The Hot Blog

Actually you touched on the a couple of reasons I had for not seeing C.M. the number one reason was it was about a guy no body heard of. Boxing just isn't a draw anymore, Stalone are you listening?

Also I don't really think Russell Crowe is all that remarkable of an actor. Not to mention like A Beautiful Mind this particular team really over fictionalizes the story for my taste.

And finally I just don't like Renée Zellweger
she's also not a remarkable actor, she's always playing herself and should really see an optomitrist about that squinting problem.

The release date excuse is a crock of shit. Collateral, Seabiscuit and Road to Perdition all managed to find an audience, and two of those are rated R. There is an audience for more serious fare this time of year.

You know, I read that NYT piece this morning, and my first thought was: DP will have something to say about this.

While I still understand very little of the film industry, my regular reading of Poland's Button and blog enabled me to spot this as a weak article and 'plant' immediately.

So, DP, thanks! I've learned something...

You know, I hate to say this, but remember how pissed Clint Eastood got when the WB brass told him that no one would go see "Million Dollar Baby" because it was a boxing movie? Well, maybe the suits weren't quite as stupid as Eastwood (and many of us) thought?

The release date is directly liable to the underwhelming boxoffice. Collateral and Seabiscuit came out in late July or early August, while the Road to Perdition came out in the second week of July. As the summer wears on people become increasingly tired of mindless special effect films, and more open to dramas.
There is clear niche date for these types of pedigree films, the last week of July, first week of August. All the Shamaylan films have been based on that platform, besides Unbreakable.

When are we all going to realize that the NY Times is crap? Right now they shill for whoever they feel like.

what it comes down to is women just don't want to see this movie. boxing, 30's, depression, a butt ugly zellweger. doesn't add up to huge hit

I disagree Joe Know. I think those movies would have done fine whenever they were released, whether it was June, July or August. I do not think the release date has anything whatsoever to do with Cinderella Man's disappointing box office.

I'm sure Marc and Brian wanted to reem Russel Crowe. But they won't, not on the record at least. They won't bash Crowe's behavior for one simple reason: Both men would like to work with him again. Studios never blame star's behavior on a film's failure. It's the release date, it's the mood of the country, it's the critics, it's the movie we opened up against. blah blah blah. We've heard it all before. But studios don't want to piss off the stars because they'll need them sometime again for another movie.

I thought it would be a great time for release. Who else was out there to compete with it? Nothing at all. I am shocked it will fade since I think its a really good film. It will cost Crowe an Oscar nom too because he is that good.

Aside from the bad title, too many "think" pieces assume that movies and their messages arrive in a void. Or that the reaction to a movie with this subject, these actors, this director, all sound like the big yawn that it is. Of course, you could read reviews and find a resounding turnoff like this: "As many commentators have noted, class consciousness plays a key role in American political consciousness, though it's often expressed in garbled and deceptive cultural terms: George Bush's cowboy hat and anti-intellectualism seem more operative in molding his populist image than his wealth or economic policies. The same confusion about class often inflects the way we read movies: Samuel Fuller's 1953 urban thriller Pickup on South Street is remembered today more for its simple, generic anticommunism (unexceptional for its period) than for its complex compassion for poor people (exceptional for any period). The compassion for the poor in Cinderella Man is far from complex, but it's exceptional because it's the meaning of Braddock's story, not just an aspect of it."

I see a lot of films throughout the year, including the preview trailers, and when the trailer for CM was on there was NO reaction to it from audiences. Russell is just not a draw and I think Renee has been overexposed on the awards circuit these past few years. This story is just overdone.

I don't want to see this at all and I like Russel and think hes fabulous. Maybe its Renee. Her pouty face makes me mad. Also boxing isn't really my thing. Give me baseball or football.

Touché, Mr. Poland. You are correct, it seems the Watchdog has truly morphed into the Lapdog. Be it entertainment news, business news or front page international news, journalist seem to be hardly working and most importantly, not working smart enough. These pawns are prey for the Kings, Queens and Bishops that rule mindshare; the Roves, the Grazers and the Hiltons all knowingly moving the pieces that are fit to print.

Bernie Goldberg had a wonderful, objective book from 2001, "Bias", that looked at the deliberate style of trend creation that you spoke of. (Did Berny have an axe to grind? Maybe. Did he have a point with facts to back it up? Yes.) While this trend has been going on since the time the printing press was invented, I believe organizations like the The Times (which I subscribe to) and other fishwraps have perfected the trend. This week alone I have read 4 articles on Indian Reservations and their fight for land that was sold by them or Casino's promised to them. Do I think they have been wronged? Yes. Do I think I need to read it four days in a row? No. Do I think The Times is trying to create a story as apposed to investigating one? I will let you know if I find another article on it tomorrow.

Your question of journalistic integrity became so incredible obvious to me this past month, while we sat front row for another coronation for the old guard, Sir Woodward and Sir Bernstein, and watched as these Watchdogs of the lazy guard, Rove v. Newsweek, took the fall for a story it turns out might have been right after all. Modern-day journalist (and editors) seems to have become a passive middle-man/lobbyist for the machine. Gone are the days of trying to question the system or fight the system for another source. Hello Newsweek - STICK TO YOUR GUNS. Welcome to the days of retractions, the Glass/Blairs and reporters freelancing as PR firms for the studios spin-cycle. This type of reporting makes it even more the responsibility of the reader to know who and what is preparing their daily plate of chum. As Howard Simons said in Bob and Carl's masterwork: "Get another source." We all need to heed to that advice; reporters and readers.

To that I say "Thank Buddha" for the new source and the new guard, the Bloggers! Personally, I welcome this Era of Bloggers. Much like Wood & Bern were playing for the triple A Washington Post in the early 70s, trying to beat out the Times for THE great story, the Bloggers and the speed of the information age are trumping the networks and dailys at their own game. (i.e. see Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat" and the riff on the faulty CBS news Bush papers of last fall.) While there are many pros to this new medium, I understand fully it also has its cons. Luckily, to the average reader, it's pretty easy to tell which ones are members of the media's lobbyist machine - paging Mr. Drudge or Roger Friedman or even Huff's new bluff. You true Bloggers have the journalist/PR lobbyist in a corner and hopefully you guys will test the system with all of your wit, might and rage. You need to keep the Waxman's of the world, the ones about to turn to the dark side, honest. Don't loosen the grip David. Make them work, keep them honest.

So to answer your question - Do you trust the Government (The Times)? I guess it depends on the day. Follow Glazer's money seems like a timely answer for today.

Hsve you been living in a hole in the ground? What do you mean Russell does not care about promoting his films and doesa nothing. Where do you think he has been for the last month? He has been here on every talk show and interview show there is. He was at both premieres and in Australia he has his favorite footy team promoting the film by wearing the name of the movie on their shirts. I don't know what your idea of promotion is. Maybe you need a dictionary. Next time know what you are talking about!!!!!!!

Why get so angry? Are you Russell Crowe?

Have to say I agree with Concerned. Looks to me like Rusty C. has fulfilled every talk show commitment (even after he knew he'd be the butt of phone-tossing jokes) and did scads of magazine/newspaper interviews (Newsweek, Premiere, EW, etc.) So I must echo Concerned's question, Dave: What do you mean by promotion?

He is actually a really good star. He goes on every talk show and is on every magazine cover. Part of his appeal to writers is his whole "I hate you guys and I don't want to talk" routine. Every actor has a few missteps at the box office. But this movie isn't going to be a bomb and will be remembered in December.

I thought my comment had provided a link to the review I cited of CINDERELLA MAN's view of poverty, but it didn't: it's by Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader.

Not sure about your prediction there Mark. Come December I don't think much will be remembered about "Cinderella Man". I'll be it'll get tech award (fully deserved) nods, but it'll be shut out of all the top stuff.

Why?

Look at who made this movie. They ALL have Oscars. And they all won them in the last five years and I feel the Academy will look them over.

Besides, Apollo 13 is better movie than this and niether Howard or Hanks were nominated for that one.

SB: You had said: "I do not think the release date has anything whatsoever to do with Cinderella Man's disappointing box office."

Then what do you think did? Personally, I think the release date was a big reason it's not broken out. All those films we've mentioned that did better BO came out in mid-July or later. Want evidence that a June date is a bad time? Look at The Terminal with its June slot last year. That film underperformed too. Had it been released in a less competitive slot, it might not have done gangbuster biz, but I bet it would have done better than it did.

Mr and Mrs. Smith was also a factor. Uni and many pundits didn't see that film skewing to as old an audience as it has. I think that ate into CM's take as well.

Maybe the date was a factor, but it all comes down to the quality of the movie. The Terminal underperformed because the movie didn't have a clear sell and word-of-mouth didn't do the job. Cinderella Man is doing the same. Sure there are some people who love the movie but audiences as a whole seem to be shrugging it off. Plus it seems like a movie we've already seen in the last few years. If you could have swapped its release with Seabiscuit's you would probably swap their grosses.

Let's also not dig Cinderella Man's grave yet, it could still pull a partial resurrection a la The Polar Express, although obviously on a lower level.
I agree that Apollo 13 is a much better movie.

Lot of people are forgetting one thing about the "Seabiscuit-Cinderella Man" comparison.

Seabiscuit is based on a hugely successful book. Cinderella Man is simply a true story concocted from a screenwriter. The awareness from the book helped Seabiscuit tremendously in the long run I'll bet.

Very good point there, Double D. I have to wonder if the film might have done better had Seasbiscuit not been made into a movie. Given how very similar the ads were to the Seabiscuit campaign, I wonder if people thought "Seen it already." Sort of like what I think happened with "Kingdom of Heaven" having come out after all those sword and sandal epics.

I found the ads for Cinderella Man to be incredibly boring and depressing. This really isn't the right time of the year for this. I also hate Renee Z and her BloatedSquintyBulemiaFace. The only thing that kept me curious about this film was Russell Crowe. He would do well to take something not automatically stamped "Oscarbait" for once. Is he going to keep making the same film over and over again? Incredibly serious drama.

I agree that the popularity of the Seabiscuit book helped tremendously. You'd think they would have attempted some sort of that famed corporate synergy to sell Jim Braddock via other media.

Dig that grave and stick the fork in this one.

For some weird reason, the marketing of Cinderella Man reminded me of the marketing for Pearl Harbour. PH tried tremendously hard to be the next Titanic, the impending sense of inevitable doom, tragic loss of life, great sense of history interwoven with a romantic fable.

P.H ended up being a paint-by-numbers version that tried to hard to be something it was not.

Seems the folks behind C.M.looked at every movie that had won oscars in the past twenty years, and the trailers for those movies and then hit cut and paste, including their casting decisions as well.

The funny thing is, I think the movie looks great, I'm not a Renee hater, I think Russell is one of the best actors lb 4 lb. You cant go wrong with P.Giamatti, and Opie knows his shit. It just turns out that when you make a carbon copy of a great picture, thats all you have, a carbon copy.

I think the audience just experienced a great sense of deja vu and decided to wait on the dvd or cable.

I also believe that a few weeks wait on the release would have been another 20Mill or so. Summer has now started and people are still in that popcorn phase. Come July you stand a better chance with this fare when the heat is less intense.

Wow. Countless newbies show up, and they all slag Zellweger? If Blau were here. She would be screaming conspiracy. My god, what kind of ahole are you, that Renee Zellweger pisses you off? I can understand countless stars being aggrevating louses, such as Brad "Mugging" Pitt, but Zellweger? Come off it people. Come the rut off it. When it comes to Cinderella Man. This flick easily falls into the failing popularity of boxing in this country. Million Dollar Baby only got the money it has thanks to it being an AWARD SEASON flick. Without the Oscar Nominations or the Oscar themselves, that flick makes about as much as CM will make. CM should have been released at the end of this year. Why they had to go with that whacky Summer counterprogramming logic demonstrates why they fail. Re-release the flick when it's cold, and maybe people will care. Who knows.

I think the release date did play a part, but not because of the early summer thing, but because there had already been quite a few adult oriented pictures out! Not only was there Star Wars to steal some older generations away but also we had "The Interpreter" and "Crash" - both of which looked much more interesting than a Ron Howard sapathon (however good it may be).

CM could very well have been a decent sized hit, maybe along the lines of Crowe's own Master & Commander more than A Beautiful Mind.

BUT there is also the thinking that, hey, people just aren't interested in a period drama about someone they don't even know and about a topic that isn't particularly interesting. How many people recommending Million Dollar Baby were recommending it because of it's boxing scenes?

not everything that crowe does has been oscarbait. certainly master and commander, while it deserved everything it got and more, was a great action film first and a great dramatic film/period flick second. i think it is one of the most underappreciated films ever made. i wished it had done more biz and gotten even more acclaim because it was quite wonderful and is completely rewatchable. i like crowe. always have, always will.

crowe is oscar bait because he does a great job in his roles and makes good movies. everything hes in u have to respect come award season. even this

I just don't think that by pushing the release date back a month or two, CM automatically doubles or triples its box office. I still haven't seen it, and that's mostly due to Zellweger, who is one of my least favorite actresses. Others have already mentioned this, but every time I see her make one of those awful faces, I want Crowe to knock her out. Others may not have seen it because they don't care for boxing or they think it looks dull or they have no idea who the guy is. The Terminal is a good comparison. A lot of people didn't like that movie or just didn't care to see it. Didn't look like anything you had to rush out to see.

RE: BloatedSquintyBulemiaFace.
Can someone even have a "Bloated" and "Bulemia" face at the same time?

At this point I don't think any other release date would have changed the fortunes of Cinderella Man. And the producers are playing damage control.

Eh, I still think a release date later in the summer, or certainly in the fall would have improveed its performance significantly. Maybe not to the tune of nine figures, but given the very positive reaction of most folks who have seen the movie, you'd think word of mouth would kick in. I think it's not because there's too much else out there now. (Although, again, I will allow that its lack of a must-see vibe still might make it a little softer than most would expect.)

I always thought people made decisions on which movies to see based on what movies interested them. When they choose to not see a movie, it's because, for whatever reason, what they saw of that particular movie didn't make them want to go see it.

If that's the case, then I don't know what would've changed between June and July to suddenly make people interested in seeing the movie.

I mean, I didn't go see Cinderella Man because it didn't look like something I would enjoy. That was the sole reason I didn't go to the theater. Maybe other people make decisions about which movies to see based on some other criteria.

Some of the symptoms of bulimia include swollen glands in the face and neck as well as bloating. Her face didn't use to be so puffy. It's just something I've suspected from looking at her. It's the only thing to explain why her face has swollen while her body shrinks imo.

lets face it. boxing and the depression aren't exactly blockbusters. they keep comparing it to seabiscuit. i don't remember seabiscuit doing boffo business

From this talkback I think of this line William Goldman wrote in one of his essays:

"Why did everyone see "Titanic" five times and no one except Kevin Costner's relatives see "The Postman"? Because people wanted to see "Titanic". The rest is a myth."

Who knows why most people decide to go see a movie in a theatre or wait to rent it at Blockbuster or wait to see it on HBO.

I haven't seen it because I'd rather see Star Wars a second time and see Batman this weekend, but that's just me.

I'd rather see The Honeymooners. Nah. just Joshing ya

OK enough about Fistbiscuit! I'm surprised no one is talking about Batman's opening numbers? About $15 mil...not huge but not a disaster. I saw it last night. It's very cerebral and there's lots of backstory and good acting, but I just walked away feeling a little bored with it all. What does everyone else think?

15$ million on a Wednesday is what they call really good. What were you expecting?

Well Box Office Mojo had a "Wednesday's Biggest Openers" and Spiderman 2 for example, had $40 mil. It just makes me think people are kinda over Batman, although it did earn about $4 million more than Shrek 2 so I guess we'll see. Still it seems like these big comic book movies tend to open bigger and $15 mil seems low.

Why all the crying over Batmans opening numbers? No one in the industry or the public thought this was going to make Spiderman type numbers. Can we all have a little perspective here.

Who said I was crying? I was merely asking what other people thought and trying to gage what people thought of the movie. I'm just wondering if the seriousness of the film and its different, darker direction is turning people off. That's all.

When did I single you out? But I will throw you in the group that is criticizing the opening numbers after a few hours.

when did batman become star wars? i didn't think expectations for this one were that high in regards to box office. i thought anything around 150mill was a hugee success

dave predicted 235 mill for batman. might be a little high.

The $235 million predication...That's what I was trying to say. Everyone says this is one of the three big movies of the summer and yet it opened to less than one third of Star Wars' bow last month. No, I am not comparing the two franchises, but with all the expectations, and with people looking to Batman to end the 2005 losing streak, I guess I expected it to do a lot better.

It has been out for 24 hours!!!!!

exactly. if batman finishes in fourth place and rops 65% in week 2 then we can write how much better tim burton is than chris nolan.

Batman will have legs. It is too good not to.

Christian Bale has nice legs.

Polar Express opened on a Wednesday for $2.5 million. final gross $160 mill.

Granted, I KNOW that was kind of a huge exception with the 3-D Imax sell, but its an example to show that soft openings can grow to something huge.

If the movie has a smaller opening than Mr. and Mrs. Smith, it'll make headlines.

I wouldn't call over 15 million a soft opening. And Warners wouldn't either.

I live in LA. I can't turn a corner without some sort of Batman Begins ad staring back at me. Granted, this is LA. But studios don't spend THIS much money to get a solid opening, or really good opening, they do it for the biggest numbers imaginable.

In the end, thought, I think $15 millon a weds in front of a non-holiday weekend is pretty good.

Check the magazine stands. It is everywhere.

I want to see the Fri-Sun numbers before I draw any conclusions on this.

geez...i go out of town to collect a little swag for hard work and there's lots of posts on movies. this is good.

Batman will do fine. I don;t think DP overest. either. There's so much releif it isn't a Schumacher style Batman people will see it out of gratitude.

I am glad CM is failing to collect cash becasue of how Max Baer was portrayed. Crowe did another fine job (oscar worthy) in this movie, he really did, but I can't enjoy how Ron Howard took libelous liberties.

Bats opening to 15 million on a Wednesday morning. Does not suck in the least. It also did not have countless midnight screenings in countless theatres. They did it low key. Nothing wrong with that. I have no faith in WOTW whatsoever. Leaving me hoping and praying Bats outdoes that scientology freak fest that rips off SIGNS more than we originally thought. Oh, A WAR OF THE WORLDS from a FAMILIES perspective. Did we not sit through this flick 3 years ago? Did I miss something?

What makes you say it rips off Signs?
Isn't it possible this movie is Spielberg's reaction to Signs? Maybe trying to one-up M. Night?

I'm sorry, I didn't read your whole post.
However, I would rather see the Spielberg version of such a movie than the Shyamalan version any day of the week.

m night movies move a little slow and the whole trick ending concept? he needs to change it up on his next one before he just becomes that gimmick guy

I really loved Cinderella Man. Everyone I've talked to who's seen the film raves about it. Everyone over 25, at least.

Russell Crowe is wonderful to watch and fantastic as Jim Braddock [He's got great legs and muscles too, if I may be allowed a moment of female shallowness.] Paul Giamatti is terrific. I hate boxing but really got into it while watching. I've seen it twice with friends. It's intelligent, well made and compelling.... so, how to explain low box office? ........

I agree with those who say that box office timing was off, as this is not meant to be a summer type geek boy, escapist or cartoon fan film. There are no explosions or guns, no flying swords or talking animals. There is no teen sex nor flatulance jokes. The earth isn't under attack by aliens. It's a realistic period film. It celebrates a good man, not a criminal or superhero. Cinderella Man is not a great title. Renee Z is only so-so, and many don't care for her facial expression quirks. The film appeals to adults who don't particularly like going to the cineplex these days, and would rather watch DVD's on their home theater systems, in quiet and comfort. The adults that are willing to brave the cineplex don't feel an urge to go the day a film opens.

Any and all of these reasons may explain why box office is down for grown up films and Cinderella Man is slow in finding it's audience.

Tough to release a movie in the crowded Summer and hope to find an audience. Its either a hit or not.

Makes me think the relase should have been in August or Septemeber. Its just going to get knocked the crap out and ko'd. Why not throw a boxing pun in there right?

how is the producer blaming the release date? a guy like brian glazer has great power. like he couldn't have suggested they release in sept? smells like a phony story to me

bob, Grazer and Imagine did push for a Fall release. As stated in the Waxman piece, Imagine was against the June 3 date but Universal had the final say. If Uni wanted a summer release, it should have been end of July, when they released Seabiscuit, after the summer behemoths had been out for awhile. That's my opinion, anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/movies/15cind.html?

"And at least some involved with the film wished they had simply kept it on the shelf until autumn. "I look at each season as a living organism, and I don't think the season of summer is compatible with a movie of this type," said Brian Grazer, a producer of "Cinderella Man." He was at the Tuesday meeting and was among those who had pushed for a fall release."

I do think the timing was the foremost reason for the weak B.O. As I wrote to David in email -

The fact is, attendance at theaters has dropped steadily the last few years and the studios are still trying to figure out why. From my perspective, from my decades long movie-going experience, and from talking with real life friends in my age group (50s/60s), more and more people in that demographic find it less satisfying to see films in the theater. They don't like the crowds, the excruciatingly loud MTV type commercials and the endless trailers before the main event. They are also part of the group who are able to purchase more elaborate home entertainment centers and simply prefer watching films in the comfort of their homes. In line with that, the early releases of DVDs from 4-6 months after theatrical release is another factor. Who can't wait a few months to see the film on DVD? Only cinephiles such as my husband and myself who still much prefer the experience on the big theater screen and seeing a film with an audience.

There are many other factors; older folks do not rush out to opening weekend (which the industry so clearly believes is all-important), as well as the growing cost of tickets and snacks, and sometimes parking.

They, like most studios, had higher than reasonable expectations for Cinderella. Howard, Crowe. They had Beautiful Mind visions dancing in their heads.

The NY Times defended "Cinderella Man" because Bill Gallo of the NY Daily News attacked it.

Gallo has been the Daily News' sports cartoonist for many years and a fight fan since before I was born. He correctly saw that "Cinderella Man" made Max Baer a bad guy when in real life that was not the case.

Max Baer Jr. -- yes, Jethro from "The Beverly Hillbillies" on TV -- also denounced the treatment of his father in "Cinderella Man" AND did so as the movie opened. That helps explain the lower-than-expected 1st weekend and the sizable 2nd-weekend drop.

It is a movie. It needed a bad guy. And for Braddock the bad guy was Baer since he was facing him. Right?

The box office was not impacted by anything to do with Max Baer. People just aren't that impressed by the movie, in my opinion.
Anyway, you can make a movie with Baer as the antagonist without making him into such a hateful boor as the filmmakers did. I believe that's the complaint.

joefutz84 wrote: "It is a movie. It needed a bad guy. And for Braddock the bad guy was Baer since he was facing him. Right?"

Futz sees no problem with libel. What a surprise.

I thought we got rid of this clown? Again contributing nothing to the discourse. What a surprise?? I can't believe it.

A useless lowlife like Futz saying someone else is contributing nothing to the discourse -- HAH! Now THAT is fucking funny!

Blau: You are one tough cookie. I bet you walk down mean streets, neither tarnished nor afraid, just so you can bitch-slap would-be muggers.

Yes sir! There are evildoers everywhere -- many of whom are on this blog -- and they must be vanquished! Should I get a cape?

I think you're doing OK with just your tart tongue and fiery wrath. I suspect you have Emma Peel, Nora Charles and Honey West perched on various branches of your family tree. (Nothing but poachers and horsethieves in my background, alas.)

Blau, another wussy. Like usual. You took all week. Like Stella. Are you the same girl?

"They, like most studios, had higher than reasonable expectations for Cinderella. Howard, Crowe. They had Beautiful Mind visions dancing in their heads."

They shouldn't of. Beautiful Mind was released in December, had a smaller venue count and had a more interesting story (depression-era boxer triumphs over adversity while Renee Z squints and Paul G yells! vs. brilliant yet mentally psychotic genius grows paranoid about the FBI, Secret organisions and mathamatics while Jennifer Connolly sits placidly)

...maybe people ACTUALLY disliked A Beautiful Mind as much as I did and thought "oh, not again".

Jennifer Connolly did not deserve that Oscar. I wouldn't have cared if she had been nomed for Requiem but alas...

And, unless it gets a great campaign (it very well could) and late year buzz, Paul G could miss out again (I wouldn't complain). It'll probably be this years Road to Perdition or Cold Mountain - an adult movie that just missed out.

A little late... but I must comment..

Gee Chucky... you mean Cinderella Man is the first biopic film which isn't 100% accurate to the letter of historic fact? I'm shocked I tell ya, shocked!

Kidding aside, the portrayal of Baer has had nothing to do with getting fannys into seats. Nothing.

By the way, you can't libel someone who's dead, Blau. That's a point of law.

Besides, the film only made Baer out to be, well, cranky. Truth is, he did kill two guys. Truth is, he was a spotlight loving, showboat sort of fella who had a thing for the ladies. Truth is, he did hit Braddock with low, below the waist shots and uppercuts. It's all in the record and in films of the bout.

Kami, each to their own on what films one prefers, but I think the whole point of this discussion is that Cinderella Man was released at the wrong time, unlike ABM, which was in a well chosen release frame for award nominations and a traditional timeframe for serious films.

Most critics are saying Crowe has given a sterling performance and deserves an Oscar nomination. Will it be remembered this winter? Ah, there's the big question no one can answer until then.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)