My rule for evaluating the necessity of biopics is always this: Is there a reason to tell the story? "Chuck" easily passes that test, as the life on which Sylvester Stallone's "Rocky" was loosely based on is fascinating in its own right. As such, fans of biopics are going to at least find something to enjoy about this one. The problem holding it back from being much more than "good" is that the acting talent assembled far outpaces the breadth and scope of the screenplay they have to work with.
For a basic plot summary, "Chuck" tells the basic story of how professional boxer Chuck Wepner (Liev Schrieber) was given an opportunity to fight Muhammad Ali for the heavyweight championship of the world. He went 15 rounds with the champ, and hence the "legend was born", so to speak. The film follows Wepner considerably past that fight, however, chronicling how the fame may have gotten in his head a bit and a drug habit was formed.
This is a pretty straightforward biopic as these things go, touching on all the salient points that one would expect. It does a good job of making the viewer really feel as if they are understanding Wepner's life and how he became what he ultimately became, which is kind of the goal of any biopic.
What most strongly stood out here was the acting. Schrieber is a great lead, while other talent with Elisabeth Moss, Naomi Watts, & Ron Perlman played great supporting roles. Clearly, with those type of names attached to this project it was meant to gather some steam behind it.
Sadly, this didn't really happen (I don't think this got a big theatrical run), and I believe the culprit to be a screenplay that is decidedly average in its storytelling technique. It hints at "something more" (comparing Wepner's life to "Requiem For A Heavyweight" is a great mirroring of Wepner's connection to "Rocky"), but then is very standard and by-the-book the rest of the way. It really lacked a coherent message other than "we're making a movie about the guy who inspired the Rocky films". As I said in the opener, I still believe this to be a noble undertaking (and one that had real potential), but still an "angle" needed to be found to make it truly great.
Overall, this is a perfectly acceptable biopic, that I probably have ranked even higher than it should be because I just really enjoy that genre. It doesn't turn any heads and won't sniff "classic" territory, but fans of boxing, "Rocky", or biopics in general will find enough within it to not tune out entirely.
For a basic plot summary, "Chuck" tells the basic story of how professional boxer Chuck Wepner (Liev Schrieber) was given an opportunity to fight Muhammad Ali for the heavyweight championship of the world. He went 15 rounds with the champ, and hence the "legend was born", so to speak. The film follows Wepner considerably past that fight, however, chronicling how the fame may have gotten in his head a bit and a drug habit was formed.
This is a pretty straightforward biopic as these things go, touching on all the salient points that one would expect. It does a good job of making the viewer really feel as if they are understanding Wepner's life and how he became what he ultimately became, which is kind of the goal of any biopic.
What most strongly stood out here was the acting. Schrieber is a great lead, while other talent with Elisabeth Moss, Naomi Watts, & Ron Perlman played great supporting roles. Clearly, with those type of names attached to this project it was meant to gather some steam behind it.
Sadly, this didn't really happen (I don't think this got a big theatrical run), and I believe the culprit to be a screenplay that is decidedly average in its storytelling technique. It hints at "something more" (comparing Wepner's life to "Requiem For A Heavyweight" is a great mirroring of Wepner's connection to "Rocky"), but then is very standard and by-the-book the rest of the way. It really lacked a coherent message other than "we're making a movie about the guy who inspired the Rocky films". As I said in the opener, I still believe this to be a noble undertaking (and one that had real potential), but still an "angle" needed to be found to make it truly great.
Overall, this is a perfectly acceptable biopic, that I probably have ranked even higher than it should be because I just really enjoy that genre. It doesn't turn any heads and won't sniff "classic" territory, but fans of boxing, "Rocky", or biopics in general will find enough within it to not tune out entirely.