Dwayne Johnson’s MMA biopic ‘The Smashing Machine’ is a nostalgia headache

by

The complexities of MMA fighter Mark Kerr are too big to be captured by a ring, an octagon, or even a movie. He was a powerful fighter with an impressive winning streak, but he also battled personal issues and a painful addiction to painkillers, which he openly shared in John Hyams’ 2002 HBO documentary, “The Smashing Machine: The Life and Times of Extreme Fighter Mark Kerr.” The documentary, filmed between 1997 and 2000, constantly surprises viewers with Kerr’s ability to violently defeat opponents-even causing them to lose teeth-while describing his mindset as similar to a shark in a feeding frenzy. Then, immediately after the fight, he’d show a bright and cheerful smile that seemed almost unsettling. It was a striking contrast.

Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is known for winning people over with his charisma. It’s perfectly fitting, then, that the former wrestler and now major movie star would be drawn to the role of Kerr, someone also striving for perfection. He’s been due for a more serious, independent film for a while now, which is understandable. However, surprisingly, Johnson and director Benny Safdie (“Uncut Gems,” “Good Time”), who is working alone this time without his brother Josh, have chosen to essentially recreate Hyams’ original documentary.

These two incredibly driven performers, both with a point to prove, appear to have pushed each other to achieve an unbelievably realistic style. Johnson, wearing a wig so tight it almost gives you a headache just looking at it, has bulked up his shoulder muscles to the point where they nearly touch his artificial ears. And Safdie is so committed to recreating the simple brown interior of Kerr’s late-’90s, newly wealthy Phoenix house that it’s as if he’s undertaking a historical restoration. However, in trying to develop his own unique approach, Safdie ends up simply copying someone else.

This retelling of “The Smashing Machine” follows the same storyline as Hyams’ original, covering the same time period and using a similar, raw visual style and energetic jazz soundtrack (composed by Nala Sinephro). However, it feels like a forced imitation, earning only a hesitant, polite applause. This likely wasn’t the goal, and it’s noticeable that the songs featured are all covers: interpretations of country singer Billy Swan performing Elvis, and Elvis covering Frank Sinatra. To add to this, Johnson’s portrayal of Kerr includes a training montage strikingly similar to one from “Rocky.”

Movies

With his directorial debut, Benny Safdie directs Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt in a film based on the true story of Mark Kerr, a pioneer in the world of mixed martial arts (MMA).

After a tough loss to Igor Vovchanchyn (portrayed by Oleksandr Usyk, the reigning heavyweight boxing champion) in Yokohama, Japan, Kerr hits rock bottom. He gets sober and dedicates himself to winning his next competition. Throughout this, he constantly argues with his girlfriend, Dawn (Emily Blunt), who struggles with alcohol and is unfairly blamed for his boxing setbacks. They are a deeply incompatible couple, unable to have a conversation without conflict. Even when she tries to be understanding, she comes across as overbearing. When Dawn tells Kerr’s friend and coworker, Mark “The Hammer” Coleman (played by MMA fighter Ryan Bader in his first acting role), that her boyfriend was drinking before a fight, Coleman angrily scolds her for allowing it.

Safdie portrays Dawn as someone who disrupts the peace at home (even though Kerr easily breaks through obstacles). Right from the start, she – shockingly! – makes his smoothie with the incorrect type of milk and quickly after, wants to snuggle the cat on their leather couch. A broken Japanese kintsugi bowl is a new visual representation of their relationship, and Dawn trying to repair it with Krazy glue hints at her unpredictable emotions. However, we’re never really shown what keeps them together. Blunt seems to be repeating her Oscar-nominated performance from “Oppenheimer” as a harsh character whose unkindness excuses the male lead’s imperfections. Yes, Mark failed in Yokohama, but she was truly terrible.

What’s the purpose of this film? By largely removing narration and interviews with people who knew Kerr, the movie doesn’t really delve into what makes anyone tick-and Emily Blunt’s character, Dawn, is never given a proper chance to explain herself. During an argument, she sharply says, “I don’t think you know a damn thing about me.” And she’s correct. We, as the audience, don’t learn much about her, or about anything else happening on screen-whether it’s the intensity of battle or the complicated dynamic of their relationship.

The story asks us to see something profound in Johnson’s tired, tight-lipped smile – whether he’s watching a sunset during a flight to Japan, or listening to fans roar at a demolition derby, even for simply wrecked cars. He’s more reserved than the actual Kerr, who was known for being an open and talkative person, and when Johnson *does* speak, he usually focuses on the discipline he maintains over himself and his property – things like his eating habits, workouts, staying sober, and gardening – and he shares these thoughts with the earnestness of someone giving motivational speeches to online communities.

If you look closely, the film hints at a dynamic where his character’s own desires really dictated things at home, and that’s something Dwayne Johnson, who famously wakes up at 3:30 a.m., probably understands. But honestly, I found myself more captivated by the way the light played on Johnson’s bare back in one long shot than by what was actually happening *inside* his character’s mind. Too often, it felt like I was just watching Johnson walk around *in* the guise of Kerr, and it was hard to forget I was watching a movie star trying to *be* Kerr. I keep thinking, maybe he could have captured the essence of the more open-faced Kerr better if he’d ditched the fake eyebrows and just relied on his own natural charisma, instead of immediately going for that big, dramatic performance. It’s a subtle thing, but it really stuck with me.

The film seems to be urging us to notice how carefully Safdie and Johnson have rebuilt this world. Pay attention to the deliberately rough camerawork by Maceo Bishop, which mimics the look of the original’s limited budget. And take in how costume designer Heidi Bivens has dressed Johnson with another silver-buckled black leather belt – a nod to his famous, often-shared photo from the Y2K era, complete with a turtleneck, chain jewelry, and fanny pack. It’s easy to realize that, back then, 39-year-old Safdie was a teenager – a perfect age for feeling nostalgic. This is his opportunity to revisit the past. It’s no surprise he wants everything to stay exactly as it was.

However, “The Smashing Machine” really tells a story of transformation. For Mixed Martial Arts, this period marked a significant shift – it moved away from simply being a test of brute force and began to prioritize stamina and technique. Wrestlers like Kerr and Coleman, who had previously dominated with their powerful ground-and-pound style, found it harder to win. Organizers even banned some of their most effective moves because quick, decisive victories weren’t visually appealing for television. Kerr’s early fights were often over in under two minutes – so fast that viewers would miss the action while getting a drink, leading to complaints about pay-per-view purchases. Headbutts were outlawed to extend the length of fights, and also due to Senator John McCain’s concerns about what he termed “human cockfighting” being broadcast on TV. This change was pivotal for the sport’s growth.

These simmering conflicts were only beginning to become clear. The initial documentary lacked clarity because Hyams hadn’t yet understood how the legal issues behind the scenes would unfold. He never could have predicted that the Ultimate Fighting Championship, once criticized and bought for $2 million in 2001, would transform into a major force capable of securing a $7.7-billion television contract this summer. He also didn’t realize that the money Josh Kerr earned in Japan would later be linked to the yakuza, or that Kerr’s struggle with opioid addiction was an early sign of a growing national health crisis that would soon grip the entire country.

Given that Safdie has twenty years of experience and a talent for directing films about flawed, yet captivating characters – like Adam Sandler’s Howard Ratner, the gambling addict in Uncut Gems – you’d expect some new insight, right? But, unfortunately, he simply retells the same story again.

Hyams finished filming in May 2000, at a time when it looked like Kerr was prioritizing love over his fighting career. Safdie understands that Kerr would go on to make other decisions and that love doesn’t always triumph. However, even with the advantage of knowing what happened later, Safdie doesn’t seem to realize the original story doesn’t quite apply anymore. He simply added new title cards at the end: a sentence about Kerr and Dana’s future, a mention that modern MMA fighters earn more money, a point contradicted by a shot of Kerr actually getting into a very expensive, shiny new truck. It turns out Kerr has been selling cars for the last 15 years, but you wouldn’t gather that from watching “The Smashing Machine.” In fact, you wouldn’t understand the purpose of the film at all.

Read More

2025-10-03 19:32