The Smashing Machine

The movie has the frame of a good biopic but never quite lands. The Rock pushes himself more than ever, yet the story doesn't feel worthwhile.

There's a thread about two best friends in a fighting league, but it gets sidelined for a tired relationship arc we've seen countless times.

Ironic, really, for a film built around the idea of never achieving greatness.

Expect a sad, bad edited, and strange movie. It is not about fighting, but about the relationship between Mark and his girlfriend, and between Mark and his addiction to opioids. There is absolutely no happy moment in this movie. No build up towards an epic moment. It was very flat. On the other hand, acting was great.

The praise Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has gotten for looking the part is warranted, but also a surface level compliment. Greatest accomplishment is a real range of emotions he gets to show in a story that doesn't get the whitewash treatment. 'The Smashing Machine' was a pet project he took on years ago and I was glad to see it turn into reality. It may not be deep, but having knowledge of the documentary it takes it's name from or early days of MMA goes a long way here.

Mark Kerr (Johnson) is a rising star in MMA circa 1997 with a good buddy and fellow fighter in Mark Coleman (Ryan Bader) by his side and loving gf Dawn (Emily Blunt). Unfortunately his addiction to pain meds in combination with suffering his first setback in the ring derails a promising start. Able to cast these demons aside, he trains with renewed purpose until Dawn launches her own brand of craziness. Will Kerr make good on his comeback or will it all end in sadness?

When I first heard 'Smashing' was coming out my #1 fear was they were going to do a magic act with Dawn. Saw the documentary years ago and it was solid. You knew part of Mark's problem was his own doing, but it was also clear Dawn wasn't a good influence. Luckily there's no attempt at sugarcoating things here. For her part Blunt does some solid acting which keeps the girlfriend role from feeling like a cliche.

As a fan of MMA seeing Bader portray Coleman was fun even if he doesn't physically resemble him and of course you get Bas Rutten playing himself in a vital role. Lots of love for the olden days of MMA via Pride or early UFC through soundbites. Fact the real Mark Kerr is shown is a nice touch too. Again I'll mention how great it is to see Johnson take on a role that gives him a chance to step outside his money / familiar zone where it's clear he's really committed to the project. He's the glue.

When the lights came up and I left the theater, I struggled to balance how I felt about 'The Smashing Machine'. Not because I didn't enjoy it, but because it has to overcome a predictable plot as I already knew Kerr's tale and it partakes in classic sports movie tropes. I even started to get antsy in my seat towards the end so it perhaps it could have been edited tighter. However I still believe there's enough here for MMA fans and Johnson turns in a killer performance. Only caveat is I don't think it's going to land quite the same way for casual audiences who might expect a different kind of film.

OK, I just got back from seeing it. Overall, I think it's alright

The movie definitely has some upsides. The most obvious is that The Rock gives a solid performance. The best-acted scene is the one where he consoles his suicidal partner in the bathroom of their home. Emily Blunt never looked sexier; she reminded me a bit of Marissa Tomei here. The fight scenes, which occur mostly in Japan, are well-done. The in-ring action looks real; the setting and props look visually aesthetic and authentic. An MMA fan would likely devour those parts. Additionally - I like the closing scene, involving the real-life Mark Kerr.

But many problems remain ... the most obvious flaw, which lingers from start to end, is the movie's presentation doesn't fit. The color and filter give the sense that the movie takes place in the 1960s or 1970s. In truth, the events of the movie occur from 1997 - 2000. I must say: this movie does not look like the late 1990s at all

The movie's pacing is quite slow. The first hour feels closer to 2 hours. The movie doesn't include a rising action and climax like a regular story. Rather, the movie leans more into a straight historical telling. An accurate description is that the movie feels kinda like an academic piece. I think a bunch of viewers might find themselves yawning during the movie

There is a lot of mundane content. We watch his wife when she enjoys an amusement park ride; we watch The Rock buy a gift in a Japanese store; we watch The Rock make a smoothie in his kitchen; we watch The Rock look at a sunset through an airplane window; we watch The Rock trim a cactus plant and clear his pool of leaves etc. Kerr also doesn't have a charming or interesting personality to liven these scenes ... the harsh impression is that Kerr probably didn't have a story worth telling on the big screen

The Rock and Emily Blunt, again, exhibit good acting. But the domestic bickering scenes get so repetitive, as some critics have noted. Some areas of the film could have been covered more, such as Kerr's friendship with his trainer, his drug addiction, and his rehab recovery efforts.

6.5/10.

The Rock makes a decent performance compared to other things I've seen him in. But it's far from award winning. I feel this is massively over hyped. It barely has a plot which is it's biggest flaw! It's not a patch on a film like The wrestler. I viewed it at the cinema with friends and we all came out disappointed. I'm glad I watched it as it has been spoken about so much pre release. The place is slow and respectfully the main characters back story wasnt interesting enough. It was a great effort by the director but being based on a true story is no good, if the true story is pretty boring. No amount of poetic licence could bring this film to life. I enjoyed the odd cameo and the soundtrack was pleasant.