Powerful

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Blistering performances.

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.

"Chuck" is a sad, albeit entertaining, story about a loser with a heart of gold.Wepner was called "the bleeder" due to his always seeming to get cut in his fights. The real-life Chuck needed 72 stitches after his loss against the brutal punching Sonny Liston. He also lost to George Foreman, Liston's successor as the most feared man in boxing.Wepner was, in short, a fan favourite not due to boxing skill, but due to his toughness and heart.Somehow, the stars aligned and Wepner found himself ranked in the top ten. Don King wanted a white guy to fight his champion, Muhammad Ali, who had just done the impossible and defeated Foreman. No one gave Wepner a hope in hell of defeating Ali, and the truth was, he didn't have one, either. But he almost went the distance, and he knocked Ali down.This was the fight that inspired "Rocky". Wepner is the Italian Stallian, Ali is Apollo Creed.Then, the fame goes to Wepner's head, and we get a fairly predictable series of failures involving drugs, broken relationships and prison time. Stallone actually wants Wepner to star in "Rocky II", but he's on so many drugs by that stage, he blows the audition. "Chuck" rises above the cliche, however, by keeping its protagonist relatable.It also brings out the real jewel in its crown - not Schreiber, though he is good, but a show-stoppingly brilliant Naomi Watts, who deserved an Oscar for the complete transformation she did into the role of Wepner's second wife. She is unrecognizable, and not just in terms of looks. The performance is stunning.It's easily the best thing about the movie, and everything else kind of pales in comparison to Watts' performance. It's good, but it's not THAT good, unfortunately, and this is a movie of relatively limited interest to anyone who isn't a boxing fan, or a "Rocky" fan.

Greetings from Lithuania."Chuck" (2016) is a superbly crafted and acted true story about a boxer who inspired "Rocky". I loved performances in "Chuck" by simply everyone. Everyone did a great job. Directing and writing were also very solid, because at running time 1 h 35 min this movie never dragged. Overall, "Chuck" story does look familiar and formulaic, but its a great craftsmanship and acting that kinda makes this movie surely not be missed one.

The first thing Chuck did right was it allowed me to be immersed into this world. The film takes place in the 60's and 70's, and I felt like I was right there! Everything from the costumes to the production design to being made on film, it all worked to create a very vintage look. I felt like I was right with these characters, and I think all the time and care that went into crafting the look of the film needs to be recognized. To take it a step further, the performances are what ultimately sold me. Sure, everything looked gorgeous and vintage, but I was not watching actors; I was watching characters. And that was key in selling me on this world they were displaying. Schrieber is fantastic in this movie! This may be the strongest performance I've seen him give. He, and everyone else too, was almost unrecognizable. This character could easily have been played as one-note, but Schrieber brought so many different layers to him. You understand that he's a really despicable guy, but Schrieber lets you see that he's really a broken man who has lost his way. You're not exactly sure whether Chuck is the protagonist or the antagonist, but it's the subtlety of Schrieber's acting that really lets you buy into this complex character.