Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

XoWizIama Excellent adaptation.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

jtighe-6 Looked forward to seeing this movie, and thought the casting was a good opportunity to make a good Knievel movie. George Eads seemed he could put in a good performance as Evel, and you can't take your eyes off Jamie Pressley in every scene she's in. Add Beau Bridges and Lance Henriksen, and it sounds like the makings of a good biography that has never been properly made. Not sure what went wrong here, but there were so many odd mistakes in the shooting, and what seem to be unnecessary changes to historical details that create distractions in watching the movie, and make the overall product seen cheap and "hammy". I tried to stay entertained, but the movie does not have factual credibility and lacks any production polish, it makes it hard to watch. The story flows in a choppy manner, including scenes that detail odd perspectives of his life that go nowhere, and then skips chunks of events and even ends abruptly. The product lacks a theme or specific point. Not an offensive movie, nor painful to watch, but I am more convinced after this movie that a quality movie about the legendary figure of Evel Knievel has yet to be made. Upon discovering this movie (it was 5 or 6 years old by the time I saw it) was a made-for-TV movie on TNT or some other station, the production limitations are obvious, and I am impressed the movie was even as good as it was.

vangraham-2 Wow. This movie is so gosh-darn awful I'm not sure where to begin. Production costs must have soared into the thousands, from the look of this cheap-by-1978-movie-of-the-week-Aaron-Spelling-standards. If you are even a modest fan of pop culture history, you will notice horrible gaffs all over this thing (The Ideal Toy Company segment of the movie, wherein toys not yet available until the end of the 70's are on display in 1971), the ages of his children in the 60's sequences, all kinds of dopey crap. This movie purports to be more of a true portrayal of Evel's life than the George Hamilton flick from the early 1970's. It was not half as entertaining as the Hamilton movie and fairly glossed over and skewed in so far as depicting Evel's actual career. The jump shots remind me of some of the really cheap stuff you might have seen on Happy Days, where we get to see the Fonz's view of a jump as he sails over it. The History Channel has an excellent documentary hosted by Mathew McConaughey. It's loaded with actual Evel interviews and tons of footage of jumps that I hadn't seen since they aired in the 70's. Please rent/go see this documentary. Shows every aspect of Evel. Or, rent the Hamilton movie for its camp and fun value. Bypass this ridiculous piece of @#$%. Jeff Graham-Tulsa, OK.

Jimmnoh I am sorry, but maybe I am being a stickler, but in the first 15 minutes of this disaster of a film, in 1950, little Evel was stealing hubcaps off a 1955 Chrysler product car, possibly a DeSoto and chased by a policeman driving a 1958 Ford. Two different car year mistakes in the first scene made me wonder if anyone on this film even checked on these things. The second scene moves forward in time to 1958, where Evel is seen drinking beer out of aluminum cans with built in pop-tops! Duh! In 1958, and I was 8 at the time, you needed a can opener (church key) to drink out of cans, and the cans were steel. When I saw the aluminum can, I turned the channel because I knew if I DID continue watching, the movie would have Evel actually making a successful crossing of the Snake River in his rocket powered motorcycle. To anyone out there that wasn't around then or didn't see it live on TV, he didn't make it across. The chute to help him stop after landing was deployed as soon as the rocket cycle was ignited causing it to float to a landing on the same side of the river that it took off from. I did not watch after the first 15 minutes, so I don't know if they showed Evel actually completing the jump across the river.

popnoff2001 I wonder if the real Evel had anything to do with this? Not only was it nothing like what really happened, the movie also used many props that just did not exist! Like the Ceasars Palace jump in '68, Evel is wearing a full-face style of helmet that didn't even exist then! And the music in the background that was playing..Call Me the Breeze, by Lynrd Skynrd was a 1974 song! Was this movie supposed to appeal to todays kids only?Because if it was, then these important facts don't matter!Just like the battery flashlights in the 1997 movie Titanic! At least the always scrumptious Jamie Pressley was in it and looking fine!