When you see the name Dwayne Johnson, you might think of big-budget blockbusters, larger-than-life characters and outsized charisma. But in the October 2025 sports biopic The Smashing Machine, directed by Benny Safdie, Johnson steps away from his typical role and delivers his most vulnerable, complex performance yet. The film tells the rise and fall of real-life MMA pioneer Mark Kerr (nicknamed ‘The Smashing Machine’), and aims to offer more and introspection than gladiatorial spectacle.

The story

The film is set in the late ‘90s, when fighter Mark Kerr is dominating the early days of mixed martial arts, an unglamorous, brutal world before the sport became mainstream. From his triumphs in the ring to his struggle with painkiller addiction and the toll it takes on his personal life, the film juxtaposes public triumph and private breakdown. In particular, Kerr’s relationship with his then-girlfriend Dawn (portrayed by Emily Blunt) is depicted as increasingly toxic, showing how his losses outside the cage were as consequential as any opponent inside it.

What works

• Johnson’s transformation. The main strength of the film is Johnson’s character arc as Kerr. Across the course of the film, Kerr begins to shed his familiar persona to become a man who can both destroy opponents and be destroyed by his own demons. Watching Johnson in this context is a refreshing change, and he grants the character a reserved, quiet exterior that hides fierce internal conflict.
• 
  Atmosphere over formula. Director Benny Safdie steers away from the typical ‘underdog rises to victory’ structure. Instead the film feels more observational, even documentary-inspired, with fight scenes filmed from outside the ring or above, and long silences that let the weight of Kerr’s world be felt. The audience gets the feeling that this is not just about punches and wins, but about what the wins cost.
• 
  Supporting cast and authenticity. Real-life MMA figures (such as Bas Rutten and Ryan Bader) appear in the film, lending it texture and credibility. The depiction of a nascent  MMA scene:  its chaos and underground vibe is interesting to see

What doesn’t quite land

• Pacing and emotional payoff. Because the film avoids certain sports-movie tropes, some viewers say it lacks the dramatic crescendo or emotional catharsis we expect. The rise-fall-redemption arc gets muted, and at times the narrative feels under-developed. For high-school viewers used to clear-cut stories, this may feel more ambiguous or slow.
• 
  Limited character depth outside of Kerr. While Kerr is portrayed with complexity and depth, other characters (including Emily Blunt’s Dawn) sometimes feel more like companions to his story rather than fully developed characters.
• 
  Expectation vs experience. If you go in expecting Rocky-esque wall-to-wall fight sequences, triumphant training montages and a clear victory lap, you’ll likely leave disappointed. The film is less about the spectacle of fighting and more about the physical/emotional cost of it. 

Why you might want to see it

• It’s about identity and sacrifice, not just competition. Kerr wins inside the ring but loses a lot outside it. The theme resonates: what do we lose when we chase success?
• It’s a strong actor’s piece, and shows how one performer (Dwayne Johnson) can shift gears and surprise us. For fans of drama, this is a (mostly) new side of him.
• It raises tough questions: What does it mean to be a “machine” built for fighting? At what cost do we push ourselves? The film opens up conversations about ambition, physical pain, and mental health, subjects very relevant in today’s world.
• It expands the basic sports movie idea. If you love movies about competition, this is a fresh take. Instead of only “will he win?”, the film asks “what happens after the win?”.

A few disclaimers

• Because the film isn’t as conventional, the ending may be unsatisfying. The resolution is quieter than expected, and leaves Kerr’s life somewhat unresolved.
• The fight scenes are intense and raw, quite unlike the glamorous victories shown in the Creed or Rocky films. If you’re not comfortable with violence or depiction of addiction, it could be a hard watch.
• It demands attention. This isn’t a ‘casual watch’ sports film: it’s slower, moodier, and more contemplative.

A Student Review

Academic Magnet senior (and fellow Talon staff writer) Keon Ghafari saw The Smashing Machine in theaters this past month. In his own words, “It was a very good movie. I liked the cinematography and I feel like The Rock broke out of his usual shell for this role.” As he stated, Keon really, really seemed to enjoy the film, so it may be a good movie night pick for other Magnet students to watch as well.

Final verdict

On a scale from A-F, I would give The Smashing Machine a solid B+. It’s strong, often remarkable, and absolutely worth seeing, especially for its central performance and its willingness to dig deeper than the average sports drama. However, it stops short of being fully unforgettable or flawless: the emotional side of the story often feels somewhat forced, and the narrative leaves out some core details of Mark Kerr’s life.

For the larger Academic Magnet student body, this could be a meaningful watch. Not just for the sport or the celebrities, but for the human story. If you’re interested in what it looks like when you win big but still feel broken, this film offers a rare glimpse. I wouldn’t go so far as to compare The Smashing Machine to the Michael Jordan series (titled The Last Dance), but for anyone even remotely interested in sports I would recommend it.