Based on the 2006 book The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game by Michael Lewis that in turn was based on the true story of Baltimore Ravens offensive tackle Michael Oher. Big Mike (Quinton Aaron) moves to an upmarket Christian school with the help of a friend whose sofa he has been sleeping on. When his sleeping arrangements become a problem Big Mike finds himself on the street until he is taken in by wealthy interior designer Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock) and her family. It is clear that Big Mike has an aptitude for sport, something the school’s American football coach wants to exploit but can’t due to Mike’s lack of academic achievements. He is helped to improve his grades by Leigh Anne and a couple of his teachers most notably Mrs. Boswell (Kim Dickens) whose character disappears once she has done her job. 
The marketing of the movie all surrounded Sandra Bullock who had already won her best actress Oscar by the time the movie was released in the UK, however this really is Michaels story. Unfortunately (at least how he is portrayed in the movie) he isn’t a particularly interesting character. He seems to shut out rather than overcome adversity and it is never really clear how grateful he was for the help he was given. It also isn’t really made clear what Leigh Anne Tuohy’s motivation for helping him was, did she help him purely out of charity or was it for the recognition of her actions and Michael’s achievements. The film never really explores this it just hints at it.
The biggest problem with The Blind Side is its lack of characterisation. Characters appear and quickly disappear without ever being explored of developed. The one character that does get a reasonable amount of screen time is S.J. Tuohy ( Jae Head), this is a shame as he is truly annoying. I’m not sure if it is a bad performance of poor direction. The movie also lacks focus, is it Big Mike’s story or Leigh Ann’s? trying to be a bit of both the movie losses its way. Had the director stuck with one character and explored their hopes, fears and most importantly motivation it would have been all the better for it, it would also have given the opportunity for the rest of the families characters to be better utilised.
Whilst I find it hard to begrudge Bullock her Oscar for what is a towering performance that she takes on with relish but I can’t help thinking it wasn’t the best performance of last year mealy the most Oscar friendly. The film itself is actually quite enjoyable and surprisingly not as sentimental as you would expect, the subject matter does however feel like it belongs in a TV movie on a low rent cable channel. Far from a great movie but certainly not a bad one.
Three Stars out of Five
Fandango Groovers Movie Blog 
What gets me the most thinking back on it, was that the part I found the most interesting (The controversy surrounding The Tuhoys as boosters) was skirted in a pretty big hurry. It’s a shame, because it really is a valid question, and could have taken this very pedestrian story in a more unique direction.
I’m with you overall though. While this film isn’t even close to a ‘must-see’, it’s pretty harmless.
I don’t think the whole booster thing is that big a deal. If a family has an affiliation to a particular university it is natural to want your kids to go there and if they did treat Mike like one of their own it makes sense that they would have wanted him to go there. I do think the motivation was glossed over a lot.
Having said all that we don’t have the whole collage sport thing in the UK so I am not sure I will ever totally understand the world the movie is set in. I was talking to a friend when I was in America a few years back who is a big LSU fan. He treats it the same way we do professional sport here.
OK, let’s see if I can sum this up without leaving a 1000-word comment…
College sports (football and basketball especially) are huge in the US. It’s a community thing that encompasses both alumni and the actual regions of the state that these schools call home. Many people bleed the colours of the school they pull for and take their success far more seriously than almost any professional sports team.
Here’s where things get sticky…
Besides scholarships, Colleges aren’t supposed to be offering any sort of incentive to attract high school athletes. The NCAA tries to maintain a balance of integrity, and doesn’t want to open the door to schools being able to lure top young athletes with bonuses that other schools can’t offer. This is where ‘boosters’ come in.
In the past, what the schools couldn’t offer, various alumni members WOULD. Duke and UNC might both be trying to attract a top tier high school basketball player…but then a UNC booster, who just happens to be a well-to-do lawyer sweeps in, and offers the player a car and a sweet pad if they choose UNC. “What’s the catch?” “No catch – just choose UNC.”
It’s become trickier and tricker over the years to the point where incoming students don’t accept so much as a stick of gum from someone they could percieve as a booster, for fear of losing their playing eligibility due to tampering.
So…
In the story of THE BLIND SIDE, Big Mike accepted the Tuhoys offer to take him in. He was given clothes, a home, a car…all of it with nothing asked in return. Turns out, he’s a pretty good football player – one so good that he has colleges trying to lure him. When time comes to choose, he gets quiet encouragement to go to Ole Miss. Are they just well intentioned humanitarians? Or are they boosters looking to give their school an edge?
The reason the NCAA raised their red flag, is because it could set a bad precedent…what are they supposed to do if affluent boosters start trolling lower income neighbourhoods looking for a kid they can adopt in the hopes he becomes the next star for their college team? It has a reasonable explanation where the Tuhoys are concerned, but it still begs the question – right?
(I think that was less than 1000 words)
That makes more sense now you put it like that. We don’t have the term booster in this country so my understanding of it came purely from the movie and the way it was presented in the movie it appears I had slightly misunderstood it. Thanks for the explanation. As a I said things are very different here, we have kids as young as 16 playing top flight professional football including England’s best current player Wayne Rooney, 24 now he made his first team début at 16.
theres a Cadbury’s Boost, i think.
not one of my favourite chocolate bars
I did not think that Sandra Bullock was deserving of even being nominated for an Oscar for this performance. Sure, she does a solid job and is her likable self but there is absolutely nothing challenging about her character. Being a big mouthed housewife who speaks her heart in a movie is completely different from being one in real life: There is no consequences and hence there is nothing hard about portraying one on film. Oh well, too late anyways…
With being in the UK like you Andy, I feel we had been expecting more from this film with Sandra Bullock having already won her Oscar by the time it got out to us. I also feel that it was very geared towards the US market and would not really be well receieved else where. I thought Bullock was good, but I would have given the Oscar to Mulligan in An Education.
Good review, as a Brit I fell into the same category of not fully understanding the soft politics of the game – for me American Football is one game per year: Superbowl party.
I just thought it was too nicey nice and skirted round the potentially dark material.
http://paragraphfilmreviews.com/2010/04/01/the-blind-side/
In terms of boosting, I can see it would be wrong if alumni of a school offers a student incentives others don’t, but adopting a child and hoping they go to your alma mater is a huge difference. A car and things like that, anything monetary would be unfair, but to take in a child, care for them, I just think that’s a whole other story. Sure it may be considered unfair, but it’s a huge deal and not something that can be done lightly to take a chance on a child by adopting them.
and if alumni take in a child from an inner city, even if it may be considered unfair to boost their school, they may have just given the child a better life and is that really so bad, saving a child’s life?
Completely agree!
Alright I really have time say this.. who gives a shit even if they were being boosters?! .. they still took a homeless kid off the street, fed & clothed him, gave him an education, career, life & family that he would of never had a chance to have without them & stopped him from becoming a drug dealer/criminal or dead.. soo really what does it matter even if they wanted him to play for a certain team?! There are parents out there with their own children who they torture for years, trying to live through them, making them take sports, dance classes or music lessons that they hate and have no interest in, make them go to school that they dont want to attend to get careers they have absolutely no interest in .. like really there should be an association out there to help prevent that.. and also a good point I read from another comment here, if they took him in and considered him family then why wouldn’t they want them to go to the school they went to and there biological children will be attending and have a good affiliation with.. I just think it’s really pathetic that someone always has to! find a way to find something wrong with someone trying to do something amazing for someone else.. in my opinion I don’t give a shit what their intentions were, or how the movie got it wrong – the point is what they did