Majorthebys
Charming and brutal
ChicRawIdol
A brilliant film that helped define a genre
Organnall
Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,
Kirpianuscus
...for the perspective about fundamental aspects of ordinary lives. for the impecable performance. for the subtle way to reflect struggles, idealism, shadows of past, desires and the change defining a long way across yourself. and that did it one of films with the basic purpoise of reflection support for rediscover the small things defining the life of viewer. each of them are the sources of the special status of a film about sport , newspaper, ambition and discover of yourself.
Rich Wright
I don't care how much make-up and rags you put on Samuel L Jackson, or that he changes his voice to sound like the cracked tones of an alcoholic: He does not look like a 70-something drunkard, homeless boxer. Especially seeing how mobile he still is, and the fact he can trounce guys much younger than him in a fistfight. Trying to convince us that he is, is almost as big a lie as the one perpetuated by his character which forms the central dilemma here. Wanna know more? Well, read on.Josh Hartnett plays a sports reporter on the rise. He eventually finds his career in jeopardy when he puts all his chips on the table in a big story about washed-out Jackson being a former pro pugilist. Only problem is, it's all a big fib. Samuel's been telling porkie-pies... He was a boxer, true... but a MUCH less successful one. With a different name. And now Hartnett has to carry the can for it. In an amazing example of irony, in real life Josh used to be an A-list actor... until he starred in a series of flops which plummeted him down the casting director's list. Life imitating art, eh? Of course, this being a Hollywood film, everything turns up roses in the end: Hartnett writes a 'very moving' (read: cheesy) correction article, he reconciles with his wife, his son believes in him again, he lands his dream job, he has another baby yada, yada, yada. Alas, the REAL Josh Hartnett is still struggling to even get guest spots in TV shows. Why can't life be more like the movies?! And obviously Jackson must die for the 'emotional impact' from the closing funeral speech. What a way to go though... having a heart attack after defending yourself from the onslaught of some spotty little nerk. Give the man some dignity, Dagnabbit.Despite all the predictability and manipulation, I still thoroughly enjoyed it. The way the plot sucks you into the lives of these people and gets us interested in their struggles is first rate, and the arguments raised here about truth, honesty and ethics are weighty ones indeed. Jackson and Hartnett's scenes together are a joy to behold... so what was all the moaning about, you may ask? I dunno... maybe I need to blow off some steam. Next time, I'll just kick a pigeon instead of letting it spill over into my text. Now, where did I put that bird seed... 7/10
Michael Angell
Resurrecting the Champ. A tale about men; drained of valor. The true story behind this movie is so admirable I wish I was the one who wrote the play. "It may all be a lie, but the movie is about true friendship, and the true bond between father and son." Whether you've had a good relationship with your father/son or bad, this movie will most likely bring tears to your eyes.I have always thought Josh Hartnett ("Erik Kernan") is a great actor, and I have always thought Samuel L. Jackson ("Champ") is a great actor. But I honestly can't tell if Samuel L. Jackson is playing his role remarkably good, or if Josh Hartnett is the one to make Samuel L. Jackson' role look good. Maybe they are, in fact, a perfect match for television.
Basher
Just watched this film and I'll tell you straight away I am not one of these critics who will tell you all about the art of a movie, Im just a movie fan.The acting in this film is superb and if Samuel Jackson ever deserved an Oscar it is for this film, but its probably not the sort of "in" film the Oscar committee go for.The main reason I am writing on here is because this film like many others got me interested in the subject matter as it is based on truth, so I looked up on the web about the real writer (J.R.Moehringer), and it turns out one of the main parts of the story is not very flattering to him. It turns out he did know that Champ was not who he said he was before he released the article and that actually becomes a major part of the article when it is released. For those who would like to read the original go to Los Angeles Times web site and do a search on J R Moehringer for the original full article. It is a great bit of writing and it is easy to tell how it inspired a film, I'm just not quite sure why they changed this important part, it does seem a bit hard on Moehringer who did spend a lot of time checking his facts and did get to the real story......
