‘The Smashing Machine’ is More Hype Than Substance
- Jared Huizenga
- Oct 1
- 3 min read
Typically, when a biopic with A-list actors, an acclaimed director, and plenty of awards season buzz comes down the pipeline, the subject of said biopic is a well-known figure.
Whether it was Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury, Jessica Chastain as Tammy Faye Baker, or George C. Scott as Gen. George S. Patton, oftentimes the celebrity of the subject matter outweighs that of the actor portraying them.
That, however, is not the case with “The Smashing Machine,” the Benny Safdie-written and directed, Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt-starring story of mixed martial arts (MMA) pioneer Mark Kerr.
Johnson stars as Kerr, the musclebound amateur wrestler turned professional ass-kicker, and Blunt as his girlfriend, Dawn Staples. The film focuses on a narrow period in Kerr’s early career (1997-2000), including the highs of victory, the lows of defeat, and the highs and lows of a painkiller addiction that nearly derailed everything.
Despite that narrow focus, “The Smashing Machine” comes in at just over two hours (123 minutes) and doesn’t really tell you much about who Kerr, Staples, Mark Coleman (played by Ryan Bader) and Bas Rutten (himself) are, what PRIDE Fighting Championships were, and why any of them are important to the story (this one or the story of MMA).
That’s certainly a decision, and one that doesn’t make much sense to me.
While there are undoubtedly people that will check this film out because they’re fans of Johnson, Blunt, Safdie, or A24, or they’re believing the awards hype, but I can’t imagine there’s a going to be a lot of random people staring at the marquee and choosing the biopic of a MMA fighter who’s been retired since before the sport broke through into the mainstream.
No, a Mark Kerr story is going to largely appeal to old school MMA fans – I’ve been watching for the better part of two decades, and don’t put myself in that class, but I know several people that are there. And the main thing a narrow, rabid, niche audience is going to look for is accuracy. And Safdie takes a bunch of (unnecessary) creative licenses with the film’s fights, most noticeably the Pride Grand Prix 2000. If I, a fan that didn’t watch that event, knows the movie is inaccurate, it’s going to drive what should be its core audience crazy. Creative license makes sense if it helps the flow of the narrative, in this case it didn’t do that.
Beyond the narrow scope, the things the story does choose to show aren’t fleshed out nearly enough, with most everything from character development to what should have been major plot points getting little more than surface level attention. When you add Safdie’s sometimes frenetic pacing and shaky camera shots (I assume to add “realness”) to fight scenes that are on par with “Rocky V,” and you get a movie that had great potential dragged down by directorial decisions.
But obviously the thing that has piqued most everyone’s interest in this movie is Johnson in what many are saying is a career best performance. And that’s undoubtedly true. But when you look at his filmography, it’s not exactly overflowing with great performances or films that require them. Dwayne Johnson is a movie star and his movies make a lot of money. And, yes, this is his best acting performance, but despite that, and the makeup and prosthetics, I was acutely aware it was him throughout. A vast improvement over previous outings, but his Kerr lacked nuance and simply wasn’t overly believable the entire time.
The same can’t be said for Blunt. She knocked the role of the mostly enigmatic, but oftentimes toxic, woman behind the man. The nuance and realism Johnson’s performance lacked was on full display here. She was fully absorbed into the role and makes you forget you’re watching a very recognizable actor at work.
“The Smashing Machine” is decent, Blunt shines, and Johnson was better than he's been in pretty much anything, but overall, the film isn’t nearly as good as the hype would have us believe.
★★½ of ★★★★★
Comments