Theatrical Review of Resurrecting the Champ

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

I was asked what "Resurrecting the Champ" was about. "It´s a boxing movie" is the simple answer. The more complex one, though, is it´s about redemption, taking responsibility, living up to a legacy and being honest. Playing out in both the boxing and journalism worlds, the film based on a Los Angeles Times Magazine story follows a Denver Times sports reporter (Josh Hartnett) as he tells the story of a bum he believes is the legendary boxer Bob Satterfield.

Erik Kernan (Hartnett) is desperately trying to live up to the reputation of his boxing announcer father, who walked out on him and his mother at a young age. He´s stuck covering boxing matches which get minimal approval from his editor; he says the pieces lack personality. So when Erik happens upon kids beating up a bum (Sam Jackson) in an alley, the reporter takes a liking to the man who claims to have been a famous fighter. After a piece revealing Satterfield´s plight to the world is published and Erik lands a cushy gig with Showtime, the foundation of the story crumbles.

There is one fatal flaw in "Resurrecting the Champ": the shoddy investigative journalism and editing done by the so-called journalists in the movie. While talking to the boxer, Kernan is asked not speak with his wife for some forgettable reason. He does try, in his defense, to talk to Bob Satterfield, Jr. (Harry J. Lennix from "The Matrix" films), only to be hung up on. But the enterprising reporter apparently writes an entire feature length story using quotes from only one person. No experts, no family, no friends, no colleagues. That should have been a massive red flag to one of the magazine´s head honchos, Whitley (David Paymer). It never is, sadly.

Now, let´s stop for just a minute. This is based on a true story, which is another problem, though less serious than the craptastic journalism. As with all reality-based films, certain events have to happen or else the picture is no longer based in fact. As a film lover, I can forgive that. But as a journalist, I find myself thinking there is no excuse for what happens on screen.

Erik, we´re reminded again and again, is hell bent on living up to his father´s reputation and making sure his son Teddy reveres him as a god. The issue is that he will literally do anything-lie, mostly-to ensure both of these things. We know he´s setting himself up for a fall early on, when he tells Teddy Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway is a close friend and he golfed with Mohammad Ali. Teddy recounts both of these stories to his classmates during parent career day and…well, you can guess the inevitable outcomes.

Why is it out of the realm of possibility he´d lie about his writing if he´s willing to lie to his child? And what else would he exaggerate to make himself look good?

When coupled with the boxing storyline, "Resurrecting the Champ" is all about lying. In this case-and without giving too much away-Satterfield had lied for decades, managing to keep the lie in check; Erik can barely hold it together for three weeks, if that long. To say much more about the plot would be to spoil what will come as a shock to some people. It really shouldn´t; anyone with a brain engaged and see the finale coming a mile away.

Despite that, you want to think the accusations being leveled at Erik are false. He´s not purposely lying or doing wrong; he´s caught up in the story, the idea and the man Satterfield purports to be. It´s one of the pitfalls of journalism: getting too close to the story, failing to look at it objectively.

Up until now, I´ve only made cursory mentions of Sam Jackson as the man they call Champ. As with every new role he takes on, he never ceases to amaze and rivet our attention to the screen. It´s nearly impossible to imagine he´s never won an Oscar. This seems to be his best shot, especially with his stuttering, bopping and weaving Champ. We know it´s Jackson underneath the dreads and the old age makeup but we never quite believe it is.

This isn´t a typical Jackson role like his "Snakes on a Plane" or "Pulp Fiction" aliases. Champ is a man who believes the bill of goods he´s selling with his entire soul. He´s the ostensible villain of the piece, yet we never quite work up any level of animosity toward him. He´s a pitiful character more than anything else.

Hartnett is a minor revelation here, just as Ryan Phillippe was in "Breach" earlier this year. Aside from a head full of hair he should have cut three months ago, the perpetual pretty boy grows up, taking on a more adult role for the first time. Jackson props him up in their scenes together because, lets face it, there are precious few actors who can match him…and Hartnett isn´t one of them. But in his scenes with other actors, he more than holds his own.

One other nitpicky journalism thing about the film: Erik gets off with entirely too light a punishment at the end. Considering his "crime" and the severity of it, you expect a different finale. But, again, "Resurrecting the Champ" had to adhere to the real life story, if this is indeed how it happened.

There are moments the film feels like its running off the rails into sentimentality. A long exchange between Jackson and Hartnett on a curb is a case in point. The story stalls and the momentum it has up until this point is all but lost in a drawn out conversation about fathers and why we do what we do. Directed by Rod Lurie ("The Contender," TV´s "Commander in Chief"), there is something to be said to put the camera in one place, allowing the actors to act. In this particular scene-one of the worst Hartnett and Jackson share-neither does a whole lot except retell a story. It´s deadly boring.

"Resurrecting the Champ" scores a 6 out of 10, maybe higher if I didn´t know how journalists are supposed to do their jobs. Adjust accordingly.

---

---