Editing Hoosiers (film) (section)

===Critical response===
On [[Rotten Tomatoes]] the film holds an approval rating of 92% based on 48 reviews, with an average rating of 7.6/10. The website's critics consensus reads: "It may adhere to the sports underdog formula, but ''Hoosiers'' has been made with such loving craft, and features such excellent performances, that it's hard to resist."<ref>{{cite web
| url= https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hoosiers/
| title= Hoosiers (1986)
| publisher= [[Flixster]]
| work= [[Rotten Tomatoes]]
| access-date= March 27, 2012
| archive-date= April 15, 2012
| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120415184536/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hoosiers/
| url-status= live
}}</ref> [[Metacritic]] assigned the film a weighted average score of 76 out of 100, based on 13 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.metacritic.com/movie/hoosiers|title=Hoosiers|website=Metacritic|access-date=February 6, 2020|archive-date=August 21, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180821110733/http://www.metacritic.com/movie/hoosiers|url-status=live}}</ref> Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "A" on A+ to F scale.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Home |url=https://www.cinemascore.com/ |access-date=2023-11-11 |website=CinemaScore |language=en-US}}</ref>

''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' critic [[Roger Ebert]] praised the film, writing: "What makes ''Hoosiers'' special is not its story but its details and its characters. Angelo Pizzo, who wrote the original screenplay, knows small-town sports. He knows all about high school politics and how the school board and the parents' groups always think they know more about basketball than the coach does. He knows about gossip, scandal and vengeance. And he knows a lot about human nature. All of his knowledge, however, would be pointless without Hackman's great performance at the center of this movie. Hackman is gifted at combining likability with complexity — two qualities that usually don't go together in the movies. He projects all of the single-mindedness of any good coach, but then he contains other dimensions, and we learn about the scandal in his past that led him to this one-horse town. David Anspaugh's direction is good at suggesting Hackman's complexity without belaboring it."<ref>Ebert, Roger. [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19870227/REVIEWS/702270303 "Hoosiers,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120408053921/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19870227%2FREVIEWS%2F702270303 |date=April 8, 2012 }} ''Chicago Sun-Times'' (February 27, 1987).</ref> ''[[The New York Times]]''<nowiki>'</nowiki> [[Janet Maslin]] echoed Ebert's sentiments, writing, "This film's very lack of surprise and sophistication accounts for a lot of its considerable charm."<ref>Maslin, Janet. [https://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9B0DE2D61739F934A15751C0A961948260 "Film: Gene Hackman as a Coach in 'Hoosiers,'"] ''New York Times'' (Feb. 27, 1987).</ref>

''[[Washington Post]]'' critics Rita Kempley and [[Paul Attanasio]] both enjoyed the film, despite its perceived sentimentalism and lack of originality. Kempley wrote, "Even though we've seen it all before, ''Hoosiers'' scores big by staying small."<ref>Kempley, Rita. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/hoosierspgkempley_a0cabb.htm "Hoosiers,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171210175551/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/hoosierspgkempley_a0cabb.htm |date=December 10, 2017 }} ''Washington Post'' (Feb. 27, 1987).</ref> Attanasio pointed out some problems with the film: "[It contains] some klutzy glitches in continuity, and a love story (between Hackman and a sterile, one-note Barbara Hershey) that goes nowhere. The action photography flattens the visual excitement of basketball (you can imagine what a [[Martin Scorsese|Scorsese]] would do with it);" but he noted the film's "enormous craftsmanship accumulates till you're actually seduced into believing all its [[Pepperidge Farm]] buncombe. That's quite an achievement."<ref name="Attanasio">Attanasio, Paul. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/hoosierspgattanasio_a0ad9d.htm "Hoosiers,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201023825/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/hoosierspgattanasio_a0ad9d.htm |date=December 1, 2017 }} ''Washington Post'' (Feb. 27, 1987).</ref>

''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine's [[Richard Schickel]] praised the performance of Gene Hackman, writing that he was {{cquote|wonderful as an inarticulate man tense with the struggle to curb a flaring, mysterious anger.<ref>Schickel, Richard. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,963492,00.html "Cinema: Knight-Errant Hoosiers,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120317063046/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,963492,00.html |date=March 17, 2012 }} ''Time'' (Feb. 9, 1987).</ref>}} ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' wrote that the {{cquote|pic belongs to Hackman, but Dennis Hopper gets another opportunity to put in a showy turn as a local misfit.<ref>Variety Staff. [https://www.variety.com/review/VE1117791745?refcatid=31 "Hoosiers,"] ''Variety'' (Dec. 31, 1985).</ref>}}

Pat Graham of the ''[[Chicago Reader]]'' was a rare dissenter, writing of the film that {{cquote|Director David Anspaugh seems only marginally concerned with basketball thematics: what matters most is feeding white-bread fantasies (the film is set in the slow-footed 50s, when blacks are only a rumor and nobody's ever heard of slam 'n' jam) and laying on the inspirational corn.... [[Bobby Knight]] would not be amused, though [[Tark the Shark]] might've had a good laugh at the naive masquerade.<ref>Graham, Pat. [http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/hoosiers/Film?oid=1060516 "Hoosiers,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140223084430/http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/hoosiers/Film?oid=1060516 |date=February 23, 2014 }} ''Chicago Reader''. Accessed Mar. 27, 2012.</ref>}}

''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' critic [[Gene Siskel]] also criticized the film, calling it sentimental and predictable.<ref>Siskel, Gene. [https://www.chicagotribune.com/1987/02/27/flick-of-the-week-hoosiers-suffers-from-its-sentiment/ "FLICK OF THE WEEK: 'HOOSIERS' SUFFERS FROM ITS SENTIMENT,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250304123111/https://www.chicagotribune.com/1987/02/27/flick-of-the-week-hoosiers-suffers-from-its-sentiment/ |date=March 4, 2025 }} ''Chicago Tribune'' (February 27, 1987).</ref>