Sonny Liston "The Big Ugly Bear," Floyd Patterson "The Rabbit," George Chuvalo "The Washerwoman," George Foreman "The Mummy," and Ernie Shavers "The Acorn" (a reference to Shaver's bald head).

Given this pattern, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Ali was creating monikers as a promotional gimmick, not as racial taunts. He applied it to many fighters, not just Frazier; it was just that Frazier was the only Ali opponent who spent his entire life whining about it.

Documentary Myth: The Nation of Islam, of which Ali was a member, and the Klu Klux Klan wanted to form a pact and Muhammad Ali spoke at a Klu Klux Klan Rally.

Facts: There's minimal evidence to support this documentary's claim that the KKK and the NOI wanted to collaborate. As for Ali speaking at a Klan rally, there's also no credible evidence to substantiate this assertion, and it most likely never happened. Being that Ali at the time was nothing more than arguably the world's most famous human being, surely news of Ali speaking at such an event would have inevitably leaked to the press. Add to that, the irony of an Afrocentric Muhammad Ali speaking at a rally of white supremacists would have made for such a sensational and controversial news story that virtually every news medium in the world would have reported it, and most likely it would have been a lead story. The long and short of it all is that the media would have had a field day with something like this. Yet there is no film or photographic record of this, nor is there any news report on record of this at all.

The documentary shows a film clip of Ali in an interview supposedly admitting to speaking at a KKK rally. However, the film footage has obviously been edited. Ali was most likely making these remarks as part of a gag. He was always one to clown and joke around, even while being interviewed.

I could go on and on about the myths, biased assertions, and falsehoods perpetuated in this documentary, such as implausible testimonies, a fabricated analysis of the Ali-Frazier fight trilogy, manipulated film footage, and Larry Holmes lying through his teeth by saying that Ali was "overrated" as a fighter even though, ironically, Holmes had always publicly proclaimed that Ali was his idol. But, unfortunately, IMDb imposes a 1,000-word limit for its reviews.

But the bottom line is that the "Thriller in Manila" documentary is, as Bob Arum states, "chock full of inaccuracies and is designed to demean Muhammad Ali" And as he also states, you can watch this documentary if you want, "but don't believe a word that's being said."

This documentary told a sad but great story. The people who were interviewed were compelling and entertaining to listen to. These other reviewers are upset cause it makes Ali look bad. Ali was great, intelligent and charismatic but he was also a bully and sometimes racist. People are complaining that this documentary is one sided. The filmmakers have a right to an opinion and choose a side. It's an important story to tell and one that is rarely told. Do these people just want another documentary praising Ali? He wasn't perfect. He was an a-hole at times and Joe Frazier deserved a lot more credit and respect. By the way, this also shows the dark side of Frazier. He was bitter and angry. So it really wasn't that one sided. One of the best documentaries I've seen and probably the most underrated.

This is the most biased 'documentary' I've ever seen.

I am a big fan of that era of boxing and am particularly fond of Ali and Frazier. Both great men and what a great trilogy of fights. Sadly, this 'documentary' has demeaned a great fight. Any serious boxing fan knows that Ali deservedly won the fight and he tactically outsmarted Frazier. It was a marathon of a fight in very hot conditions, Frazier's only real chance was to knock Ali out.

Boxing is a tough sport and the fighters always trash talk each other to promote the fight. This 'documentary' has magnified Ali's trash talking and over analysed the trash talking.

Only hard core Frazier fans and Ali haters are up-voting this 'documentary'. Or maybe it's people who hate boxing, every boxing fan knows that trash talking goes on to promote the event. After the fight the trash talking stops. Ali actually said in the post match press conference 'he is a great fighter'

Having said all that, the 'documentary' has some very rare footage and is worth a watch just for that. Also, Ferdie Pacheco gives a great analysis and seems to realise early on that the makers were biased. I was going to give 1 star, but due to Ferdie's analysis and the rare footage I'm going to give it 3 stars