I'll be honest—I wasn't ready for this version of Dwayne Johnson. :/
The guy who's made a career out of flexing biceps and cracking wise just delivered the most raw, emotionally devastating performance I've seen in years.
The Smashing Machine isn't your typical sports movie with triumph and feel-good moments. This is a brutal character study about an MMA pioneer who battled demons far scarier than any opponent in the ring.
Released on October 3, 2025, this A24 biographical drama tells the true story of Mark Kerr, a two-time UFC Heavyweight Tournament Champion whose nickname became the film's title.
Director Benny Safdie (flying solo without brother Josh for the first time) crafted something uncomfortably real—a movie that refuses to give you the ending you want but delivers the truth you need.
Key Takeaways
My Rating: 3.5/5 – A flawed but powerful film elevated by exceptional performances.
Runtime: Approximately 120 minutes
What You Need to Know:
- Dwayne Johnson gained 30 pounds and wore 13-14 prosthetic pieces daily for this role
- The film received a 15-minute standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival
- Director Benny Safdie won the Silver Lion for Best Director
- Currently holds 74% on Rotten Tomatoes with a 79% audience score
- Box office disappointment: Only $18.5 million worldwide against $50 million budget
- This is NOT a typical sports triumph story—it's dark, raw, and brutally honest
Bottom Line: If you're expecting The Rock to save the day with charm and muscles, skip this. If you want to see a vulnerable, broken human being fight battles he can't win, this will hit you hard.
What's The Smashing Machine Actually About?
Set between 1997 and 2000, this biopic follows Mark Kerr during MMA's wild west era, when the UFC was banned in 36 states and people still thought mixed martial arts was barbaric. Kerr was unstoppable in the cage, earning his "Smashing Machine" nickname through devastating ground-and-pound fighting that left opponents wrecked.
But here's where this movie flips the script. The real fight wasn't in the ring—it was with opioid addiction, a toxic relationship with girlfriend Dawn Staples (Emily Blunt), and the crushing weight of being a pioneer in a sport nobody respected yet.
We watch Kerr dominate early fights, then suffer his first devastating loss. There's a near-fatal overdose in 1999 that'll make you squirm. Rehab follows, then a complicated reconciliation with Dawn, leading to the 2000 Pride Grand Prix Finals in Japan, where Kerr gets brutally defeated while his best friend Mark Coleman wins the tournament. Talk about salt in the wound.
The ending? No Hollywood magic here. Real footage shows Mark Kerr shopping at a grocery store, revealing he married Dawn 11 days after that loss, had a son, divorced later, and retired in 2009, having won only two of his final nine fights. This isn't Rocky. This is real life—messy, unfulfilled, but somehow still resilient.
Dwayne Johnson Completely Transforms (And I Mean COMPLETELY)
Listen, I've watched The Rock in everything from Fast & Furious to Moana. I thought I knew his range. I was wrong.
Johnson packed on 30 pounds of muscle specifically for this role. He spent three to four hours daily in the makeup chair getting fitted with 13-14 prosthetic pieces—cauliflower ears, specialised browbone, the works. Oscar-winning artist Kazu Hiro created prosthetics so convincing that the grainy opening footage looks documentary-real.
Before filming, Johnson trained in an MMA camp for a month with actual coaches and fighters. Director Safdie then asked him to perform fight scenes without stunt doubles. Johnson took real punches during filming. FYI, that's commitment most action stars wouldn't touch.
But the physical transformation is just the surface. Johnson abandons every trace of his signature charisma. He plays Kerr soft-spoken, mellow, deeply troubled—a man whose massive frame can't protect him from emotional fragility. You see him break in ways that feel painfully intimate.
Critics universally agree this is Johnson's career-defining work. Many believe he's a strong Oscar contender, and after that 15-minute standing ovation at Venice, I wouldn't bet against him.
| Actor | Character | Transformation Details |
|---|---|---|
| Dwayne Johnson | Mark Kerr | 30 lbs muscle gain, 13-14 daily prosthetics, 1 month MMA training |
| Emily Blunt | Dawn Staples | Consulted with real Dawn, portrayed volatile relationship dynamics |
| Ryan Bader (Real MMA Fighter) | Mark Coleman | Brought an authentic fighter presence to Kerr's best friend role |
Emily Blunt Battles an Underwritten Role
Emily Blunt plays Dawn Staples, Kerr's girlfriend and eventual wife, and she deserves serious credit for making something out of a frustratingly thin character.
The script portrays Dawn as volatile, aggressive, and sometimes enabling Kerr's destructive habits. Their relationship is toxic codependency at its most painful—explosive arguments that rival the brutality of fight scenes. One memorable sequence sets an extended argument to Bruce Springsteen's "Jungleland," which honestly divided critics (including me—it felt pretentious).
Here's my issue: The script doesn't give Dawn adequate depth or agency. She's often reduced to an obstacle in Kerr's journey rather than a fully realised person. We see glimpses of her own substance abuse struggles and a heartbreaking self-harm attempt, but Safdie glosses over her recovery to keep focus on Kerr.
Despite these limitations, Blunt brings fierce nuance to every scene. Her chemistry with Johnson is electric, and she effectively conveys the exhaustion of loving someone who's self-destructing. The real Dawn Staples consulted with Blunt during production, sharing the full complexity of their relationship—the profound love alongside the chaos.
I just wish the script had given Blunt more to work with. Dawn deserved her own story, not just to be Kerr's emotional backdrop.
Benny Safdie's Distinctive Visual Style
This is Benny Safdie's first solo directorial effort, and wow, did he make a statement. He won the Silver Lion for Best Director at the 82nd Venice International Film Festival, which is remarkable for a debut.
Safdie shot predominantly on 16mm film with splashes of 70mm and grainy VHS to evoke the late-1990s fight world. Cinematographer Maceo Bishop uses a restless, documentary-style camera that follows Kerr intimately. There's this repeated visual choice where the camera focuses on Kerr's massive, muscular back during moments of distress rather than his face—it's a subtle way of showing emotional burden.
The visual language deliberately blurs fiction and documentary. Unpolished yet thoughtful videography makes you feel like you're witnessing real events unfold. Colour use is particularly striking—Mark and Dawn's carnival date features vibrant lighting that pulls you into the moment's temporary joy.
Fight scenes are shot with gritty realism. Safdie uses the ring's border ropes as natural leading lines, focusing attention on brutal action. There's no glamorization here—just the raw, uncomfortable violence of early MMA.
This isn't your typical sports movie visual approach, and that's exactly the point. Safdie focuses less on athletic triumph and more on human fragility and psychological cost.
That Jazz Score—Love It or Hate It
One of the film's most divisive elements is its unconventional score by experimental jazz musician Nala Sinephro. Making her feature film debut, Sinephro created a haunting, ethereal soundscape using synthesisers, harp, modular synths, and harmonium, all recorded at Abbey Road Studios.
The score incorporates jazz drums that freestyle during fight sequences. Let that sink in—jazz drums during brutal MMA fights.
Critics split hard on this choice. Some praised it as elegant, dreamy, and poetic, arguing it enhanced the film's meditative quality and reflected the unpredictable nature of fighting. Others (myself included at times) found it disarmingly disjointed. The music ranges from jazzy to orchestral to horror-film-esque, creating an inconsistency that occasionally pulled me out of the film.
IMO, it's ambitious but doesn't always work. There were moments where I appreciated the artistic risk, and others where I desperately wanted a traditional score to anchor the emotion.
The sound design itself is striking, though—consistent bass tone during tense moments, heightened effects that make every punch viscerally felt. You're positioned ringside, experiencing the brutal physicality firsthand.
Box Office Performance—A Major Disappointment
Here's where things get uncomfortable for everyone involved. Despite critical acclaim and awards recognition, The Smashing Machine absolutely tanked at the box office.
Opening weekend: $5.8 million domestically—the lowest debut of Dwayne Johnson's career. As of October 19, 2025, the film had grossed approximately $11.1 million domestically and $7.4 million internationally for a worldwide total of just $18.5 million.
A24 invested $50 million in production plus marketing costs. This represents a significant financial loss.
| Region | Opening Weekend | Total Gross |
|---|---|---|
| USA (Domestic) | $5.8M | $11.1M |
| International | — | $7.4M |
| Worldwide Total | — | $18.5M |
| Production Budget | — | $50M+ |
Audiences gave the film a tepid "B-" CinemaScore. Why the disconnect? The dramatic, downbeat tone didn't resonate with Johnson's typical fanbase. People wanted The Rock, not a vulnerable, broken fighter with no happy ending.
This raises an interesting question: Do audiences actually want serious dramatic work from beloved action stars, or do we just say we do?
Critical Reception—Praise Mixed With Reservations
The film currently holds a 74% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 223 reviews, with a 79% verified audience score. Metacritic shows 65 based on 53 reviews. These are solid but not spectacular numbers.
| Platform | Score | Consensus |
|---|---|---|
| Rotten Tomatoes (Critics) | 74% | Avoids clichés but sacrifices narrative fulfilment |
| Rotten Tomatoes (Audience) | 79% | Praised performances, divided on structure |
| Metacritic | 65/100 | Generally favourable reviews |
| CinemaScore | B- | Tepid general audience response |
Reviewers consistently highlighted Johnson's vulnerability and the film's striking visuals. But opinions diverged sharply on the script's effectiveness.
Some critics felt the narrative was too faithful to the 2002 documentary it's based on, resulting in a disjointed structure and a lack of dramatic arc. Others praised the unconventional approach, arguing that refusing to deliver a typical sports movie triumph made the film more honest and impactful.
The critical consensus? Johnson delivers; Safdie's direction is distinctive, but the script struggles with pacing and structure.
What Works: The Film's Undeniable Strengths
Despite its flaws, The Smashing Machine excels in several areas that make it worth watching.
Performance Quality: Both Johnson and Blunt deliver career-best work. Johnson's transformative portrayal earned near-universal acclaim, and Blunt brings intensity to an underwritten role. Supporting performances from real MMA fighters like Ryan Bader and Mark Coleman add an authentic fighting presence.
Visual Craftsmanship: The cinematography is gorgeous. Using 16mm film and documentary-style camerawork creates an immersive, authentic aesthetic. Fight choreography feels raw and realistic rather than sanitised or glamorised. You feel every punch.
Unconventional Approach: By refusing to deliver a typical sports movie triumph, the film offers something more honest about athletic careers—most don't end in glory. This subversion of genre expectations makes the film distinctive and memorable.
Emotional Honesty: The film's willingness to depict a vulnerable, flawed protagonist without judgment creates a deeply human portrait that transcends the sports biopic genre. Kerr isn't a hero—he's just a person struggling.
What Doesn't Work: Legitimate Criticisms
Let me be real about the film's significant flaws. :)
Script Issues: The screenplay struggles with pacing and structure. It often feels like a series of standalone Oscar-clip scenes rather than a cohesive narrative. The film's faithfulness to the 2002 documentary limits its dramatic potential.
Underdeveloped Female Character: Dawn Staples is written one-dimensionally, often reduced to a nagging antagonist without adequate exploration of her own struggles and perspective. This imbalance undermines the film's attempt to portray relationship drama. It's 2025—we should be past this.
Lack of Context: The film assumes viewers have prior knowledge of Mark Kerr and MMA history. For general audiences unfamiliar with the sport's evolution, the stakes remain unclear. Why does his career matter? What did the sport mean during this era? These questions go largely unanswered.
Tonal Inconsistencies: That jazz score and certain stylistic choices occasionally clash with the material, creating moments that feel pretentious rather than organic. The film sometimes can't decide if it wants to be a gritty character study or an artistic meditation.
Repetitive Structure: The narrative cycles through similar beats—training, fighting, arguing with Dawn, using drugs, attempting recovery—without building sufficient momentum or variation. By the third cycle, I was restless.
How Does It Compare to Other Sports Biopics?
The Smashing Machine invites comparison to several classics in the sports biopic genre.
Critics frequently referenced Raging Bull (1980) for its unflinching portrayal of a self-destructive fighter. Like that Scorsese masterpiece, this film prioritises psychological complexity over sports glory.
The Wrestler (2008) is another obvious comparison—both films depict ageing athletes grappling with relevance, broken bodies, and unfulfilled potential. Mickey Rourke's performance in that film earned similar acclaim to what Johnson receives here.
Warrior (2011) explored fighters' relationships outside the ring, particularly brotherhood and family dynamics. The Smashing Machine positions Kerr's friendship with Mark Coleman as his most authentic relationship, raising similar questions about male vulnerability.
More recently, The Iron Claw (2023)—another A24 sports drama exploring trauma and masculinity in combat sports—provides a direct comparison point. Both films prioritise emotional authenticity over crowd-pleasing triumph. However, where The Iron Claw maintained narrative momentum through an ensemble cast and family drama, The Smashing Machine struggles with a more limited scope and repetitive structure.
The film also directly recreates the 2002 documentary The Smashing Machine: The Life and Times of Extreme Fighter Mark Kerr by John Hyams, occasionally replicating specific shots and dialogue. This fidelity is both a strength (authenticity) and a weakness (redundancy), particularly for viewers familiar with the original.
The Real Mark Kerr's Story
The real Mark Kerr was born on December 21, 1968, in Toledo, Ohio. He was a Division I NCAA wrestling champion at Syracuse University who defeated future WWE star Kurt Angle in the 1992 finals.
After narrowly missing the 1996 Olympics (Angle took his spot and won gold), Kerr transitioned to MMA as a way to earn money. His early career was meteoric—winning tournaments in Brazil and the UFC with devastating efficiency.
He made approximately $1.8 million fighting in PRIDE in Japan, building a lavish lifestyle while battling increasing dependence on painkillers. His addiction began around age 20 during college and intensified as his fighting career progressed.
After his 1999 overdose and rehabilitation, Kerr's career declined significantly. He retired in 2009 with a final professional record of 15 wins, 11 losses, and 1 draw. He experienced homelessness and relapse before finally achieving sobriety around 2013.
As of 2025, Kerr reports being seven years sober. He was inducted into the UFC Hall of Fame, recognising his pioneering role in the sport's development. The man who once seemed invincible now lives a quiet, ordinary life—and that's actually the most hopeful part of his story.
What Really Worked vs What Fell Flat
Let me break this down plainly.
What Worked:
- Dwayne Johnson's career-best performance that showcases vulnerability I didn't know he possessed
- Emily Blunt elevates an underwritten role through sheer talent
- Gorgeous 16mm cinematography that creates a documentary-authentic feel
- Raw, realistic fight choreography that doesn't glamorise violence
- Willingness to subvert sports movie expectations and deliver the uncomfortable truth
- Ryan Bader and other real fighters are bringing an authentic presence
What Fell Flat:
- Disjointed script structure that feels episodic rather than cohesive
- Repetitive narrative cycles without sufficient variation or momentum
- Dawn Staples was written too one-dimensionally, given her importance
- Jazz score that's ambitious but often distracting
- Lack of context about MMA history for general audiences
- Tonal inconsistencies that occasionally feel pretentious
- Box office failure, suggesting audiences weren't interested in this version of The Rock
My Final Verdict
The Smashing Machine is a bold, unconventional sports biopic that prioritises raw emotional honesty over crowd-pleasing formula. Dwayne Johnson delivers a revelatory performance that should silence anyone questioning his dramatic range. Benny Safdie's solo directorial debut showcases distinctive visual flair and thematic depth that earned him the Silver Lion at Venice.
The film's refusal to deliver a triumphant ending or sanitise its subject's flaws makes it more truthful, if less satisfying, than typical sports movies. This isn't Rocky or Remember the Titans. This is a character study about masculinity, addiction, and the brutal cost of pioneering an entire sport.
However, significant flaws hold it back from greatness. The script struggles with structure and pacing. The treatment of the female lead is disappointingly thin. Artistic choices occasionally feel self-indulgent rather than purposeful.
For viewers seeking a traditional sports movie with rousing fight sequences and underdog triumph, this will disappoint. But for those interested in a character study about what happens when success comes at too high a price, The Smashing Machine offers compelling, if uncomfortable, viewing.
Rating: 3.5/5 – A flawed but powerful film elevated by exceptional performances and distinctive direction. Recommended for fans of character-driven sports dramas and those interested in seeing Johnson push beyond his comfort zone.
Is it Oscar-worthy? Johnson's performance absolutely is. The film as a whole? That's where it gets complicated.
The Smashing Machine Official Trailer
The Smashing Machine Official Trailer - Emotional
Conclusion
The Smashing Machine won't be everyone's cup of tea, and the box office numbers prove it. But this is the kind of ambitious, character-driven filmmaking we claim we want more of from Hollywood. Dwayne Johnson took a massive career risk playing against type, and he delivered something genuinely special—even if audiences didn't show up.
Benny Safdie's solo directorial debut proves he has a distinctive vision beyond his work with brother Josh. The film's flaws are real and frustrating, particularly the underwritten female lead and repetitive structure. But there's something admirable about a film that refuses to give you the ending you want and instead delivers the truth you need.
Mark Kerr was a pioneer who paid a brutal price for his achievements. This film honours that sacrifice by refusing to glamorise or simplify his story. Maybe that's why it failed commercially but succeeded artistically.
So here's my question for you: Would you rather watch a comfortable sports movie that delivers expected triumph, or an uncomfortable character study that reveals difficult truths about the cost of greatness?
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is The Smashing Machine worth watching?
Ans. Yes, but with major caveats. If you appreciate character-driven dramas with flawed protagonists and unconventional storytelling, absolutely watch this. Dwayne Johnson's transformative performance alone makes it worthwhile. However, if you're expecting a typical sports movie triumph or The Rock's signature charisma, you'll be disappointed. This is a slow-burning, emotionally heavy film that refuses to deliver easy answers or feel-good moments.
2. What is The Smashing Machine's IMDb rating and critical reception?
Ans. The film currently holds 74% on Rotten Tomatoes from critics, with a 79% verified audience score. On Metacritic, it scored 65 out of 100 based on 53 reviews, indicating a generally favourable reception. However, general audiences gave it a tepid "B-" CinemaScore, suggesting the dramatic tone didn't resonate with mainstream viewers expecting typical Dwayne Johnson entertainment.
3. How accurate is The Smashing Machine to Mark Kerr's real story?
Ans. The film is quite faithful to Mark Kerr's actual life, often recreating scenes from the 2002 documentary of the same name. Major events depicted—his UFC dominance, first loss, 1999 overdose, rehabilitation, relationship with Dawn Staples, and 2000 Pride Grand Prix defeat—all happened. The film ends with real footage revealing Kerr married Dawn 11 days after his 2000 loss, had a son, later divorced, and retired in 2009, having won only two of his final nine fights.
4. Where can I watch The Smashing Machine, and when is the streaming release?
Ans. The film was released theatrically on October 3, 2025, by A24. As of October 2025, it's still in limited theatrical release. Streaming release dates haven't been officially announced yet, but given A24's typical distribution windows, expect it on premium video-on-demand platforms within 45-60 days of theatrical release, followed by eventual streaming on services like Max or Netflix. Check A24's official website for updated availability.
5. Did Dwayne Johnson really gain weight and wear prosthetics for this role?
Ans. Yes—extensively. Johnson gained 30 pounds of muscle specifically for the role and wore 13-14 prosthetic pieces daily, including cauliflower ears and a specialised browbone. He spent three to four hours in the makeup chair each day. Oscar-winning artist Kazu Hiro created the prosthetics, which were so convincing that the opening scenes shot on grainy footage appear documentary-authentic. Johnson also trained in an MMA camp for a month before production.
6. How much did The Smashing Machine make at the box office?
Ans. The film significantly underperformed, grossing only $18.5 million worldwide ($11.1 million domestic, $7.4 million international) against a $50 million production budget plus marketing costs. It opened with just $5.8 million domestically—the lowest debut of Dwayne Johnson's career. This represents a major financial loss for A24 and suggests audiences weren't interested in this darker, dramatic version of The Rock.
7. What is Mark Kerr doing now, and is he still alive?
Ans. Yes, Mark Kerr is alive and reports being seven years sober as of 2025. After retiring from MMA in 2009 with a record of 15 wins, 11 losses, and 1 draw, Kerr experienced homelessness and relapse before achieving sobriety around 2013. He was inducted into the UFC Hall of Fame, recognising his pioneering role in MMA's early development. He lives a quiet, ordinary life now—a far cry from his days as "The Smashing Machine."
8. Is The Smashing Machine based on the 2002 documentary?
Ans. Yes. The film is based on and frequently recreates scenes from The Smashing Machine: The Life and Times of Extreme Fighter Mark Kerr, a 2002 documentary by John Hyams. Director Benny Safdie occasionally replicates specific shots and dialogue from the original documentary. This fidelity is both a strength (providing authenticity) and a weakness (creating redundancy for viewers familiar with the documentary). Some critics argued the film was too faithful, limiting its dramatic potential.
9. Will Dwayne Johnson win an Oscar for The Smashing Machine?
Ans. Johnson is considered a strong Oscar contender for Best Actor based on critical acclaim and the film's 15-minute standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival. Many critics called it his career-best, most vulnerable performance. However, the film's poor box office performance ($18.5 million worldwide) could hurt his chances—Academy voters often favour commercially successful films. His competition in the Best Actor category will also be a major factor. He's definitely in the conversation.
10. What makes The Smashing Machine different from other sports movies?
Ans. Unlike typical sports biopics that follow an underdog-to-triumph arc, The Smashing Machine refuses to deliver a feel-good ending. It focuses on addiction, toxic relationships, and unfulfilled potential rather than athletic glory. The film ends not with a championship victory but with footage of the real Mark Kerr living an ordinary life. This subversion of genre expectations—prioritising emotional honesty over crowd-pleasing formula—makes it distinctive but also less accessible to mainstream audiences expecting traditional sports movie beats.
Post a Comment