zkonedog 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.

851222 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.

adonis98-743-186503 Chuck Wepner, the "Bayonne Bleeder," he was the pride of Bayonne, New Jersey, a man who went fifteen rounds in the ring with Muhammad Ali, and the real life inspiration for Rocky Balboa. But before all that, Chuck Wepner was a liquor salesman and father with a modest prizefighting career whose life changed overnight when, in 1975, he was chosen to take on The Greatest in a highly publicized title match. It's the beginning of a wild ride through the exhilarating highs and humbling lows of sudden fame-but what happens when your fifteen minutes in the spotlight are up? The Bleeder is another boxing failure where good actors careers go and die, the movie is full of boxing clichés, the acting isn't particularly and not every story needs it's own film especially box. Seriously stop it Hollywood you can't make another Rocky in fact i don't buy what this film is selling me and especially the fact that Chuck is kind of prick that tries to suck the fame of Rocky and even uses the theme song at one point to achieve his goal on staying on top he wasn't a good fighter and this wasn't a good film either.

adrian-43767 Chuck Wepner is not my idea of a recommendable character but CHUCK, the film, manages to keep a steady, neutral position, and not make any judgments about his nature. It just shows Wepner as someone easily impressionable and immature, but who, in the ring, is determined to go the distance, come hell or Muhammad Ali.Clearly, his marriage to Phyllis was an error and having a daughter even more so because Wepner was completely absorbed in his boxing exploits, his side jobs, his sexual conquests and, ultimately, his identification with the tragic role played by Anthony Quinn in REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT, to the point of knowing his lines off by heart and feeling that he shares something with that unfortunate soul; and his fascination with the film, ROCKY, and its central character and rising movie star Sylvester Stallone, to the point of celebrating that film's Best Picture and Best Director awards as if they were his own, and of almost making Balboa his alter ego, all reflect his scattered personality and weakness of purpose.That fascination with a celluloid, larger than life, hero also causes him to jump the boundaries of safe life into the dangers of drug addiction. I find the film brutally honest about that and about his break-up with his wife, played with considerable aplomb and force by Elisabeth Moss, as someone who refuses to be duped by the fake world of boxing, movies, and other illusions entertained by Wepner.The scene where Schreiber (Wepner) goes to his daughter's school and completely misses the plot, partly because he is under the influence of drugs, is a classic in its simplicity, truth, and quality of acting by all involved. Wepner's honesty about his boxing limitations is a point in his favor, and one that allows the viewer to develop some sympathy for the man.I also found the Wepner-Stallone relationship very effectively and succinctly observed. Clearly, in real life Stallone is not the good guy that Balboa was. Stallone did nothing to assist Wepner, with bail for instance, when he was tried and jailed for drug possession. And yet Stallone used Wepner as the source for his script of ROCKY, earning considerable fortune and fame as a result. The scene where Stallone is doing press ups in the jail facility where Wepner is an inmate, all to do with ROCKY III and Balboa's descent from grace and into jail, is also very effectively put across, with not a frame too many. Wepner's friend, John Stahl, clearly was not a good influence, and did not mind riding his pal's wave of fame, womanizing, drug taking, and so forth, but never there when really needed, with any really helpful contribution. He comes across as a party parasite with a sense of humor, and reminds you of just how dangerous such friendships can be.There are, however, characters who restore hope in mankind: Phyllis is a really good and caring wife, someone whose honesty and real love for Wepner allow her to see that their relationship cannot go on, and has the courage to break it off; Linda, Wepner's second wife, is more detached but has the right values. And Wepner earns our respect for seeing Stallone for what he is.Best of all, Wepner's brother, Donny, who steps in to help his undeserving brother. He complains bitterly about Wepner's selfishness, but you wish everyone were as honest and caring, and this would be a far better world.Falardeau's direction is assured and extremely competent. No fancy camera work, good use of boxing footage from the time, and he extracts credible and keenly felt performances from the entire cast. Schreiber is very good, Moss superlative, Watts in an unusually self-effacing role that serves her well -- but it is the actor (I do not know his name) who plays the small role of Donny, Wepner's brother, that really stays with me for the sheer honesty and naturalism of his acting.Competent script, too, keeping as close to real life as possible. Unfortunately, the source material would never permit the kind of emotional uplift that could have rendered CHUCK a masterpiece in the restricted niche of sports-related movies - but it is definitely worth watching.