Review: The Fighter

Paramount Pictures

So many people groan at the phrase "based on a true story." I must admit, most of the time, it isn't a very good sign. It's a way for studios to try and attract a certain crowd who likes to know exactly what they're going to get. The biographies tend to be on the darker side and show the main character going through lots of tough times (and drugs) but usually coming back on top at the end. 90% of the time, "true story" means a crowd pleasing, happy ending for everyone.

And the most tried and true formula for this sort of story is the always popular, recurring sports drama. I have to say right here that I absolutely detest football, and most major-league sports films. 'Remember the Titans' is the only one I'll admit to liking. Other than that, I refuse. Sorry. Anyway, now boxing films, look no further than 'Rocky' for the epitome of a boxing movie. Then there's 'Cinderella Man', the Ron Howard directed 'true story' (again!) of a boxer during the depression played by Russell Crowe. I for one really enjoyed 'Cinderella Man' even though it's highly melodramatic, especially at the end. But 'The Fighter', is it just as formulaic and ho-hum as its many counter-parts?

Paramount Picures

Thankfully, it's much better. This is primarily thanks to the fantastic cast. Mark Wahlberg stars as Mickey Ward, a boxer from Massachusetts in the mid-1980's trying to go pro with his former boxing brother Dicky (the brilliant Christian Bale)  as trainer and his mother Alice (an outstanding Melissa Leo) as manager. The problem is Mickey is going nowhere while his family keeps telling him what to do. The main problem being Dicky's crack addiction and troubles with the law. So what we end up getting isn't really a boxing movie until the end. It's really just like any other family-drama. The 'true story' piece doesn't factor into it when it becomes a story that could be any original script in Hollywood.

Of course, a lot of thanks goes to director David O. Russell ('I Heart Huckabees', 'Three Kings') for adding bits and pieces of style to it that aren't overbearing at all but keep things interesting. The beginning and ending, especially, served as a great way to set the stage and helped you get to know the characters. It all felt natural and not intentionally set up as a quick way to help you get to know the characters. It's entertaining to see how Mickey's family works and his many crazy sisters and what a terribly selfish person his mother is. 

Paramount Pictures

Although the movie is technically about Wahlberg's Mickey, Bale's portrayal as the crack-head Dicky steals the show. Bale will get a nomination for best supporting actor for sure and I'd say he deserves to win it. A lot of people just think of Batman when they think of Bale but those more versed in film think of 'American Psycho's Patrick Bateman and his character in 'Rescue Dawn.' It's about time Bale was nominated and any attention this film is getting is mostly due to him. But we can't forget Leo either. She will get a supporting actress nomination as well but she probably has more competition in that category than Bale. Amy Adams does well as Mickey's supportive girlfriend, Charlene, and she'll probably be nominated as well, but I can't see her winning.

Sadly, Wahlberg gets left with the weakest character. It's a strange thing to say, but I think it's true. Wahlberg's performance is not at all bad, he just isn't given much to work with. The characters of Dicky and Alice are so much more interesting that they overshadow Mickey. This could be part of the intention of director Russell to bring out another family dynamic, but it still takes away some of Mickey's thunder until the very end. 

Paramount Pictures

So over all, it's a very solid drama that doesn't rely on the crowd pleasing sports moments to hold it up. The only problem is, why should audiences really care about a movie like this? I saw it because of the great cast and the award nominations it's receiving. However, not everyone is a huge movie-nerd like I am. So what's their reason to see it? The positive reviews? That, no doubt, plays a big role. But it's still interesting to see how the movies that draw the largest audiences are the ones that draw acclaim for something in particular. 'Avatar' is the perfect example as it's breakthrough 3D effects were all the rage last year. Then 'Tron: Legacy' has the lightcycle and disc fighting scenes that looked awesome in the trailers. Even movies like '127 Hours' fall into this category as the audience is just holding its breath, waiting for the unavoidable self-amputation.

'The Fighter', although a fine film, is an all around familiar movie with nothing special in particular. The acting alone is what will hold this one up at the box office. Still, it's a gamble for the studio. Their crossing their fingers for the most nominations they can get. It's one of those movies when someone asks me 'is it worth the money to see it'?, I'll answer 'for me, yes, for someone who doesn't care about awards? probably not'. By the way, I HATE that question because there's no way for me to adequately estimate what is your definition of a movie that is 'worth the money'. I can only tell you if it's 'good' or not, in my humble opinion. And I decree that 'The Fighter' is good. So make up your own mind now about seeing it in theaters.