It’s always fun to draw parallels between an actor and their latest projects. Tom Cruise starred in two films about real people doing real things against an automated way of doing things in the midst of the Hollywood vs. AI talks, and now Dwayne Johnson (“Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle,” “Black Adam”) is here in a role that he also shares some similarities with. It's not surprising that Johnson saw a biopic about a man wanting to be the best in the world, stumbling at the finish line early on, and spending years working his way back up to that shot once again. After all, this is the man who once tried and kind of failed to become the biggest movie star in the world. Why wouldn’t he see himself in a role like this?
The film follows Mark Kerr, played by Johnson, an MMA fighter participating in the early years of the sport’s mainstream success from 1997 to 2000. Mostly fighting in Japan, Kerr struggles to maintain his professional career alongside his opioid addiction and relationships with his on-and-off again girlfriend Dawn Staples, played by Emily Blunt (“Mary Poppins Returns,” “Edge of Tomorrow”), and his best friend and trainer, retired fighter Mark Coleman, played by real life UFC fighter Ryan Bader in his acting debut.
Given the involvement of writer/director Benny Safdie (“Uncut Gems,” “Good Time”), it’s safe to say that most moviegoers shouldn’t expect a typical biopic formula from this project. This isn’t the kind of director who seems like he’d make a film like “Bohemian Rhapsody” after all. So, it should come as no surprise that what “The Smashing Machine” is is far closer to a tone piece in the likes of the original “Rocky” or “Raging Bull.” It’s certainly not as violent as the latter, but it deals with Kerr’s internal struggle and ends up only loosely following the three-act structure of a typical dramatic biopic. Safdie’s film may be constructed in a more unconventional way, but his script can’t escape the cliches apparent within these sorts of stories.
It’s a good thing then that his central trio of actors are all giving their all with that material. Johnson is clearly putting in more effort than he’s given since his days of weirdo films like “Southland Tales” or arguably ever. It’s not the finest performance ever seen, but it’s the sort of role that is just nice to see him do. You can actively see him trying to improve his craft and he is inarguably compelling; if there was an Oscar for “Most Improved,” he’d be a shoe-in.
Blunt is excellent in a twisted, easily hate-able way. It’s a performance that’s hard to watch given the nature of the character and her back and forth toxic nature with Kerr. She’s great almost in spite of the character. Bader meanwhile is a calm, soft spoken portrait of a gentle giant. You truly believe he and Johnson’s friendship and chemistry from the start, and he gives the sort of performance that makes you wish he was in the film more often.
On the technical side, Safdie’s creative decisions are mostly for the better. The musical score, the first film score by electronica artist Nala Sinephro, is a really interesting textual mixture of jazz fusion and electronic droning, flowing with the mental state of Kerr as the film progresses. The cinematography from Maceo Bishop (“The Curse,” “Somewhere in Queens”) is the expected handheld shakiness seen in previous Safdie films and it works well here, putting you right in the fights. What works less so is the film’s editing and pacing. Edited by Safdie himself, the movement from scene to scene can be quite odd. For example, everything about the editing seems to imply that one scene takes place in the same location and time as the previous scene, until a character says it's a completely different day and place. The film’s pace also feels like it takes twice as long in the first half and then goes twice as quick in the second half.
While much of this film has been marketed as “Dwayne Johnson’s serious acting role,” there’s plenty to like here as well. He is great, as is Emily Blunt and a surprising debut turn from Ryan Bader, and the musical score and ambitions of the film are fantastic. You can see exactly what the film wants to be, and it almost gets there most of the time. It has a lot in common with Kerr in that way, and it makes for a tale that’s absolutely interesting if not particularly exceptional. 3.5/5