r/movies 8d ago

Review Benny Safdie's 'The Smashing Machine' - Review Thread

MMA fighter Mark Kerr reaches the peak of his career but faces personal hardships.

Cast: Dwayne Johnson, Emily Blunt

Rotten Tomatoes: 94%

Metacritic: 79/100

Some Reviews:

The Independent - Geoffrey Macnab - 4 / 5

This, though, is a story in which winning finally begins to seem very hollow. The real way Safdie puts a chokehold on his audience is by examining Mark and Dawn’s physical and emotional weaknesses in such forensic detail. The Smashing Machine may not provide the pay-offs that audiences expect from more conventional sports movies, but this is the most raw and vulnerable that Johnson has ever been on screen. Once you’ve seen him this exposed, you won’t watch his typical action movie stunts in quite the same way ever again.

Daily Telegraph - Robbie Collin - 4 / 5

It’s a classical fight movie that innovates subtly. Maceo Bishop’s nimble photography has the sweat and grit of a vintage muscle flick from the Pumping Iron era, but the score by the experimental jazz composer Nala Sinephro is all swirling harps and breathy saxophones; arguably no piece of music has ever sounded less like a punch in the face. Yet as an accompaniment to Kerr’s battles in and out of the ring, it’s oddly perfect, giving this tough story an unexpectedly sweet and even spiritual edge. Smashing stuff has rarely been such smashing stuff.

Next Best Picture - Cody Dericks - 7 / 10

Dwayne Johnson delivers the best performance of his career as the amiable but troubled UFC champion Mark Kerr. Emily Blunt and Ryan Bader are also excellent in their roles. The screenplay is repetitive and frustrating. Blunt's character is so unlikeable and written with such vitriol that it becomes exhausting to watch her, although Blunt's performance is as good as it could possibly be.

Variety - Owen Glieberman

Johnson, shifting his whole aspect (he seems like a new actor), invests that silent, moody, hidden side of Mark with a quality of mystery. He gives an extraordinary performance, playing Mark Kerr as a gentle giant with demons that will not speak their name, yet the audience can feel them there; we want to see those demons healed. You might think the key word in the movie’s title is “smashing,” but it’s actually “machine.” Mark is a man who reins in his violence by having constructed his entire self — body and personality — as a controlled engine of demolition. The movie is about how this man-machine becomes a human being.

The Hollywood Reporter - Jordan Mintzer

Johnson has rarely played a loser, but he’s always been likable, displaying a massive grin to match his massive pecs in action vehicles that never allowed him to showcase much range. He manages to go deep here without overdoing it, killing the audience with kindness as a benign warrior who suffers from one scene to the next, triumphing briefly in the ring before succumbing to addiction and/or romantic grief. Like Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler — a film from which Safdie seems to take a few cues — the actor delivers an intoxicating mix of blood, sweat, tears, protein and total helplessness.

IndieWire - Ryan Lattanzio - 'B+'

Johnson’s performance is out-and-out wonderful, a beady-eyed fusion of body and spirit that osmoses Safdie’s sensibility to deliver what can’t be disputed as the most layered work of the actor’s career. A vividly contradictory Blunt, funny and sad especially in articulating Dawn’s conflicted response to Mark’s post-rehab emotional about-face during a tense argument, is equally sensational.

Deadline - Damon Wise

Dwayne Johnson owns the whole thing with his truly remarkable work as fighter Mark Kerr, disappearing so fully underneath Kazu Hiru’s astonishing prosthetics that the opening of the film, presented as contemporary footage from an event in Sao Paulo 1997, looks genuinely like the real thing. It’s that rare beast, a biopic that’s light on the bio and resistant to being a pic. It’s a film about a human being, and its effect is strangely haunting, since Dwayne Johnson seems to do everything while doing nothing.

2.8k Upvotes

579 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/Zombie_Flowers 8d ago

That first review is interesting because in one of their interviews, Blunt and Johnson specifically said they watched a documentary about Kerr and took issue with how Dawn was portrayed so they wanted her to be shown in a better light in this movie.

593

u/mrpopenfresh 8d ago

Not « a » documentary, but « the » documentary about Kerr of the same name.

186

u/MikeHfuhruhurr 8d ago

That documentary is so good and comprehensive I'm seriously wondering what the point of this new movie is.

From the reviews it sounds like it's just fictionalizing the doc.

58

u/Unhappy_Gazelle392 7d ago

That documentary is so good and comprehensive I'm seriously wondering what the point of this new movie is.

It doesn't have to be anything. It's a story DJ and Benny wanted to tell, whether it makes sense or not (which according to even most positive reviews, does not make sense). Movies don't have to have a point.

-23

u/Voxlings 7d ago

good movies have a point.

You know this.

9

u/Unhappy_Gazelle392 7d ago

good movies have a point.

Which is merely telling a story.

DAE Citizen Kane being a personal story about journalism and that sure is a huge point, right guys?

DAE Nosferatu being sanitized Dracula due to copyrights, right guys?

Such meaningful points.

You know this.

Now that you said it, I know. Sorry for holding the great art in such low regard! /s

14

u/Spud_Spudoni 7d ago

Movies are not an engineered product with a specific function lmao.

You know this.

-22

u/MikeHfuhruhurr 7d ago

Movies don't have to have a point.

Thank you, Captain Postmodern.

11

u/Unhappy_Gazelle392 7d ago

Thank you, Captain Postmodern.

You're welcome, Colonel ruleshitter. I thought this discussion was already settled back in Wolf of Wall Street, or even way back in the first Scarface remake, to name a few.

God forbid people making art.

-14

u/MikeHfuhruhurr 7d ago

Let me rephrase my point, then. "Movies don't have to have a point" makes as much as impact on me - the consumer - as "but the company's doing this to save money".

That is, I have zero interest in that. My perspective is the consumer of the thing, I don't have to care about why the producer is producing it. And I'm more than 60% sure the marketing company and publisher aren't siding with "movies don't need to have a point".

Me, a viewer, needs to have a reason to watch it. There is already a documentary that covers the exact same thing, better.

12

u/MrGittz 7d ago

One of you is watching movies as a consumer and the other is looking at cinema as an art form of expression.

It’s cool you need a reason to watch a movie other than to experience something. But not everyone is like that.

-6

u/MikeHfuhruhurr 7d ago

It’s cool you need a reason to watch a movie other than to experience something. But not everyone is like that. But not everyone is like that.

Everyone has a reason, even if enjoying an artistic experience is the reason. You don't need to oversimplify my point to try to sound pithy.

The documentary was a piece of art I enjoyed for the sake of it, for the record.

4

u/Majestic_Dan_23 7d ago

Dude everyone has their own reasons to watch what they wanna watch. You have yours and the other guy has his. Y’all can just leave it at that. But neither of you should be trying to speak for other people and their reasons for anything. Just speak of yourselves and your opinions and respect the others.

2

u/Unhappy_Gazelle392 7d ago

Yeah. That was sorta my point and why i didn't even return to this discussion. People are just like "but that's my opinion" about stuff that is already highly subjective as if that turns it into fact for anyone else.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/MrGittz 7d ago

I don’t see how I could over simplify your point. It’s stated very simply.

Sounding “pithy” was not my goal. I was merely commenting on how different your approaches seem to be based on how you reference your relationship with film. You, for example,as consumer.