Ok - this does not feel like a $90 million film. Let's get that out there. Where did the money go?
For content, you could go and watch Netflix 'The Last Dance', and 'One Man and His Shoes' - both of which handle the same topic and seem to do so more robustly. If you care to read up on the topic, perhaps read 'Michael Jordan: The Life' (Roland Lazenby) which is a pretty solid and thorough account too. The more you read and watch, the more the cracks appear in 'Air'.
This presents Nike as the 'little guy' who couldn't afford the big draft names (shades of Moneyball) - they took an inexplicable long shot on the hunt of main character (Sonny) and in doing so they rewrote the history of basketball shoes and the crossover culture that happened in the 1990s, which endures today. In order to make this narrative stick they seek to persuade you that Converse and Adidas were both going to offer more money to Jordan. This is a paradox because in doing so they contradict the narrative that Jordan was a long shot. You have two confusing messages - one that he was this huge gamble, the other that he wasn't and that landing him (no pun intended) Nike pulled off a ridiculous coup that stole him away from the more established competition (edging them out).
Truth be told, the actual exponents of the deal have been interviewed and they have spoken to camera. Adidas were not in the hunt with any serious petition to take Jordan. The company founder had died and the organisation was struggling to refocus. They didn't make a meaningful offer for a shoe endorsement but did offer Jordan free shoes. Converse had Magic Johnson and Larry Bird - but neither were were paid the money that was put in front of Jordan. Suggestions are that he got twice what they were on PLUS a cut of the sales revenue too. Bird and Johnson did not get that (something that Johnson lamented). Charles Barkley has spoken since saying that when he did his deal with Nike, Jordan advised him to ask for less cash up front, and Barkley reduced his cash advance from $3,000,000 to $1,000,000 - in return for lucrative share options in Nike instead (he made a rich return). Converse were complacent about the state of the market - they didn't have any inkling about what Nike were going to do to upset the apple cart.
*spoiler alert*
Jordan did not sign with Nike because of a fancy, inspiring speech in the boardroom or because Jordan's mother looked deep into the eyes of someone and trusted him, or because they found a connection on how they saw the future... Jordan signed with Nike because they offered him a deal that represented an avalanche of cash that even outweighed his contract with the Chicago Bulls. Jordan wanted a car (true) - a red Mercedes - what Nike offered was easily enough for Jordan to buy his own (even based on modest projections and expectations in the deal).
I guess all this would lack the romance or inspiration that a Nike/Jordan tribute piece would seek to convey. It really was like that though. This is the church of Capitalism. Yes - Nike took a big risk (Jordan might not have fulfilled that potential) - but they both got rich when it paid off.
The Converse/Adidas chase is almost irrelevant and is used only to build dramatic tension. In reality, once the deal got the green light to go ahead from Phil Knight the ridiculous nature of the gamble was enough to blow the competition out of the water. The film needs that tension though, so they just made it up.
Another matter is Jordan's mother pulling out the "My son deserves a piece of the gross" at the eleventh hour. What they are trying to do is encapsulate the fact that Jordan's mother was a business savvy lady who could see what her son couldn't at a critical time (he was young) - he was worth more than a red Mercedes and times were changing. She could see why the Nike deal was superior, and she was the person to win over if you wanted to sign Michael Jordan. This being said, the deal on the table included 25% for Michael right out of the gate, and in fact sources in Nike have said that they'd have readjusted the deal to give him less cash and 50% if he had asked (which would have cost them a fortune). There was (again *spoiler alert*) no shock phone call that realigned the whole of the sports shoe industry due to is mother. Again - the film just needed that tension I guess - but it's fake.
Central character - 'Sonny' is an Italian American. His appearance and business style was not linked to Mafia, but leaned into the reputation of Italian American business and almost put Jordan off (according to sources) because Jordan thought he might be linked. This was omitted entirely. I like Matt Damon but his frankly wooden and generic portrayal did not bring me close to his actual character at all. Does anyone watch this and get the impression that the guy putting this deal together was Italian American?
The film is heavily reductive. Sonny Vaccaro was a details guy - he knew basketball - he did not come up with the idea of taking Michael Jordan because he saw his college NCAA championship winning 3 point shot a few extra times.
The Nike 'swoosh' did not cost Phil Knight $30. He did pay a small, nominal amount to the designer - but he also gave stock options that came to be worth millions.
I could go on.
There is enough to seriously undermine the credentials of how this is presented. It's saccharine. It's a kids film. It's a lightweight portrayal that ruffles no feathers and makes people feel good.
If you're not serious about the subject - and you don't mind a foggy, misty eyed retelling because you just want a bang average film to watch in the evening - yeah, ok. You could do worse.
If you actually want to know what happened, well I'm not saying I do know exactly what happened, but I am saying it didn't go down like this. You know this didn't happen.
Further more, there isn't one outstanding performance in the whole film. Not one character is given the space or the material for a decent portrayal, for an actor to shine. There is nothing in the direction of the film that isn't completely vanilla and beige and safe.
People lining up saying it's an 8 or a 9 ranked film have never probably seen a really great film, because their scale is thoroughly broken. I'd be amping this up to tell you it is a solid 6. It's not - it's a TV movie 3.
For content, you could go and watch Netflix 'The Last Dance', and 'One Man and His Shoes' - both of which handle the same topic and seem to do so more robustly. If you care to read up on the topic, perhaps read 'Michael Jordan: The Life' (Roland Lazenby) which is a pretty solid and thorough account too. The more you read and watch, the more the cracks appear in 'Air'.
This presents Nike as the 'little guy' who couldn't afford the big draft names (shades of Moneyball) - they took an inexplicable long shot on the hunt of main character (Sonny) and in doing so they rewrote the history of basketball shoes and the crossover culture that happened in the 1990s, which endures today. In order to make this narrative stick they seek to persuade you that Converse and Adidas were both going to offer more money to Jordan. This is a paradox because in doing so they contradict the narrative that Jordan was a long shot. You have two confusing messages - one that he was this huge gamble, the other that he wasn't and that landing him (no pun intended) Nike pulled off a ridiculous coup that stole him away from the more established competition (edging them out).
Truth be told, the actual exponents of the deal have been interviewed and they have spoken to camera. Adidas were not in the hunt with any serious petition to take Jordan. The company founder had died and the organisation was struggling to refocus. They didn't make a meaningful offer for a shoe endorsement but did offer Jordan free shoes. Converse had Magic Johnson and Larry Bird - but neither were were paid the money that was put in front of Jordan. Suggestions are that he got twice what they were on PLUS a cut of the sales revenue too. Bird and Johnson did not get that (something that Johnson lamented). Charles Barkley has spoken since saying that when he did his deal with Nike, Jordan advised him to ask for less cash up front, and Barkley reduced his cash advance from $3,000,000 to $1,000,000 - in return for lucrative share options in Nike instead (he made a rich return). Converse were complacent about the state of the market - they didn't have any inkling about what Nike were going to do to upset the apple cart.
*spoiler alert*
Jordan did not sign with Nike because of a fancy, inspiring speech in the boardroom or because Jordan's mother looked deep into the eyes of someone and trusted him, or because they found a connection on how they saw the future... Jordan signed with Nike because they offered him a deal that represented an avalanche of cash that even outweighed his contract with the Chicago Bulls. Jordan wanted a car (true) - a red Mercedes - what Nike offered was easily enough for Jordan to buy his own (even based on modest projections and expectations in the deal).
I guess all this would lack the romance or inspiration that a Nike/Jordan tribute piece would seek to convey. It really was like that though. This is the church of Capitalism. Yes - Nike took a big risk (Jordan might not have fulfilled that potential) - but they both got rich when it paid off.
The Converse/Adidas chase is almost irrelevant and is used only to build dramatic tension. In reality, once the deal got the green light to go ahead from Phil Knight the ridiculous nature of the gamble was enough to blow the competition out of the water. The film needs that tension though, so they just made it up.
Another matter is Jordan's mother pulling out the "My son deserves a piece of the gross" at the eleventh hour. What they are trying to do is encapsulate the fact that Jordan's mother was a business savvy lady who could see what her son couldn't at a critical time (he was young) - he was worth more than a red Mercedes and times were changing. She could see why the Nike deal was superior, and she was the person to win over if you wanted to sign Michael Jordan. This being said, the deal on the table included 25% for Michael right out of the gate, and in fact sources in Nike have said that they'd have readjusted the deal to give him less cash and 50% if he had asked (which would have cost them a fortune). There was (again *spoiler alert*) no shock phone call that realigned the whole of the sports shoe industry due to is mother. Again - the film just needed that tension I guess - but it's fake.
Central character - 'Sonny' is an Italian American. His appearance and business style was not linked to Mafia, but leaned into the reputation of Italian American business and almost put Jordan off (according to sources) because Jordan thought he might be linked. This was omitted entirely. I like Matt Damon but his frankly wooden and generic portrayal did not bring me close to his actual character at all. Does anyone watch this and get the impression that the guy putting this deal together was Italian American?
The film is heavily reductive. Sonny Vaccaro was a details guy - he knew basketball - he did not come up with the idea of taking Michael Jordan because he saw his college NCAA championship winning 3 point shot a few extra times.
The Nike 'swoosh' did not cost Phil Knight $30. He did pay a small, nominal amount to the designer - but he also gave stock options that came to be worth millions.
I could go on.
There is enough to seriously undermine the credentials of how this is presented. It's saccharine. It's a kids film. It's a lightweight portrayal that ruffles no feathers and makes people feel good.
If you're not serious about the subject - and you don't mind a foggy, misty eyed retelling because you just want a bang average film to watch in the evening - yeah, ok. You could do worse.
If you actually want to know what happened, well I'm not saying I do know exactly what happened, but I am saying it didn't go down like this. You know this didn't happen.
Further more, there isn't one outstanding performance in the whole film. Not one character is given the space or the material for a decent portrayal, for an actor to shine. There is nothing in the direction of the film that isn't completely vanilla and beige and safe.
People lining up saying it's an 8 or a 9 ranked film have never probably seen a really great film, because their scale is thoroughly broken. I'd be amping this up to tell you it is a solid 6. It's not - it's a TV movie 3.