 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.91.201.174
I found this to be predictable and basically "Seabiscuit" with a boxer instead of a horse. It did get quite good critical reviews but diod relatively poorly at the box office. Both leads are serviceable but it is interesting that the children do not grow as the film covers a number of years. Giamatti is the standout here.
Follow Ups:
z
Both paint a very accurate picture os what life was like in the U.S. during the Great Depression, albeit with some anachronisms.
d
I agree but frankly have never been able to figure out why an expensive historical production lets things slip by that some of us in the audience catch right away. Same thing with continuity although I can see why some edits resulting in continuity errors were made.
s
asas
The true life story really is exceptional. Howard turned it into Rocky. Totally unneeded embellishment. I am a boxing fan and the mistakes made in this movie were the sort that made the movie cliche. Had they told it more accurately and had they made the daring decision not to show the actual fight but just show the people glued to their radios it could have been a terrific movie. By the way the actual fight was a bore. The excitement was in the fact that he went the distance and won. the excitement surely was in the hearts of the fans.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film. I do not know the boxing history. I do not think that Howard was making a boxing film in the sense of trying to be authentic by dotting every "i" and crossing every "t". Rather, I think that the point in the film was to demonstrate how a man was able to rise from a very humble background, not only with the physical odds against him, but also the societal odds and the boxing estalblishment odds against him. I think that film did a very good job of helping me to learn about Braddock the man, not the boxer. I would venture to guess that Braddock himself was more proud of his strong family and his hard work providing for them than his success in the ring. I think that it was this human story that Howard was telling. The boxing story was the macguffin.And to this end the story diverged from Seabiscuit. If Seabiscuit fails, what is lost? A wealthy entrepeneaur goes on the the next project. If Braddock fails, maybe he looses his children. His marriage. Seabiscuit overcame the physical odds, but most athletes will tell you that the physical difficulties of succeeding are less than the mental difficulties. Braddock had both. Unless you believe that a horse worries about putting food on the table.
These points are made more poignant in the D.V.D. hearing Braddock's grandchildren discussing him. Though they talked about him as a boxer, most of their comments were to him as a man - his love of his wife, children, faith, etc. This, they said, Howard got absolutely right.
Was Cinderalla Man like Rocky? Rocky was about a boxer. Cinderalla Man was about a good, hardworking family man who happened to be a boxer.
I have no problem with people liking formulaic movies. I am simply tired of them and this one is formulaic. the thing that bugs me is that it was totally unneccessary. The true story totally stands up. The melodrama of the movie is IMO over the top and heavy handed. All the nonsense about the worry that Braddock would get killed. The needless changing of he facts about the injuries pror to the fight. Did you know that in fact it was Baer that went into the fight with an injury not Braddock? And the cliche melodrama in the ring just bugged the heck out of me. the fact is the fight was a bore. Very little happened because Baer was over confident and only made an effort for two rounds. Why change the facts? The excitement was in the hearts of the people glued to their radios listening to the biggest upset in the history of boxing up to that time. But Howard had to follow the formula and end the movie with an over the top portrayal of the fight. Hey, I understand changing history for the sake of a narrative but why fall into the formula when the history itself is a better story?
I understand your criticisms, and I do not necessarily disagree. My only point was that for me, not being a boxing fan, whether he wins or looses, whether the fights were real, or the facts surrounding the fights were true, would not have changed the film for me. In the end, I felt I knew about Braddock, and what was really important to him, and what made him a good man. I am not sure any of the qualities that made him a better man were enhanced because of his success in the ring, or whether Howard portrayed the events more accurately.Now, if the events were fudged in order to portray Braddock as a better man than he was, then I have a problem. Watching interviews with family members, they stated that Braddock was accurately portrayed. At the end of the film, I felt I learned a lot about Braddock. If I was still a little ignorant of boxing history, well, that is okay with me.
Contrast that with Rocky. If Rocky looses at the end, then the film is a downer, everything that went before is wasted effort. If Braddock lost to Baer, well, I really did not care because of how hard he worked and how he was dedicated to his family and faith. Those are the aspects of the film that ultimately, for me, make it a worthwhile film, in light of those event being accurate. Why should Howard be penalized because he filmed a subject who earned the right to have a happy ending and an uplifting life?
Now, Iron Will, that is another matter.
"I understand your criticisms, and I do not necessarily disagree. My only point was that for me, not being a boxing fan, whether he wins or looses, whether the fights were real, or the facts surrounding the fights were true, would not have changed the film for me. In the end, I felt I knew about Braddock, and what was really important to him, and what made him a good man. I am not sure any of the qualities that made him a better man were enhanced because of his success in the ring, or whether Howard portrayed the events more accurately."OK fair ennough. that certainly was the best part of the film. But for me that was tainted by the formulaic melodrama and over the top portayal of the fight itself. It drives me nuts to see a film go down the tubes that way. As I said before it was all the more frustrating knowing that a simple portrayal of what actualy went down would have been so much better. A classic case of less is more. I also think he missed the point in the end. The drama was outside the ring. it was in the hearts of those glued to their radios listening to history. That Howard couldn't capture that and had to resort to that damned boxing movie formula just makes the movie a cheap cliche for me. It really ruined it for me.
"Now, if the events were fudged in order to portray Braddock as a better man than he was, then I have a problem. Watching interviews with family members, they stated that Braddock was accurately portrayed. At the end of the film, I felt I learned a lot about Braddock. If I was still a little ignorant of boxing history, well, that is okay with me."
Funny, I don't worry about accuracy per se. A story is a story in the end. I'm not dissatisfied with the movie because of it's inaccuracies. It's because the real events were replaced with cheap cliches where the truth artfully portrayed would have actually made for better story telling. kind of like Titanic.
"Contrast that with Rocky. If Rocky looses at the end, then the film is a downer, everything that went before is wasted effort."
Rocky did loose in the end. Best choice made in that movie. A win ould have been quite cliche.
" If Braddock lost to Baer, well, I really did not care because of how hard he worked and how he was dedicated to his family and faith."
I do care. If he loses he's just another almost who happens to be a nice guy. He was the real Cinderella story. his story isn't interesting without a win. Not because it was important to him but because it was important to the people. And that was unfortunately lost in this movie. There is a reason we route for the underdog and this was the classic story of the underdog we love to route for. What a missed opportunity. Howard should have explored that. instead he showed a stupid cliche of a boxing match.
"Those are the aspects of the film that ultimately, for me, make it a worthwhile film, in light of those event being accurate. Why should Howard be penalized because he filmed a subject who earned the right to have a happy ending and an uplifting life?"because he missed what made the whole thing special and replaced it with a chunck of tired formula film making.
"Now, Iron Will, that is another matter."
The core of the beauty of a human interest story is always what matters. He got half of it. It's frustrating when I know it's all there in the actual events. It's one thing not to write it from scratch. that's hard. It's another to change it when it is all there to begin with. That's down right irresponsible of an artist.
It is interesting that you say that about the versimilitude of the fight sequences as all of Crowe's opponents were professional boxers, some of whom had difficlty in holding back their punches, thus sumetimes injuring Crowe.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
