Point taken about seeing it "as was" in the cinema. When I went, there were four of us, all in our 40s, and the place was full of blokes the same age plus the odd son or grandad. There was a lot of laughing and even spontaneous applause on a couple of occasions.
Bad choices of actors ??
I'm assuming you mean the squad ? Even then I would say it was more down to poor stagecraft: the wigs were awful ! Like something out of a cheap joke shop.
As for the libel cases, only Giles sued. The club did not and neither did anyone else.
He won and subsequent versions of the book were abridged, removing much of the more snide references to him, though there's not that much difference (I've read both versions).
Bear in mind that David Peace is actually a Huddersfield fan.
His evaluation of Revie as a failure in the England manager's role is also that of the majority of the country. The media crucified him for taking the Saudi job, declaring him a mercenary. When the likes of The Sun says something, the sheep follow: you only have to look at this week's elections to see the living embodiment of that.
We feel less like he failed and more that he was stepping into the shoes of a legend purely because we know how great he really was.
It's a bit like trying to convince Queen fans that actually Paul Rodgers is every bit as good as Freddie Mercury, it's just that they're different in how they do things ... or to give you a more up-to-date version, how about Matt Smith taking over from David Tennant as Dr.Who ?
Of course, nobody will ever top Jon Pertwee for me
I went to the cinema to see it, my biggest complaint was not the errors in it or the pretty amazingly bad choices of actors but the whole tone of the film. And a film that is meant to be a fictionalisation should still not have a caption at the end saying that Revie was, effectively, a thief. I don't remember the exact wording but that was just wrong and offensive.
