The Champ
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.59 You Save: $16.39 (82%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $2.46 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Champ
Movie Review: THE CHAMP IS A KNOCKOUT! JACKIE COOPER STEALS THE SHOW!
Summary: 5 Stars
One can't help, but think of 'The Little Rascals' when watching this entertaining film. Jackie Cooper does an amazing job as he carries this film from beginning to end. It's a bit sappy by today's standards, but that is the way they used to do it back in the day. Wallace Beery won an Oscar for the title role which tied with Fredric March's Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Personally I think Cooper should have won the Oscar! It was nominated for two more Oscars Best Director and Picture. The DVD sports a nice clean transfer and some welcome extras.Movie Review: Beery & Cooper An Interesting Pair
Summary: 4 Stars
""alert: spoilers ahead**
When I first saw this movie it was my first look at either Wallace Beery or Jackie Cooper. I found both of them very interesting to watch. I also found out why Bob Hope and Jack Benny used to make a lot of sarcastic lines about "being about as pretty as Wallace Beery." He definitely had an ugly "mug." However, he was a lovable loser, as the expression goes.
Cooper played "Dink," a cocky little kid who just loved "The Champ" (Beery). On the VHS tape, Cooper's squeaky little voice did not come across well and often was annoying to hear. It's great that this finally came out on DVD in 2006 and gave its fans much better audio and visuals.
The boxing scenes were hokey but I liked the ending because at least Beery won the fight, although he collapses afterward. I believe he lost in the re-make of this with Jon Voight and Ricky Shroder in the 1979 film, but I'm not sure.
The kid's devotion to the champ, even under the toughest of situations, was touching.
Movie Review: a film that pulls no punches
Summary: 4 Stars
the real one, not the bathetic remake with jon voight and icky schroeder. this stars wallace beery as the washed-up middleweight ex-champ (boy, does THAT strain credulity for the eyes!) and jackie cooper as the young son who is the adult figure to the man-child. both leads give great performances, and although it was beery who walked away with the oscar it was actually cooper who deserved it more (tho god forbid the academy should ever deem a kid actor worthy of such!) the movie clearly resonated with its depression audience, and holds up well today. its the rare tear jerker that stays away from mawkishness.
Movie Review: Doesn't hold a candle to the Voight/Schroeder version
Summary: 3 Stars
Don't beleive the hype on this site. This movie doesn't come close to the 1970s version with Jon Voight and Ricky Schroeder. It's like comparing a treatment to a full-blown screenplay, a rough draft to a finished novel. I watched both movies with different groups of people, and I can tell you there was barely a dry eye after the 70s version finished, whereas watching this 1931 version didn't leave a huge impression on the viewers - didn't see anyone covertly reaching for the tissue when the lights came on! There are some obvious reasons why this original version is nowhere near as good.
The first and foremost reason is that the boy who idolizes 'The Champ' (Jackie Cooper), doesn't evoke much sympathy. He's loud mouthed and kind of coarse. When with his other friends, he comes off as kind of a brat. He brazenly steals from his mother the first time he visits her, and it's almost as if he's too big for the role - he's just not that cute. And how could you be with a name like 'Dink'? Compare this to the Schroeder version. Ricky Schroeder, a virtual unknown when he did the picture, was tough, a back-talker, yes, but charming. His idolatry of his father, the Champ, generated genuine pathos, time after time and scene after scene. Without a sympathetic child character the movie has lost most of its might.
Second reason this picture fails by comparison is "The Champ" himself - played by Wallace Beery. Beery doesn't have anything of the elegant wasted charm or the sophistication of Jon Voight's portrayal of a drunken gambler with a love for his child. Now granted these two pictures are from vastly different eras, but whereas Voight came off as a father whose vagabond charm just seems convincing enough to warrant A) the boys idolatry and B) the audiences sympathy, the Beery portrayal is almost silly. Beery looks like he'd never spent 10 minutes in a real boxing ring. His boxing antics are reminiscent of the 3 Stooges. To be blunt, he's fat and clumsy looking. He's still more likeable than the boy though, which is saying very little, regardless of whether Jackie Cooper was at one time a Little Rascal.
Then there's the setting. I could be wrong but I thought the 70s version took place in Miami or something. The film was drenched in a world of horseracing, gambling and boxing. to it
Finally, there's t the actingCompared just comes off as kind of flat and occasionally wooden (especially if you've seen the 70s version prior to this). Of course the 1931 version reflects a different time and mentality, not only in culture and acting standards, but in direction and movie production. Movie stars and movies hadn't reached the level of realism and maturity that had become standard fare by time the movie industry had grown over 40 years and especially since it had gone through the late 50s, the 60s, and the Hollywood 'new wave' of the early 70s. Granted it is perhaps unfair to compare the sophistication of late-70s movie-making, acting and directing with that of 1931. But make no mistake about which is a better movie if we do compare them.
After reading the glowing reviews on this listing, I came to this movie with high hopes, and admittedly a certain amount of disbeleif that ANY version could be much better than the one with Voight and Schroeder at the peak of their powers. Nor were my initial doubts unfounded. Plainly, this movie suffers from lack of pathos and sympathy for the two main characters. Without that, the film just isn't a masterpiece. Though I'm sure it went over well with 1931 audiences. It's basic story line would still have been enough to have impressed an audience without 50 years of cinema under their belt - and who hadn't seen the 70s version first.