Paul Giamatti was his usually great self. His character was very interesting. Russell Crowe was pretty decent as well, and very good in the boxing scenes but Paul pretty much stole the scenes he was in.
Although I liked most aspects of Jim’s family life, I don’t think they needed to devote quite so much screen time to it.
The cinematography was great, decent sound Mix (typical baseball bat on leather boxing sounds, nothing new there).
Where it really shines is the boxing scenes. I knew exactly what was going to happen right down to the fight choreography but despite that, I was on the edge of my seat the entire time.
I saw it, too. Crow is fantastic, but Paul Giamatti steals the flick! Maybe this one will get him the Oscar he deserves.
Did not like Renee Zellweger as Mae. She looks like Roxie Hart in a dyed-black wig. Can’t stand her chipmunk cheeks and bee-stung lips and squinty little eyes any more! Make her go away.
The boxing scenes were killer!
I snuck out of work early this afternoon to see this flick.
I really enjoy the works of Russell Crowe (Chris Rock is right. You want a good movie, wait for Crowe to come available!), Paul Giamatti and RON HOWARD.
Overall, I was pleased that I shunned learning anything about this guy. It made the film more enjoyable. What I did know was Jeremy Schapp, who wrote a gravy training book to coincide with the release of the film (also called Cinderella Man) said that the film was a pretty accurate portrayal of the life of Braddick. He said they didn’t Disney it up. That the guy was really a solid human being.
His only beef was the treatment of Baer. He said Baer was a better man than the film made him out to be.
Overall a solid film. I give it a nice B+.
A few random thoughts:
I’ll stick up for Opie. I just can’t get why he takes so much flack. Sure, he isn’t going to go out on a limb and give you something likem Pulp Fiction or Trainspotting (thank goodness on the latter, QT hasn’t been able to replicate the quality of the former), but he gives you a good, solid performance every picture. He is consistently enjoyable, if rarely excellent. To mix sports if I may, he is the Ichiro Suzuki of directors. He may hit mostly singles, be he consistently puts the ball in play. I can’t think of any of his films I have left thinking I wasted my money (I thought EdTV was even a passable flick…) Maybe because I get to see so few flicks at the theater, I am MUCH more willing to see a Howard picture. I know I won’t be wasting time and money. Rarely an “A” but mostly “B+” level pictures. Different Strokes for different folks I suppose.
I enjoyed Crowe and Giamatti (I was worried at first with Giamatti’s performance. He looked like he was playing a guy from a 1950’s MOVIE about the 1930’s. But as it went along, he really got into the role.), but Zellwegger left something to be desired. She always overacts. She really did remind me of Roxie Hart.
Why has this movie never been made? It was an incredible story. We get Rudy (which was a fine film) about a guy who makes a team, but we don’t get a movie about a guy who climbs out of the gutter of the Depression to get back in the ring?
I had no idea how this film was going to end and the ignorance led to a more enjoyable experience. I thought Braddick would lose because I thought Joe Louis was the first person to beat Baer. I guess not. Louis must have had a title defense against Baer that became legendary. What I realized is that I was confusing Baer with Max Schmelling.
I had no idea how this film was going to end and the ignorance led to a more enjoyable experience. I thought Braddick would lose because I thought Joe Louis was the first person to beat Baer. I guess not. Louis must have had a title defense against Baer that became legendary. What I realized is that I was confusing Baer with Max Schmelling. (I even did it again in the previous sentence! This is what I was correcting when I hit submit above!) This confusion made me wonder why Baer didn’t speak with a German accent. The star of David on the pants had me BAFFLED!
I think they could have cut 15 minutes off the film. Though I liked it and understood how it aided the film, I could have done without the Mike subplot. Maybe saved it for a special edition DVD.
Saw this yesterday and thought it to be entertaining, if a bit schlocky. I cannot stand Zellwegger; she has two expressions, both of which remind me of the front end of an Edsel. The boxing choreography was terrific, and Braddock was a standup guy IRL.
Okay, I finally saw it today. Very well done, though I will admit to closing my eyes a few times during the boxing bouts—they’re quite brutal to watch. Crowe inhabited the role nicely, I had no problems with Zellweger’s performance, and Giamatti is wonderful; I think he’s rapidly becoming one of the best character actors of this decade.
They did a nice job on the production design as well—the era of the Depression seemed accurately represented.
I still think the movie would have done better had it been released in the fall.
One thing: Knowing virtually nothing about boxing, I’d always assumed that one fighter had to knock out another one in order to win. I didn’t realize that the judges could come to a consensus on the winner after 15 (?) rounds. Do I have that right?
The one problem I had was the unnecessary villification of Max Baer. It’s a good enough story without that and it’s really unfair to the memory of Baer.
No, there does not have to be a knockout for a boxer to win a fight. At every bout, there is a panel of judges who score points for each fighter based on a variety of characteristics. When you hear that Boxer X, who did not knock out Boxer Y, won on a unanimous decision, it means all the judges awarded Boxer X the most points, or the most rounds won. If there is a split decision, some judges awarded Boxer Y the most points or the most rounds won, but that Boxer X got more points/rounds. (And I hate boxing!)
Exactly right. It was a good, solid film (not a masterpiece, but quite enjoyable), but it bothered me that Max Baer was turned into a monster.
That’s one of the problems with mainstream Hollywood films- apparently, it’s not enough to have a likeable hero that the audience is predisposed to root for. There also has to be an utterly evil villain. And the real Max Baer was not a cardboard villain.
It is true that Max Baer killed a boxer named Frankie Campbell in the ring. But what “Cinderella Man” doesn’t show us is:
After that fight, Max Baer went on a losing streak, for the first time in his career. Indeed, he lost 4 of his next 6 bouts, mostly to grossly inferior opponents. Clearly, killing Campbell bothered Baer a great deal, and he wasn’t the same fighter for a long time after that.
Max Baer helped out Campbell’s widow and children financially for years afterward.
It’s odd, and a bit disturbing that Ron Howard and his screenwriters didn’t have more faith in their material. Despite the fact that Jim Braddock was played by a popular star and was portrayed as a good man, Howard thought he had to make Baer a heartless killer, just to be sure the crowd rooted for Braddock!
Moreover, I knew a bit about the Braddock-Baer bout even before this movie. And MOST contemporary accounts of the fight, while giving BRaddock credit for being a game, gritty, tough competitor, indicated that champion Max Baer didn’t give much of an effort. Most observers said that Baer danced, clowned and goofed around for most of the match, allowing the underdog Braddock to score points and win by decision. I give Braddock all the credit in the world… but it appears that Baer pissed away his title as much as Braddock earned it.
Yeah…even without knowing anything about him, I just found it hard to believe that he would have been so nasty, taunting Braddock during the fight about his wife.
Like I said before, it wasn’t necessary to the drama of the story to make Baer into a monster. He could have been depicted as an intimidating and daunting opponent without being evil.
On another note, Max Jr. confirms Astorian’s point about Baer not taking Braddock seriously.
