Fighting (2009)

10 Comments

1. 

   IndieCredFred from Canada
   30 Mar 2012, 3:24 am

   As bad as this movie looked, I went into it with an open mind but as Isuspected it was pretty bad. The dialogue was the worst part by far; itconsists of some combination of mumbling and incoherent slang. Theacting is terrible despite Mr. Howard doing his best to try and act hisway out of the script. The narrative is scattered and cliché and has nooriginal plot elements. You would figure a movie called "Fighting"would at least be saved by its fight sequences but its not, there aresome half decent moments but most of the time you can't really tellwhat's going on however the final fight wasn't to bad. There are somegenuine attempts at emotion throughout but usually they fall flat.There were way to many moments where I laughed but wasn't supposed to,especially the speech given right before the last fight. Overall it's aterribly acted movie with an even worst script.

   Reply
2. 

   Nigel McCloud from London, England
   30 Mar 2012, 3:24 am

   Jean Claude Van Damme wrote and stared in this movie in 1990 when itwas called Lionheart. His version was better.

   In the original film – Lyon, played by JCVD, is down on his luck andcomes across Joshua, a two-bit hustler/ fight promoter. They team upand make a splash in the underground, no holds barred fight circuit. Inthe end, Lyon must face Atilla and Joshua bets all of their money onAtilla to win! Lyon famously tells him "wrong bet" and goes on todefeat his foe.

   In the new version – Shawn, played by Channing Tattum, is down on hisluck and comes across Harvey, a two-bit hustler/ fight promoter. Theyteam up and make a splash in the underground, no holds barred fightcircuit. In the end, Shawn must face Evan and Harvey bets all of theirmoney on Evan to win! I won't spoil it and tell you who wins in the newversion.

   Reply
3. 

   the_rattlesnake25 from Sheffield, UK
   30 Mar 2012, 3:24 am

   Dito Montiel's film has been advertised as the 'Rocky of ourgeneration', however I do believe they were referring to the fifth filmin the Rocky franchise. Predictable, boring, tedious, lifeless are justa few words I could use to describe this film, but I really only needto use one; terrible.

   Shawn MacArthur (Channing Tatum) is your typical working-class boy whois taken under the wing of an ageing con-man named Harvey (TerrenceHoward) and given the opportunity to make his American dream come trueby participating in various back-room bare-knuckle fights. Oh, and thestereotypical love-interest in the form Zulay (Zulay Henao) is alsothrown into the mix. Now, despite this description describing variousfilms from the last few years (never mind the last few decades), itcontains three huge, jaw-shattering constraints: 1) Despite being namedFighting, the film ironically contains very little fighting or brawlingin regards to its hundred-minute running time. And when we do get tosee some face-bruising action, the Director seems to get incrediblygiddy with the camera and what we are left with is some Paul Greengrassjerkiness that allows you to observe very little especially when thecamera is thrown into the heart of the action.

   2) Terrence Howard puts a little effort into his character and dragsout a performance worthy of a film better than this, however ChanningTatum does not follow his lead. His stony expression and Brando-stylemumbling is just plain annoying and unconvincing, yet he is the leadprotagonist at the forefront of the film, and his performance drags thefilm down considerably.

   3) Finally, Munic and Montiel's script has about as much weight as afeather and as punch as a fighter out-cold on the mat. We learn littleabout the characters until late into the film when there life storiesseem to just be thrown around quickly to fill various plot-holes.While, the majority of the dialogue is just clichéd and cringe-worthy,most notably a scene at the end of the film that precedes the finalfight sequence, which can only be described as hilariously idiotic.

   Fighting is crime against cinema. It is a film which gives the audienceabsolutely nothing, yet takes from them their hard-earned cash in theform of their admittance fee. The only reason I can think why this filmwas distributed to theatres instead of being a straight-to-DVD affair,is down to the influence of having a star like Terrence Howard in thepicture. Don't waste your time or money on this abomination.

   Reply
4. 

   pimpcj from United States
   30 Mar 2012, 3:24 am

   It was well made, but clearly not worth seeing in theaters. All in all,besides a number of movies that this resembles (as you can read in theother IMDb comments), it was truly a poor case of storytelling. Thedialog was very close to being on the nose allowing for the mostpredictable storyline and course of events. Best parts were thefighting which was filmed "O.K." and the women, a.k.a. "sex." New Yorkfelt very real throughout this movie, but with the American Gangstersoundtrack being used repetitively it quickly lost it's realism. Actingwas cool, but then again the characters were unbelievable and boring.

   I say 4 out of 10. It could have been filmed like clover-field andstill received the same rating. If the story would have been moreoriginal, then I would have said higher rating.

   Oh and the "Antagonist" throughout this storyline made me laugh. My 5year old nephew could take him down let alone our main character.

   Reply
5. 

   colin_coyne from London
   30 Mar 2012, 3:24 am

   There seemed to be a positive attitude before the film started – whichwas given a helping hand by the "star" of the film Channing Tatum (whoplays Shawn MacArthur) making a guest appearance before the filmstarted to introduce the movie.

   A bit of a poor man's Rocky, with (believe it or not) an even worsestory. Delving into the seedy, underground world of bare-knucklefighting – with no holds barred.

   A new kid in town, down on his luck in the big City meets up with andbecomes unlikely friends with a less than successful con man / fightpromoter and his entourage of misfits and vagabonds. The fights getincreasingly intense as each opponent gets bigger and stronger than thelast, until the big showdown with a boyhood nemesis.

   Meanwhile, as a sub-plot, the up-and-coming fighter tries to woo a clubwaitress by always turning up whenever she is around … alas, I supposestalking has the same effect as a bunch of roses to some people today.

   This was a poorly directed film, and the characters were pretty wooden,the story was very laboured and moved very slowly.

   The redeeming features were some of the fight scenes (that were a biton the brutal side), and the "comedy" performance of the girlfriend'sMother that kept popping into the room on the most inappropriate ofmoments! Although the fight sequences may be of interest to some – Iwould say that many others would find these quite off putting.

   The film tries to save itself with some plot twists, but, unfortunately– you could see these punches coming from a long way off.

   Channing Tatum in the opening introduction before the film starteddescribed the plot line of the movie as being loosely based on"Midnight Cowboy" – but it is a very loose connection both in story,acting ability or finished result – and this film definitely wasn't thewinner.

   Reply
6. 

   luke_morgan from United Kingdom
   30 Mar 2012, 3:24 am

   Not sure what disposition everyone else was in when watching this moviebut it must have been a dark one.

   Yes, its a formulaic fighting movie and I can understand that it mightrub you up the wrong way but I really liked the minimal insecure way inwhich the down on their luck main characters Shawn (Channing Tatum)Harvey (Terrence Howard) held themselves acting wise and I thought theyestablished an excellent rapport by the end. The casting overall feltjust right.

   Neither of them were likable in the beginning and it was this roughnessthat gave the film more realism. I don't think you can really comparethis to Never Back Down which was, like many beat em up movies, more ofa glossy cartoon with human actors. 'Fighting' has more of a grime toit, made immersing by excellent cinematography of NYC and coollocations.

   I liked the fact that the fight scenes were not an all singing and alldancing over stylised Tonay Jaa affair. Because of this I felt totallyabsorbed by the 'in the crowd' camera shots; catching different angles.You really felt the fighting was more realistic, as if you've ever beenin a fight you'll know that technique can only take you so far- Itsreally down to mind, heart and of course luck.

   Nothing was overstated in this film and I think that might be thereason it has received such bad rating. I don't care that it feltbudget and its nice to have an understated fighting movie for oncewithout too many bells and whistles.

   Reply
7. 

   tcrich-1 from United States
   30 Mar 2012, 3:24 am

   I've never in my life felt like my head was going to explode whilewatching a movie. Throughout the whole film I tried making sense of itall, and finally just came to my senses, it's down right horrible.

   Every emotion was misplaced. The dialogue didn't mesh. There was nobuild up aside from the minor tension between Channing Tatum and BrianJ. White.

   The movie "cleverly titled" FIGHTING, had not a single worthwhile fightscene in it worth watching. In fact the whole time, I couldn'tunderstand why he was getting praised as a good fighter. It's not eventill the very end that you even see a fight where you feel he's gotsome fighting talent.

   I could go into how horrible each actor was, but ultimately decided itwasn't their fault. I'm 100% convinced that the director had no ideahow to coach his actors, nor how to write a good script. In fact I'malmost convinced he encouraged them to do horribly.

   I felt Brian White did well. And the only other acting that I reallycould tolerate was the crazy old grandmother. Everything else justseemed like interacting characters were reading from separate scripts.

   I used a free promo code to save $1 at RedBox to watch this movie, andI'm still disappointed I didn't get my money's worth.

   Reply
8. 

   dbborroughs from Glen Cove, New York
   30 Mar 2012, 3:24 am

   In a New York that is almost like the real thing, some people, who aresort of like the real thing get involved in underground fighting. Thereshould be a large title at the start of this film that says "anyconnection between what happens and reality is purely a weirdcoincidence-frankly you'd be better off winning the lottery". Watchingthis was a trip since I knew many of the locations but even though theywere real places none of it felt real. They go to a diner I've eaten ata couple dozen times and it felt fake. Its strange. The plot which hasa white kid hustling bootleg goods outside of Radio City(?) meetinganother hustler, (Terrence Howard in a really good performance as amotor mouth) never seems real. Who are these people? Its as if thewriter never met any one from the South or Chicago (or any other place)and gave them hometowns based upon a whim. The fights are good, but themoves that get us to them make no sense. I can't believe that there isthis huge underground fight industry, certainly not like this. The filmseems internally consistent for its own weird world but thats about it.I never believed a word of it, worse I never really cared because Inever believed. I have no idea how to rate this. If you buy it you'lllike it, if you don't you're going to feel like you're trapped on an analien planet thats very much like our own but ever so slightlydifferent.

   Reply
9. 

   philhobden_uk from United Kingdom
   30 Mar 2012, 3:24 am

   Fighting Review by Phil Hobden First there was Never Back Down, thenNever Surrender and now Fighting… all three proving that it's prettyeasy to take one of the worlds fastest growing and exciting sports andmake it dull as dishwater on screen. The uninspiring storyline of astreet kid fighting for money has been done more times Paris Hilton andthe flat direction does nothing to help it along. The fights are dulland pretty poorly put together and the whole film lacks scope… I'veseen no budget Indie actioners with more style than this. Lead ChanningTatum isn't bad (if a little wet) but displays charisma that might seehim be more than a pretty boy down the line but conversely TerrenceHowardjust doesn't work at all as mentor/promoter Harvey. In short thedull Fighting is one to avoid.

   Film 1.5/5 Action 1/5 If you liked this try: Underground; Never BackDown; Karate Kid

   Reply
10. 

    GoneWithTheTwins from www.GoneWithTheTwins.com
    30 Mar 2012, 3:24 am

    Fighting capitalizes on the basic entertainment value derived fromaudiences' desire to see an underdog rise from the ashes and emergevictorious. Upon closer inspection our protagonist proves not to bemuch of an underdog, but at least his battles against adversity andincreasingly stronger opponents come with several camera tricks andcreative sound effects to emphasize a high level of intensity andbrutality even without the appropriate amount of bloodletting. ChanningTatum convincingly plays the unrefined and uneducated Southern fighterwhile Terrence Howard mimics a more iconic hustler, and while the filmsucceeds in the thrills of ruthless street fighting, it sadly faltersin the original story department.

    Young Shawn MacArthur (Channing Tatum) is reduced to selling bootlegson the streets to survive in his newfound home of New York City. Buthis situation quickly changes when he meets hustler and con man HarveyBoarden (Terrence Howard), who introduces him to the dangerous andhighly profitable world of underground street fighting. As he rapidlyrises to the top, Shawn's unwavering code of honor and his troubledpast will find him in the match of his life – and a fight for it.

    Terrence Howard will likely receive plenty of praise for his role as agood-intentioned hustler, even though it almost completely duplicatesDustin Hoffman's famous turn as "Ratso" Rizzo. And as he helps thedown-on-his-luck, fish-out-of-water counterfeiter succeed inunderground fighting (initially swindling him, then offering a place tostay), it's difficult not to compare this film's plot to MidnightCowboy with an anti-Rocky lead (complete with a very brief trainingmontage on a subway), minus the aforementioned films' flawlessexecution.

    When Shawn is most in need of money, he still insists upon his code ofhonor and refuses to throw a match. This is utterly ridiculousconsidering his reason for fighting and the fact that the fightsthemselves are "anything goes." Where's the honor in that? Apparentlythe trophy for integrity outweighs the desire for food and shelter,especially for someone content with living like a derelict.

    At least there's humor found in desperation, and comic relief in thequagmire of hustling taking place. The laughably bad supportingvillains and perfectly cliché main rival don't help Fighting with thesense of distinction so desperately needed after swallowing thesimplicity of the title. And when the first two fights establish thatskills are pointless in the face of an unruly free-for-all, it's evenmore difficult to care whether or not Shawn sticks to his principles,wins the girl, gains respect amongst his friends, or defeats hisnemesis – all formulaically in that order.

    - The Massie Twins

    Reply