Hank Kingsley Posted June 4, 2005 Report Posted June 4, 2005 One hell of a movie. Not as good as Raging Bull or even Million Dollar Baby, but still a great, emotional experience. Russell Crowe is the perfect Jim Braddock, but the MVP in my opinion was Paul Giamatti. This, the third Oscar-worthy performance in a row, better be the one where he finally gets the nod. I loved Howard's directing, too, especially in the championship fight. At times the camerawork felt a lot like Raging Bull. All in all a superb effort. Highly recommended.
Hank Kingsley Posted June 4, 2005 Author Report Posted June 4, 2005 Wishful thinking, of course. oh, and the guy who played Max Baer, Craig Bierko, gave a standout performance, too. Played the cocky asshole card perfectly. People in the theater were audibly jeering him.
bob_barron Posted June 4, 2005 Report Posted June 4, 2005 I heard that the film's portrayal of Baer is totally inaccurate
Cheex Incarnate Posted June 4, 2005 Report Posted June 4, 2005 I actually think this will be the time Giamattie gets a nod. The other times he should've been nominated were leading roles, but with this the academy can give him a supporting actor nomination (because thats obviously where the majority of hollywood thinks he belongs). -Cheex
Guest Vitamin X Posted June 4, 2005 Report Posted June 4, 2005 Crowe and Giamatti? Boxing movie going for an Oscar? I'd see it because it'll probably get best picture consideration later on, I assume one of the main characters dies.
EVIL~! alkeiper Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 I heard that the film's portrayal of Baer is totally inaccurate Finally saw the film myself. I think this is very much true. Baer's character hardly seemed based on his real persona at all, except that he did clown around in the ring too much. Baer did kill one boxer, Ernie Campbell, and felt so bad about it that he quit boxing for several months. The Campbell fight sapped much of Baer's killer instinct. Ernie Schaaf died after he fought Primo Carnera (that Carnera was the fighter who "tapped" Schaaf was not mentioned in the movie). Schaaf's injuries were attributed in part to the Baer fight, but that's hardly uncommon. Cinderella Man was a good movie, but filled to the brim with exaggerations. Corn Griffin was hardly one of the top contenders. He had lost three times before fighting Braddock and would lose nine of his next ten. And the Braddock-Baer fight was one of the more dull affairs in heavyweight title fight history. One NY Times reporter stated the fight gave no excitement whatsoever to the fans. Braddock looked bad, and won because Baer looked worse. It's a shame to see Baer portrayed so negatively. He was a top-flight jewish fighter in the 1930s. His son portrayed Jethro Clampett on the Beverly Hillbillies.
Lil' Bitch Posted February 4, 2006 Report Posted February 4, 2006 Great movie, I highly recommend it.
SuperJerk Posted February 4, 2006 Report Posted February 4, 2006 You all are on crack. This Hollywood tear-jerker was a hodge-podge of sports movies cliches, coupled with boring in-ring cinematography and half-ass character development. The villian was so cookie-cutter I'm half surprised he didn't tie Rene Zellwegger to a railroad track for Crowe to come and rescue her. Its as if directors think that all you have to do is slap a "based on a true story" label on any pile of crap and even the most predictable, corny garbage gets the "instant classic" treatment. And, by the way, it takes place during the Great Depression. A fact impossible to forget because Ron Howard does something to remind you of it about once every 2 minutes. I'd actually argue this wasn't so much a movie about boxing as it was a docudrama about the Great Depression with a boxing subplot. Maybe this was a necessary element for people who'd never heard of the Great Depression, but after the 10th time the storyline went out of its way to remind you that Braddock's family was poor because of the Great Depression, and he was going to loose his kids because of the Great Depression, and there's no way he'd ever steal or not pay back money in spite of the Great Depression, I felt like bombing Pearl Harobr myself just so it would end. If you ever want to watch a GREAT boxing movie, with interesting characters and really good fight scenes, watch "Raging Bull" instead.
iggymcfly Posted February 4, 2006 Report Posted February 4, 2006 I'd have to side more with Y2Jerk on this one. I mean it was an amusing diversion for a couple hours, but nowhere near the "great" category. Probably 2 1/2 stars or so. Also, Rene Zellwegger turned in one of the most wooden clunky performances I've seen in a lead role in a long time. Oh, and it's a joke that Paul Giamatti got nominated for best supporting actor. I absolutely loved him in Sideways, but the Cinderella Man role was about as basic, cookie-cutter of a role as you can get. I mean, how hard can it be to play the standup manager? To be fair though, I don't think Gyllenhaal was any better in Brokeback. I know it's the "in" movie to get nominations this year, but I wasn't impressed with his performance at all.
MDH257 Posted February 4, 2006 Report Posted February 4, 2006 It's a good movie, but it does seem to follow the "Sports Movie Cliche Formula" a little too closely. Granted, if a movie works then it can be as formulaic as it want and still entertain. But for whatever reason, the feeling of "I've seen this before and I know exactly how it'll end" was enought to not put this over the top as far as great sports movies are concerned. I thought Seabiscuit was much better in the depression era sports star who lifts america's spirit genre.
Dr. Zaius Posted February 5, 2006 Report Posted February 5, 2006 You all are on crack. This Hollywood tear-jerker was a hodge-podge of sports movies cliches, coupled with boring in-ring cinematography and half-ass character development. The villian was so cookie-cutter I'm half surprised he didn't tie Rene Zellwegger to a railroad track for Crowe to come and rescue her. Its as if directors think that all you have to do is slap a "based on a true story" label on any pile of crap and even the most predictable, corny garbage gets the "instant classic" treatment. And, by the way, it takes place during the Great Depression. A fact impossible to forget because Ron Howard does something to remind you of it about once every 2 minutes. I'd actually argue this wasn't so much a movie about boxing as it was a docudrama about the Great Depression with a boxing subplot. Maybe this was a necessary element for people who'd never heard of the Great Depression, but after the 10th time the storyline went out of its way to remind you that Braddock's family was poor because of the Great Depression, and he was going to loose his kids because of the Great Depression, and there's no way he'd ever steal or not pay back money in spite of the Great Depression, I felt like bombing Pearl Harobr myself just so it would end. If you ever want to watch a GREAT boxing movie, with interesting characters and really good fight scenes, watch "Raging Bull" instead. Did Ron Howard kill your dog or something?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now