2005 boxing movieRating: 16/20
Plot: Jim Braddock loves punching people in the head. For a while during the late-1920s, he is really good at it and getting paid. Then, he breaks his hand. And everybody gets depressed. And he can no longer find anybody to pay him to punch people in the head. He desperately searches for work so that he can keep his wife and children fed and warm. A few years later, his manager gets him a one-fight offer, essentially to get paid to be knocked out for the first time by the then number two heavyweight contender. Improbably, he wins, and the performance puts him back in the spotlight as a legitimate contender to the heavyweight crown and as a people's champion.
Anybody who wants to make a derivative feel-good sports movie that teeters on edge of the Cliff of Over-Sentimentality starring the oft obnoxious Russell Crowe and the always obnoxious Renee Zellweger should watch this Ron Howard joint first to see how to get it just right. I was surprised that I liked this as much as I did, twice as much as Rocky and just as much as the original Karate Kid II. Crowe and Zellweger, as usual if I want to be fair, have fine, restrained performances, and it's so easy to root for them. There are several times in this story when poorly written dialogue or over-emoting could have made me vomit all over the boxing gloves and shiny pink trunks I wear when I watch boxing or boxing movies. (Yes, it's difficult to eat popcorn with boxing gloves on.) But the fears and worries, Crowe's when he has difficulty bringing home the bacon and Zellweger's whenever she pictures her man coming home with less head than he started out with, are restrained and authentic. Paul Giamatti, as Braddock's manager, tops both the leads with a great character and lines that he really gets to sink his teeth in. I also like a lot of the minor details, especially the ones that showed Braddock's relationship with his children. The Depression-era period detail paints a grim picture, and the boxing matches are brutally realistic and exciting. I did think the stuff with Braddock's friend and co-worker Mike, a sort of foil for the protagonist, could have been developed a little better, and I almost thought Craig Bierko's Max Baer was overly antagonistic almost to the point of silliness. I'm not exactly a boxing aficionado (Is Jorge Paez still around? That guy was my favorite!) so maybe Max Baer was actually just like that. This might not be the type of movie I love, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this, even to folks who don't necessarily like boxing.
I liked this slightly more than you...I give it a solid 17. As you point out, even though none of us like Zelwegger or Crowe much, the performances are very good and I never once got drug out of the period. The sets and look of the film are very well done, and Paul Giammatti is fantastic in his supporting role.
ReplyDeleteOh and Max Baer was not quite like they portray him in the movie. He had killed a man in the ring before the Braddock fight, and then was racked with guilt for the rest of his life. He was not a monster,but a fairly nice guy with a powerful punch. I dont think that the actions of the individual people in this movie are very historically accurate, and the cartoon way they create villains in this movie are what keep it from being an all time great movie.
You always come up with the word I wanted to use, Barry...he was a cartoonish villain. I kind of figured it wasn't a historically accurate portrayal of the guy and that they were just trying to create somebody you could really really hate and root against. His family should be pissed.
ReplyDeleteYou both nailed this film. It says a great deal about how well done it is that we all liked it this much in spite of flaws (the friend)and historical innaccuracies. For me it all comes down to terrific boxing scenes, great period mood, and mostly how incredibly empathetic they made Braddock. I really pulled for Crowe's character and you are right that these annoying actors' understated performances are perfect for this movie. Also a solid 17.
ReplyDelete