Filmspotting Forum

Filmspotting Message Boards => Movie Talk (Spoiler Edition) => Topic started by: Clovis8 on December 31, 2008, 02:33:41 PM

Title: The Wrestler
Post by: Clovis8 on December 31, 2008, 02:33:41 PM
Wow. Its now cliche to say that Rouke gives the performance of a lifetime. It is nonetheless completely true. In my opinion he is a lock for the best actor Oscar. There was not another performance even close this year, including Ledger in TDK. I for one could not care less about wrestling, but I gained a new respect for it after watching this movie. I liked the movie alot, but I think without Rouke's performance it would not be nearly as great. I don't think it will make my top 5, but it is worth a viewing for sure. It has a great ending.

P.S. anyone on the forum know about wrestling? Is the violence in the movie real? I always thought wrestling was way more fake. Fake blood, fake hits etc, but in the movie it is all so real.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Bill Thompson on December 31, 2008, 03:06:02 PM
The blood is real, it's a long tradition that they cut themselves with razor blades, although sometimes they bleed the natural way without any help from a razor. They do learn how to fall, but even the most rudimentary of bumps, when they fall, can mess you up. Hits from steel chairs, tables, glass, etc.. is all real, although they will use cheaper chairs to lessen the impact and pre-cut the tables to lessen the impact there. Not all the time mind you, some guys prefer to do everything for real, others don't care if some things are gimmicked up.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Sheepboy on January 01, 2009, 11:57:25 PM
I got around to seeing this a few nights ago and really enjoyed it, although it had it's flaws. I really liked the understated direction and simple approach Aronofsky took here and thought it largely worked.

Rourke is getting a lot of acclaim for his performance and rightly so. Even though some may say Randy the Ram isn't too far off some of the circumstances and situations that's dogged his career he still elevates it from being a pure pity party. I was also surprised how violent and graphic some of the images were, it certainly had me cringing at times.

The biggest problem I had with the film was both the female roles with Tomei and Wood either feel undercooked or in the case with the latter simply fall flat on it's face. While Rourke gets the bulk of screen time as we follow the character through the minutiae of his activities the same attention isn't given to the rest of the cast and in the end I had problems believing the motivations and actions Tomei's character made near the end, trying to reconcile and get together with Randy. That felt somewhat hollow.

Still despite a very simplistic story, a forgettable performance by Evan Rachel Wood (Who for the record was brilliant in Down in the Valley) I appreciated how the film didn't pull any punches and walked away pretty satisfied.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: NedMeier on January 10, 2009, 05:54:15 PM
I caught The Wrestler this afternoon. It just opened in Michigan today. I loved it. I agree with just about everyone in the world Mickey Rourke's performance was amazing. I also loved the little wrestling touches. I was a huge WWF fan in the 80's. The Nintendo game was hilarious.

P.S.
Did anyone catch during beginning magazine and poster montage, one of the tag-teams that was wrestling on the undercard was Mr. Pink and Mr. White?
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: FroHam X on January 14, 2009, 07:35:45 PM
My review of The Wrestler (http://hamsterfactor.blogspot.com/2009/01/wrestler.html)
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: gateway on January 18, 2009, 07:39:41 PM
Just saw this today, and aside from Rourke's performance I have to say it seemed like a pretty  by-the-numbers redemption story. But that's a big "aside from." Rourke is really great here, I wouldn't say it's the best performance of the year (I still put Frank Langella in that spot), but he is definitely in my top 5. He elevates this film by at least one star, maybe even two. But I have to agree with Adam and Matty, the screenplay here is pretty basic territory that has been visited numerous times before and Siegel doesn't really add anything new to this story. And the supporting cast, specifically Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood in the only two major supporting roles, are basically the same way: they do their job, but there's nothing special about them whatsoever (I will say though that I did like Ernest Miller in a brief appearance at the end as the Ayatollah). But in the end, that doesn't make The Wrestler a bad movie. Rouke's performance makes the movie good, but if he'd had a little help, this could have been one of the best films of the year.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: FLYmeatwad on January 18, 2009, 09:02:29 PM
Just saw this today, and aside from Rourke's performance I have to say it seemed like a pretty  by-the-numbers redemption story. But that's a big "aside from." Rourke is really great here, I wouldn't say it's the best performance of the year (I still put Frank Langella in that spot), but he is definitely in my top 5. He elevates this film by at least one star, maybe even two. But I have to agree with Adam and Matty, the screenplay here is pretty basic territory that has been visited numerous times before and Siegel doesn't really add anything new to this story. And the supporting cast, specifically Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood in the only two major supporting roles, are basically the same way: they do their job, but there's nothing special about them whatsoever (I will say though that I did like Ernest Miller in a brief appearance at the end as the Ayatollah). But in the end, that doesn't make The Wrestler a bad movie. Rouke's performance makes the movie good, but if he'd had a little help, this could have been one of the best films of the year.

I think it was one of the best films of the year, but I also think you are spot on in just about everything you wrote, aside from Langella being better than Rourke. I think that Aronofsky also put in enough to give the movie a feel of its own, which helped me give it the extra points on top of Rourke's work in the main role. It was mostly by the numbers, Wood and Tomei were not spectacular, but I thought it was all executed perfectly. I see The Wrestler a lot like I see Milk, nothing transcendent in the genre, but a perfection of the genre standard. And while it is likely an unpopular opinion, I watched The Wrestler and immediately felt that this film is what Rocky should be.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: kizik on January 18, 2009, 11:59:36 PM
I was disappointed by the lack of back-story in this film. All you English Lit majors (I am also one) out there might tell me that more back-story = more boring. But I didn't have enough info to be fully invested in the story. Where is Stephanie's mom? Why did The Ram "fall from grace"? Was he simply too beaten up to continue wrestling during the 90s, or was there some kind of downfall?

The film lacked sufficient action for me. While its stylistic sparsity was refreshing, it fell short of being compelling.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: FroHam X on January 19, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
I was disappointed by the lack of back-story in this film. All you English Lit majors (I am also one) out there might tell me that more back-story = more boring. But I didn't have enough info to be fully invested in the story. Where is Stephanie's mom? Why did The Ram "fall from grace"? Was he simply too beaten up to continue wrestling during the 90s, or was there some kind of downfall?

The film lacked sufficient action for me. While its stylistic sparsity was refreshing, it fell short of being compelling.

Wrong.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: edgar00 on January 19, 2009, 01:06:11 AM
I was disappointed by the lack of back-story in this film. All you English Lit majors (I am also one) out there might tell me that more back-story = more boring. But I didn't have enough info to be fully invested in the story. Where is Stephanie's mom? Why did The Ram "fall from grace"? Was he simply too beaten up to continue wrestling during the 90s, or was there some kind of downfall?

The film lacked sufficient action for me. While its stylistic sparsity was refreshing, it fell short of being compelling.

Wrong.

Agreeing with frosty.

How embarrassing.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: FroHam X on January 19, 2009, 01:08:54 AM
Agreeing with frosty.

How embarrassing.

I'm not that bad. Am I?
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: duder on January 19, 2009, 06:17:35 AM
I was disappointed by the lack of back-story in this film. All you English Lit majors (I am also one) out there might tell me that more back-story = more boring. But I didn't have enough info to be fully invested in the story. Where is Stephanie's mom? Why did The Ram "fall from grace"? Was he simply too beaten up to continue wrestling during the 90s, or was there some kind of downfall?

The film lacked sufficient action for me. While its stylistic sparsity was refreshing, it fell short of being compelling.

Wrong.

Agreeing with frosty.

Seriously.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: skjerva on January 19, 2009, 09:11:13 AM
seriously?  people feel the need for backstory in this one?  no way. 

(the following is not a defense of not needing backstory :) )

i'm playing with the idea that this is a critique of Reagan-era politics.  Reagan the performer, as conservatives love to claim, pretends to be about the working class stiff.  working class stiffs are pretending that everything is (mostly) okay (just as, by-and-large, they were doing in the 80s).  the working class stiffs, here performing - and performing soul-bearing labor - are not only not getting ahead, but seemingly losing ground - their making believe is killing them.  the 90s, which sucked, in the film represented by the whiney Cobain-type, is an era of sincerity, uncertainty, and being knowingly messed-up. even if the complaints are true, people don't want to hear them, they just want to party and pretend like everything is okay (and make do with what is known)

i don't know, something like that maybe
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Bill Thompson on January 19, 2009, 09:34:39 AM
It's a critique of the wrestling business, that is all.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: skjerva on January 19, 2009, 09:50:51 AM
ha  :)
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: zarodinu on January 19, 2009, 10:48:20 AM
I'm playing with the idea that this is a critique of Reagan-era politics.  Reagan the performer, as conservatives love to claim, pretends to be about the working class stiff.  working class stiffs are pretending that everything is (mostly) okay (just as, by-and-large, they were doing in the 80s).  the working class stiffs, here performing - and performing soul-bearing labor - are not only not getting ahead, but seemingly losing ground - their making believe is killing them.  the 90s, which sucked, in the film represented by the whiney Cobain-type, is an era of sincerity, uncertainty, and being knowingly messed-up. even if the complaints are true, people don't want to hear them, they just want to party and pretend like everything is okay (and make do with what is known)

I'm playing with the idea that the movie is a scathing attack on Bill Clinton.  The Ram is a performer, much like the the career politician and pathological liar Clinton.  His former days of glory (being president) are replaced by aimless wondering around (post-presidency).  The stripper character is Monika Lewinsky to whom he is attracted sexually but who ends up leaving him.  Ram's attempt to patch things up with his daughter is symbolic of Clinton trying to patch up his marriage with Hillary.  Here, the actresses bad acting is a satirical play on Hillary's lack of appeal that cost her the presidency.  The Ram's attempts to recapture glory are symbolic of Clinton trying to return to the white house on the coattails of his wife.

Hmmm, I think this can be expended into a PhD paper.       
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: edgar00 on January 19, 2009, 10:54:09 AM
I'm playing with the idea that this is a critique of Reagan-era politics.  Reagan the performer, as conservatives love to claim, pretends to be about the working class stiff.  working class stiffs are pretending that everything is (mostly) okay (just as, by-and-large, they were doing in the 80s).  the working class stiffs, here performing - and performing soul-bearing labor - are not only not getting ahead, but seemingly losing ground - their making believe is killing them.  the 90s, which sucked, in the film represented by the whiney Cobain-type, is an era of sincerity, uncertainty, and being knowingly messed-up. even if the complaints are true, people don't want to hear them, they just want to party and pretend like everything is okay (and make do with what is known)

I'm playing with the idea that the movie is a scathing attack on Bill Clinton.  The Ram is a performer, much like the the career politician and pathological liar Clinton.  His former days of glory (being president) are replaced by aimless wondering around (post-presidency).  The stripper character is Monika Lewinsky to whom he is attracted sexually but who ends up leaving him.  Ram's attempt to patch things up with his daughter is symbolic of Clinton trying to patch up his marriage with Hillary.  Here, the actresses bad acting is a satirical play on Hillary's lack of appeal that cost her the presidency.  The Ram's attempts to recapture glory are symbolic of Clinton trying to return to the white house on the coattails of his wife.

Hmmm, I think this can be expended into a PhD paper.       

I feel ashamed I hadn't thought about it earlier.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: philip918 on January 19, 2009, 11:05:51 AM
I'm playing with the idea that this is a critique of Reagan-era politics.  Reagan the performer, as conservatives love to claim, pretends to be about the working class stiff.  working class stiffs are pretending that everything is (mostly) okay (just as, by-and-large, they were doing in the 80s).  the working class stiffs, here performing - and performing soul-bearing labor - are not only not getting ahead, but seemingly losing ground - their making believe is killing them.  the 90s, which sucked, in the film represented by the whiney Cobain-type, is an era of sincerity, uncertainty, and being knowingly messed-up. even if the complaints are true, people don't want to hear them, they just want to party and pretend like everything is okay (and make do with what is known)

I'm playing with the idea that the movie is a scathing attack on Bill Clinton.  The Ram is a performer, much like the the career politician and pathological liar Clinton.  His former days of glory (being president) are replaced by aimless wondering around (post-presidency).  The stripper character is Monika Lewinsky to whom he is attracted sexually but who ends up leaving him.  Ram's attempt to patch things up with his daughter is symbolic of Clinton trying to patch up his marriage with Hillary.  Here, the actresses bad acting is a satirical play on Hillary's lack of appeal that cost her the presidency.  The Ram's attempts to recapture glory are symbolic of Clinton trying to return to the white house on the coattails of his wife.

Hmmm, I think this can be expended into a PhD paper.       

I feel ashamed I hadn't thought about it earlier.

I think you can certainly draw some parallels to 80s through contemporary American politics - I mean, his nemesis is the Ayatollah for crying out loud.  The Bill Clinton idea is just plain silly, sorry.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: íKeith! on January 19, 2009, 11:14:27 AM
I'm playing with the idea that this is a critique of Reagan-era politics.  Reagan the performer, as conservatives love to claim, pretends to be about the working class stiff.  working class stiffs are pretending that everything is (mostly) okay (just as, by-and-large, they were doing in the 80s).  the working class stiffs, here performing - and performing soul-bearing labor - are not only not getting ahead, but seemingly losing ground - their making believe is killing them.  the 90s, which sucked, in the film represented by the whiney Cobain-type, is an era of sincerity, uncertainty, and being knowingly messed-up. even if the complaints are true, people don't want to hear them, they just want to party and pretend like everything is okay (and make do with what is known)

I'm playing with the idea that the movie is a scathing attack on Bill Clinton.  The Ram is a performer, much like the the career politician and pathological liar Clinton.  His former days of glory (being president) are replaced by aimless wondering around (post-presidency).  The stripper character is Monika Lewinsky to whom he is attracted sexually but who ends up leaving him.  Ram's attempt to patch things up with his daughter is symbolic of Clinton trying to patch up his marriage with Hillary.  Here, the actresses bad acting is a satirical play on Hillary's lack of appeal that cost her the presidency.  The Ram's attempts to recapture glory are symbolic of Clinton trying to return to the white house on the coattails of his wife.

Hmmm, I think this can be expended into a PhD paper.       

I feel ashamed I hadn't thought about it earlier.

I think you can certainly draw some parallels to 80s through contemporary American politics - I mean, his nemesis is the Ayatollah for crying out loud.  The Bill Clinton idea is just plain silly, sorry.

Thought that was the intent?

Also the Ayatollah is a reference to real life wrestler The Iron Sheik - see Bigger, Stronger, Faster* for that story.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: kizik on January 19, 2009, 03:47:08 PM
I was disappointed by the lack of back-story in this film. All you English Lit majors (I am also one) out there might tell me that more back-story = more boring. But I didn't have enough info to be fully invested in the story. Where is Stephanie's mom? Why did The Ram "fall from grace"? Was he simply too beaten up to continue wrestling during the 90s, or was there some kind of downfall?

The film lacked sufficient action for me. While its stylistic sparsity was refreshing, it fell short of being compelling.

Wrong.

I read and commented on your review of Button. The least you can do is elaborate on why you disagree with me without being rude.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: FroHam X on January 19, 2009, 04:11:02 PM
I was disappointed by the lack of back-story in this film. All you English Lit majors (I am also one) out there might tell me that more back-story = more boring. But I didn't have enough info to be fully invested in the story. Where is Stephanie's mom? Why did The Ram "fall from grace"? Was he simply too beaten up to continue wrestling during the 90s, or was there some kind of downfall?

The film lacked sufficient action for me. While its stylistic sparsity was refreshing, it fell short of being compelling.

Wrong.

I read and commented on your review of Button. The least you can do is elaborate on why you disagree with me without being rude.

Sorry if I came off as rude. I had my tongue firmly in cheek. Anyway. I really don't think that the film needed a back-story. I was actually impressed that it didn't have one. The film just expects that you understand this is what happens to many similar celebrities, and it is fairly obvious that whatever happened with Stephanie's mother it wasn't pretty.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: jbissell on January 19, 2009, 04:13:48 PM
And the supporting cast, specifically Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood in the only two major supporting roles, are basically the same way: they do their job, but there's nothing special about them whatsoever

I was just listening to Kermode's review and I thought he made a really great point about Tomei that I really hadn't considered.  He says that she's vital to the film because she is an example of a performer who understands that she's not quite what she used to be and is able to seperate the performance aspect from her personal life, something that Randy clearly hasn't been able to achieve.

I was disappointed by the lack of back-story in this film. All you English Lit majors (I am also one) out there might tell me that more back-story = more boring. But I didn't have enough info to be fully invested in the story. Where is Stephanie's mom? Why did The Ram "fall from grace"? Was he simply too beaten up to continue wrestling during the 90s, or was there some kind of downfall?

Considering the fact that he was big in the mid-80s, and I have no reason to believe the film takes place in any time but the present, I think it's pretty safe to assume that he's just gotten too old.  I don't watch wrestling much these days but it seems that the options for the older stars are pretty limited and for someone without any other skills, it's the only thing he knows how to do well.  If they make it back to the big leagues, it's generally nothing more than a nostalgia grab (see Hulk Hogan or any of the numerous wrestlers that the WWE has brought back in recent years that can't match the physicality of today's stars).  I don't necessarily think that more back-story would've been boring, I just don't think it's necessary at all.  How would knowing more about her mother add to the story?  I'm glad that the story allowed me to fill in the blanks about what happened to his career and life.  
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Clovis8 on January 19, 2009, 04:15:32 PM
I have no idea why but I assumed the mother killed herself or OD'd. Seemed to make sense to me in the context of the movie.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: FroHam X on January 19, 2009, 04:24:29 PM
I have no idea why but I assumed the mother killed herself or OD'd. Seemed to make sense to me in the context of the movie.

That was one possibility I considered.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: kizik on January 19, 2009, 04:28:40 PM
I have no idea why but I assumed the mother killed herself or OD'd. Seemed to make sense to me in the context of the movie.

That was one possibility I considered.

I can see both sides. Thanks froham for elaborating. For me, a needed a bit more. Otherwise, I do think it's a great film. But I agree with the voicemailer on the show who said that Rourke's performance was certainly good, but not worth the huge praise it's getting.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: jbissell on January 19, 2009, 04:31:58 PM
But I agree with the voicemailer on the show who said that Rourke's performance was certainly good, but not worth the huge praise it's getting.

I understand that a lot of this performance comes down to the right man at the right time but I don't think that fact should take away anything from his performance.  To anyone who wasn't that impressed with him, I'm wondering what exactly they are looking for in a performance.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: kizik on January 19, 2009, 05:04:10 PM
Perhaps my ambivalence is due in part to exactly the circumstances you describe. When the part is so close to the plight or life of an actor, it's less of a performance than using the screen as a sort of confessional. Imagine Robert Downey Jr. playing a drug-addled movie star. You might give him acclaim because he's so in tune to the character, having lived it. But in my eyes, it's not so much acting as it is remembering what it's like to be that person. Same with Rourke. 
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: FroHam X on January 19, 2009, 05:06:52 PM
Perhaps my ambivalence is due in part to exactly the circumstances you describe. When the part is so close to the plight or life of an actor, it's less of a performance than using the screen as a sort of confessional. Imagine Robert Downey Jr. playing a drug-addled movie star. You might give him acclaim because he's so in tune to the character, having lived it. But in my eyes, it's not so much acting as it is remembering what it's like to be that person. Same with Rourke. 

But I don't buy that, as I said in my review. Rourke may have lived through similar situations, but it takes an incredible performance to convey that kind of emotion and pain.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Junior on January 19, 2009, 05:07:35 PM
For me a performance is about believability within the world of the film. Daniel Day Lewis' performance in TWBB last year was great because it was over the top in a way that fit in with the rest of the film. The Wrestler is a very "real" story and Rourke's performance is very real, partially because he lived a version of it. As long as I believe he really is a washed up wrestler I consider it a good performance.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: íKeith! on January 19, 2009, 06:04:37 PM
Perhaps my ambivalence is due in part to exactly the circumstances you describe. When the part is so close to the plight or life of an actor, it's less of a performance than using the screen as a sort of confessional. Imagine Robert Downey Jr. playing a drug-addled movie star. You might give him acclaim because he's so in tune to the character, having lived it. But in my eyes, it's not so much acting as it is remembering what it's like to be that person. Same with Rourke. 

but that is what acting is is it not (at least acording to some schools... Matty?)  finding something in a character that you can internalize and draw upon your own experiences to then bring forth on stage/screen/mirror/street corner/wherever.  If you happen to have an even greater insight to the part due to yr own circumstances then all the better and more real for the audience.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: edgar00 on January 19, 2009, 06:11:55 PM
Perhaps my ambivalence is due in part to exactly the circumstances you describe. When the part is so close to the plight or life of an actor, it's less of a performance than using the screen as a sort of confessional. Imagine Robert Downey Jr. playing a drug-addled movie star. You might give him acclaim because he's so in tune to the character, having lived it. But in my eyes, it's not so much acting as it is remembering what it's like to be that person. Same with Rourke. 

but that is what acting is is it not (at least acording to some schools... Matty?)  finding something in a character that you can internalize and draw upon your own experiences to then bring forth on stage/screen/mirror/street corner/wherever.  If you happen to have an even greater insight to the part due to yr own circumstances then all the better and more real for the audience.

I was about to get into the conversation but Keith said it best. I don't see what more you could ask for if an actor successfully draws upon personal knowledge or experience in order to inhabit their character on film.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: jbissell on January 19, 2009, 06:41:36 PM
Perhaps my ambivalence is due in part to exactly the circumstances you describe. When the part is so close to the plight or life of an actor, it's less of a performance than using the screen as a sort of confessional. Imagine Robert Downey Jr. playing a drug-addled movie star. You might give him acclaim because he's so in tune to the character, having lived it. But in my eyes, it's not so much acting as it is remembering what it's like to be that person. Same with Rourke. 

but that is what acting is is it not (at least acording to some schools... Matty?)  finding something in a character that you can internalize and draw upon your own experiences to then bring forth on stage/screen/mirror/street corner/wherever.  If you happen to have an even greater insight to the part due to yr own circumstances then all the better and more real for the audience.

I was about to get into the conversation but Keith said it best. I don't see what more you could ask for if an actor successfully draws upon personal knowledge or experience in order to inhabit their character on film.

Couldn't agree more.  That's why I'm confused when people aren't impressed with his work.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: kizik on January 19, 2009, 06:49:19 PM
Perhaps my ambivalence is due in part to exactly the circumstances you describe. When the part is so close to the plight or life of an actor, it's less of a performance than using the screen as a sort of confessional. Imagine Robert Downey Jr. playing a drug-addled movie star. You might give him acclaim because he's so in tune to the character, having lived it. But in my eyes, it's not so much acting as it is remembering what it's like to be that person. Same with Rourke. 

but that is what acting is is it not (at least acording to some schools... Matty?)  finding something in a character that you can internalize and draw upon your own experiences to then bring forth on stage/screen/mirror/street corner/wherever.  If you happen to have an even greater insight to the part due to yr own circumstances then all the better and more real for the audience.

I was about to get into the conversation but Keith said it best. I don't see what more you could ask for if an actor successfully draws upon personal knowledge or experience in order to inhabit their character on film.

Couldn't agree more.  That's why I'm confused when people aren't impressed with his work.

I liked this performance, but actually liked his Marv in Sin City better. Oh well. You're talking to the only person on the planet who didn't like Man on Wire. I don't mind being unpopular. 
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: íKeith! on January 19, 2009, 07:30:36 PM
Perhaps my ambivalence is due in part to exactly the circumstances you describe. When the part is so close to the plight or life of an actor, it's less of a performance than using the screen as a sort of confessional. Imagine Robert Downey Jr. playing a drug-addled movie star. You might give him acclaim because he's so in tune to the character, having lived it. But in my eyes, it's not so much acting as it is remembering what it's like to be that person. Same with Rourke. 

but that is what acting is is it not (at least acording to some schools... Matty?)  finding something in a character that you can internalize and draw upon your own experiences to then bring forth on stage/screen/mirror/street corner/wherever.  If you happen to have an even greater insight to the part due to yr own circumstances then all the better and more real for the audience.

I was about to get into the conversation but Keith said it best. I don't see what more you could ask for if an actor successfully draws upon personal knowledge or experience in order to inhabit their character on film.

Couldn't agree more.  That's why I'm confused when people aren't impressed with his work.

I liked this performance, but actually liked his Marv in Sin City better. Oh well. You're talking to the only person on the planet who didn't like Man on Wire. I don't mind being unpopular. 

don't be so hard on yrself kiz... there are like 4 or 5 of you Wire hating weirdos on this very board! ;D
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: jbissell on January 19, 2009, 07:33:58 PM
Perhaps my ambivalence is due in part to exactly the circumstances you describe. When the part is so close to the plight or life of an actor, it's less of a performance than using the screen as a sort of confessional. Imagine Robert Downey Jr. playing a drug-addled movie star. You might give him acclaim because he's so in tune to the character, having lived it. But in my eyes, it's not so much acting as it is remembering what it's like to be that person. Same with Rourke. 

but that is what acting is is it not (at least acording to some schools... Matty?)  finding something in a character that you can internalize and draw upon your own experiences to then bring forth on stage/screen/mirror/street corner/wherever.  If you happen to have an even greater insight to the part due to yr own circumstances then all the better and more real for the audience.

I was about to get into the conversation but Keith said it best. I don't see what more you could ask for if an actor successfully draws upon personal knowledge or experience in order to inhabit their character on film.

Couldn't agree more.  That's why I'm confused when people aren't impressed with his work.

I liked this performance, but actually liked his Marv in Sin City better. Oh well. You're talking to the only person on the planet who didn't like Man on Wire. I don't mind being unpopular. 

don't be so hard on yrself kiz... there are like 4 or 5 of you Wire hating weirdos on this very board! ;D

I think it's a lot more than that now.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: kizik on January 19, 2009, 08:07:57 PM
I think it's a lot more than that now.

Good to know that I'm not the only soul who isn't scared of upsetting the masses. I can see the angry mob marching towards Portland already...
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: zarodinu on January 22, 2009, 10:26:40 AM
I just watched The Wrestler and absolutely loved it, probably the second best movie of the year after Waltz with Bashir.  It conclusively proves that Aranofsky is not just a glorified editor, but a talented director that can make a great film even without flashy cinematography and quick edits.  Rourke is great, and you don't need to know the back story to appreciate the performance.  Its my favorite type of acting, not flashy or showy, he simply becomes the character.  I hate wrestling and never had an ounce of interest in the subject, but the movie made it look very interesting.  To think that Barton Fink couldn't write a movie that was about both Wrestling and the plight of the common man !

Also most of you are DEAD WRONG about Tomei's performance.  She just got nominated for supporting actress Oscar and I hope she wins, she was that good.  I may not know much about wrestling, but I am an expert when it comes to strippers, and she pulls off the tone and body language perfectly.  The faux friendliness, the fake smile, even the way she asks for the money as if she doesn't really want it, it is all perfect, and like Rouke she completely inhabits the character.  Also, whats wrong with the nudity?  These days, it seems like every time there is female nudity in a movie, people must go out of their way to justify why it was absolutely necessary, as if there is something wrong with it.  She is a stripper, she takes off her clothes, nothing more annoying than a movie with a covered up stripper *cough* Sin City *cough*

Great movie 9/10   
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Thor on January 22, 2009, 10:32:10 AM
I may not know much about wrestling, but I am an expert when it comes to strippers, and she pulls off the tone and body language perfectly. 


 ::)
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: gateway on January 22, 2009, 10:45:25 AM
The faux friendliness, the fake smile, even the way she asks for the money as if she doesn't really want it, it is all perfect, and like Rouke she completely inhabits the character. 


I just think pretty much any actress in Hollywood could have done the same thing in that role. Faux friendliness and a fake smile aren't exactly challenging things to pull off.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: zarodinu on January 22, 2009, 11:23:27 AM
The faux friendliness, the fake smile, even the way she asks for the money as if she doesn't really want it, it is all perfect, and like Rouke she completely inhabits the character. 

I just think pretty much any actress in Hollywood could have done the same thing in that role. Faux friendliness and a fake smile aren't exactly challenging things to pull off.

I disagree.  A stripper is an actor, and its always difficult for actors to play actors.  You have to portray both the characters acting, and the characters real emotions beneath the acting, its not easy and very rarely done well.  Tomei pulls it off great.  Just think of the scene where she gives Ram a lap dance, and he asks her how much he owes.  She simply replies "sixty", a one word answer, but the way she says it gives you so much more.  She captures the tone and body language that says "you know you are my friend, and I really hate to take money from you, I feel bad for even asking, but you should pay me just for looks"...  The fake humility and false friendliness, all with one single word.

So no, I don't think any actress could have pulled it off.  Just look at how sex workers are portrayed in movies, they are either lustful nymphomaniacs that love what they do, or helpless victims in need of rescue.  Granted I am sure both of these exist, most of the ones I met were neither one of those.  Most sex workers in the US are not helpless victims, or sex crazed seductresses, they are just professionals doing a job.  Tomei's performance is one of the best portrayals of a sex worker I have ever seen, and I think she deserves an Oscar for it.     
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Basil on January 22, 2009, 11:25:38 AM
Snubbed.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 22, 2009, 11:44:36 AM
I may not know much about wrestling, but I am an expert when it comes to strippers, and she pulls off the tone and body language perfectly. 


 ::)

I think you just went up about 100 points in my respecto-meter. ;)
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: zarodinu on January 22, 2009, 12:10:54 PM
I may not know much about wrestling, but I am an expert when it comes to strippers, and she pulls off the tone and body language perfectly. 

 ::)
I think you just went up about 100 points in my respecto-meter. ;)

Considering where I started, I could only go up.   ;D
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: kizik on January 22, 2009, 12:24:49 PM
I just think pretty much any actress in Hollywood could have done the same thing in that role. Faux friendliness and a fake smile aren't exactly challenging things to pull off.

How dare you.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: jbissell on January 22, 2009, 12:47:51 PM
I just think pretty much any actress in Hollywood could have done the same thing in that role. Faux friendliness and a fake smile aren't exactly challenging things to pull off.

Yeah but I'd have to agree with zarodinu.  I can think of plenty of awful stripper performances (by actresses, I'm not going to count actual strippers used in film) and very few convincing ones.  Just look at the list: Demi Moore, Lohan, Portman, etc.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Clovis8 on January 22, 2009, 12:51:34 PM
Portman, etc.

Portman was great.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: jbissell on January 22, 2009, 12:53:53 PM
Portman, etc.

Portman was great.

I should say I've not actually seen Closer, but I've seen clips of her as a stripper and I wasn't buying it at all.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: FroHam X on January 22, 2009, 01:16:35 PM
Portman, etc.

Portman was great.

I should say I've not actually seen Closer, but I've seen clips of her as a stripper and I wasn't buying it at all.

I was. She so sexy.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: pixote on January 22, 2009, 03:14:25 PM
I hate wrestling and never had an ounce of interest in the subject, but the movie made it look very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYFVXgObatg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYFVXgObatg)
pixote
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: gateway on January 22, 2009, 03:50:32 PM
I just think pretty much any actress in Hollywood could have done the same thing in that role. Faux friendliness and a fake smile aren't exactly challenging things to pull off.

Yeah but I'd have to agree with zarodinu.  I can think of plenty of awful stripper performances (by actresses, I'm not going to count actual strippers used in film) and very few convincing ones.  Just look at the list: Demi Moore, Lohan, Portman, etc.

By "pretty much any actress" I was basically referring to "any decently regarded actress," a group I don't think Moore and Lohan belong to (and I have to agree with Clovis that Portman was pretty good in Closer). And I don't really feel that Tomei should get any more credit for pulling off being a stripper than an actor does for pulling off a foreign accent. Does that take skill? Yeah, both take skill. But you don't get a good performance by merely doing a great accent, there's more to it than that. I don't really think Tomei brings that something extra to the role, unlike somebody like Mickey Rourke, who not only nails the wrestling aspect but the full life of the character.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: jbissell on January 22, 2009, 03:59:44 PM
I think you might be underestimating the willingess of many actresses to commit to that kind of role, especially with the amount of nudity it contained (obviously the Winslets, Julianne Moore, etc. are ok but not most).  After watching the film and reading people talk about her performance, I really think she's being underrated.  Not only does she do the whole stripper thing, but I was even more convinced by her life outside the club.  Her interaction with Rourke while shopping and while he's trying get her to go for a drink were really pretty great.  Now, I haven't seen a lot of the other supporting work that's getting recognition, but I think Tomei is definitely worth of being on a top 5.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Osprey on January 22, 2009, 07:46:36 PM
Just saw this, and liked it.  Rourke was extremely believable, the rest of the movie was a quite standard redemption/ one last score type movie but I thought it was good.  We never find out how he ended up the way he was in the movie, but I assume he made bad decisions and the money might not have been that great at the time anyway...

Anyone else see Brutus "The Barber" Beefcake credited as a consultant?  Was he the Iron Sheik's main rival back in the day?
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Bill Thompson on January 22, 2009, 09:08:36 PM
Nah, the Iron Sheik had two main rivals, first Bob Backlund and then Hulk Hogan. After Hogan beat him for the WWF title the Iron Sheik's heyday was over and he would spend the rest of his career as the token ethnic bad guy for wrestling like Hacksaw Jim Duggan, Junkyard Dog and the like.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Osprey on January 22, 2009, 09:16:57 PM
I really liked Brutus Beefcake for some reason, back in the day.  Guess that's something I have in common with Matty.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: jbissell on January 22, 2009, 09:31:45 PM
Nah, the Iron Sheik had two main rivals, first Bob Backlund and then Hulk Hogan. After Hogan beat him for the WWF title the Iron Sheik's heyday was over and he would spend the rest of his career as the token ethnic bad guy for wrestling like Hacksaw Jim Duggan, Junkyard Dog and the like.

I'll always most fondly remember him as Col. Mustafa.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Bill Thompson on January 22, 2009, 10:02:15 PM
Nah, the Iron Sheik had two main rivals, first Bob Backlund and then Hulk Hogan. After Hogan beat him for the WWF title the Iron Sheik's heyday was over and he would spend the rest of his career as the token ethnic bad guy for wrestling like Hacksaw Jim Duggan, Junkyard Dog and the like.

I'll always most fondly remember him as Col. Mustafa.

Man, I really need to stop reading this thread because it's bringing back all my old wrestling memories. I was a hardcore fanatic, I still have about 500 or so tapes, anywhere from 2-8 events per tape, everything from Lucha to old school AWA, WCCW, NWA to Pororesu to the WWWF. I still remember Terry Boulder for crying out loud, if anyone here knows who he eventually became.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: pixote on January 22, 2009, 10:13:33 PM
I still remember Terry Boulder for crying out loud, if anyone here knows who he eventually became.

I didn't know, but I guessed right just because Boulder sounded enough like Bollea.

pixote
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: jbissell on January 22, 2009, 10:17:09 PM
Nah, the Iron Sheik had two main rivals, first Bob Backlund and then Hulk Hogan. After Hogan beat him for the WWF title the Iron Sheik's heyday was over and he would spend the rest of his career as the token ethnic bad guy for wrestling like Hacksaw Jim Duggan, Junkyard Dog and the like.

I'll always most fondly remember him as Col. Mustafa.

Man, I really need to stop reading this thread because it's bringing back all my old wrestling memories. I was a hardcore fanatic, I still have about 500 or so tapes, anywhere from 2-8 events per tape, everything from Lucha to old school AWA, WCCW, NWA to Pororesu to the WWWF. I still remember Terry Boulder for crying out loud, if anyone here knows who he eventually became.

I never saw him under that name but he was definitely right in the center of my main viewing days, and I was always a WWF kid ('88-'94ish and then a few years in the early 2000s).  I was always more partial to Macho Man and Ultimate Warrior.  I actually made copies of the Wrestlemania Anthology set they came out with a few years back.  It's got the entire PPVs, with the between matches stuff and everything, a whole lot of fun.  They've also got a Royal Rumble and Summer Slam set I should check out.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: zarodinu on January 23, 2009, 12:03:05 PM
I can't believe the hacks in the academy have failed to nominate Wrestler for best feature, director, or screenplay.  What a pathetic snub, was it really necessary to nominate Frost/Nixon, Reader, and Benjamin Button for all of these?  If it wasn't for Slumdog, Wall-E, and Bashir, I wouldn't even bother watching.   
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: jbissell on January 23, 2009, 12:15:49 PM
I can't believe the hacks in the academy have failed to nominate Wrestler for best feature, director, or screenplay.  What a pathetic snub, was it really necessary to nominate Frost/Nixon, Reader, and Benjamin Button for all of these?  If it wasn't for Slumdog, Wall-E, and Bashir, I wouldn't even bother watching.   

You really shouldn't bother watching anyways.  At least record it if you do, so you can zip through it in like 20 min. instead of 4 hrs.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: íKeith! on January 23, 2009, 01:39:19 PM
I can't believe the hacks in the academy have failed to nominate Wrestler for best feature, director, or screenplay.  What a pathetic snub, was it really necessary to nominate Frost/Nixon, Reader, and Benjamin Button for all of these?  If it wasn't for Slumdog, Wall-E, and Bashir, I wouldn't even bother watching.   

You really shouldn't bother watching anyways.  At least record it if you do, so you can zip through it in like 20 min. instead of 4 hrs.

um... JACKMAN & DEAD PEOPLE... hello!
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 23, 2009, 04:25:30 PM
Nah, the Iron Sheik had two main rivals, first Bob Backlund and then Hulk Hogan. After Hogan beat him for the WWF title the Iron Sheik's heyday was over and he would spend the rest of his career as the token ethnic bad guy for wrestling like Hacksaw Jim Duggan, Junkyard Dog and the like.

I'll always most fondly remember him as Col. Mustafa.

Man, I really need to stop reading this thread because it's bringing back all my old wrestling memories. I was a hardcore fanatic, I still have about 500 or so tapes, anywhere from 2-8 events per tape, everything from Lucha to old school AWA, WCCW, NWA to Pororesu to the WWWF. I still remember Terry Boulder for crying out loud, if anyone here knows who he eventually became.

Didn't he become Hulk Hogan??
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Bill Thompson on January 23, 2009, 05:08:00 PM
Nah, the Iron Sheik had two main rivals, first Bob Backlund and then Hulk Hogan. After Hogan beat him for the WWF title the Iron Sheik's heyday was over and he would spend the rest of his career as the token ethnic bad guy for wrestling like Hacksaw Jim Duggan, Junkyard Dog and the like.

I'll always most fondly remember him as Col. Mustafa.

Man, I really need to stop reading this thread because it's bringing back all my old wrestling memories. I was a hardcore fanatic, I still have about 500 or so tapes, anywhere from 2-8 events per tape, everything from Lucha to old school AWA, WCCW, NWA to Pororesu to the WWWF. I still remember Terry Boulder for crying out loud, if anyone here knows who he eventually became.

Didn't he become Hulk Hogan??

Indeed he did, he was Terry Boulder as well as Sterling Golden and a few other monikers before he became Hulk Hogan.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: jbissell on January 23, 2009, 05:09:13 PM
Nah, the Iron Sheik had two main rivals, first Bob Backlund and then Hulk Hogan. After Hogan beat him for the WWF title the Iron Sheik's heyday was over and he would spend the rest of his career as the token ethnic bad guy for wrestling like Hacksaw Jim Duggan, Junkyard Dog and the like.

I'll always most fondly remember him as Col. Mustafa.

Man, I really need to stop reading this thread because it's bringing back all my old wrestling memories. I was a hardcore fanatic, I still have about 500 or so tapes, anywhere from 2-8 events per tape, everything from Lucha to old school AWA, WCCW, NWA to Pororesu to the WWWF. I still remember Terry Boulder for crying out loud, if anyone here knows who he eventually became.

Didn't he become Hulk Hogan??

Indeed he did, he was Terry Boulder as well as Sterling Golden and a few other monikers before he became Hulk Hogan.

I'd like to change my vote for your 100th review.  Suburban Commando please.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Bill Thompson on January 23, 2009, 05:11:00 PM
Nah, the Iron Sheik had two main rivals, first Bob Backlund and then Hulk Hogan. After Hogan beat him for the WWF title the Iron Sheik's heyday was over and he would spend the rest of his career as the token ethnic bad guy for wrestling like Hacksaw Jim Duggan, Junkyard Dog and the like.

I'll always most fondly remember him as Col. Mustafa.

Man, I really need to stop reading this thread because it's bringing back all my old wrestling memories. I was a hardcore fanatic, I still have about 500 or so tapes, anywhere from 2-8 events per tape, everything from Lucha to old school AWA, WCCW, NWA to Pororesu to the WWWF. I still remember Terry Boulder for crying out loud, if anyone here knows who he eventually became.

Didn't he become Hulk Hogan??

Indeed he did, he was Terry Boulder as well as Sterling Golden and a few other monikers before he became Hulk Hogan.

I'd like to change my vote for your 100th review.  Suburban Commando please.

Words cannot describe how much I loved Suburban Commando as a kid.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Proteus on January 24, 2009, 05:02:40 PM
I saw this more as a fan of Rourke, mildly as a fan of Aronofsky, and with a bit of affection for the WWF stuff I watched a little as a kid.

It's impressive Rourke was willing to look like shit without the tons of Sin-City style makeup. It's impressive he could still get into the audience's heads and hearts. He's a very talented performer, and seemed to have something to prove. However, I'm not sure there was anything to his performance that hadn't been previously done for Aronofsky by Ellen Burstyn, and done better. If Rourke wins anything, he should publically declare he's splitting the prize with Ellen Burstyn.

I imagine Marisa Tomei feels entitled to the respect she's getting. Her character, arc, and physical demands seemed pretty standard fare to me, but her performance was stronger and deserved notice. However, her performance being considered one of the year's greatest female performances is a condemnation of Hollywood. As female characters go, she is slightly more raw than average, but absolutely unremarkable. I thought her stuff particularly at the end of the film was either too much or not enough, and whichever it was, it left me unsatisfied and discontent.

I remember the moment I realized how the film was going to end, when Rourke sees a glimmer of what he is and where he's going. At that point, it seemed clear to me that the physical and emotional damage he was inflicting on himself were done out of hollow desperation, and it became difficult to see the film as anything other than a similar sort of hollow desperation. I think Aronofsky screwed the story up most by what he did with Evan Rachel wood. Had her story worked differently, tat one beautiful moment might have been less powerful or surprising, but the overall film would feel stronger and less cliched.

In short, because the film has achingly realistic portraits of pain and sorrow, it deserves some acclaim. However, because the film breaks no new ground and falls back onto cliche and tropic archetypes, it is only a pretty good movie, and hardly a significant achievement, except perhaps, for its redemption-seeking star.

Am i wrong to assume the fading stars of the WWF were expected cameo appearances? I would have been much more impressed with the staple-gun in Macho Man Randy Savage's hands, or to see a sad, portly Bobby the Brain as a ref or something.

Ouier' kouen selkhir.


Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: smirnoff on January 24, 2009, 11:29:32 PM
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this one Proteus. I found myself agreeing with much of what you said. You should chime in more often  ;)
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Proteus on January 25, 2009, 09:33:58 AM
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this one Proteus. I found myself agreeing with much of what you said. You should chime in more often  ;)

Thanks, Smirnoff! Hope to contribute more as time permits...

Mbi taa.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Bill Thompson on January 25, 2009, 10:53:48 AM
Am i wrong to assume the fading stars of the WWF were expected cameo appearances? I would have been much more impressed with the staple-gun in Macho Man Randy Savage's hands, or to see a sad, portly Bobby the Brain as a ref or something.

You are wrong, because those guys have no place in the setting of the movie. They are the exception to the story of The Wrestler, they never had to suffer, they made tons of money and stayed in the spotlight for 99% of their careers. Also, Macho Man would never take a staple gun to the chest in real pro wrestling, so seeing him do it in The Wrestler would have been incredibly fake.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Proteus on January 25, 2009, 11:04:08 AM
You are wrong, because those guys have no place in the setting of the movie. They are the exception to the story of The Wrestler, they never had to suffer, they made tons of money and stayed in the spotlight for 99% of their careers. Also, Macho Man would never take a staple gun to the chest in real pro wrestling, so seeing him do it in The Wrestler would have been incredibly fake.

I was thinking of Macho Man playing a no-name wrestler (a la Spiderman), not appearing as himself. It wasn't so much about wanting to see celebrities as themselves, but sort of nodding to the fact that there are a lot of unknowns on their way up and on their way down, and that isn't lost on them when they make it to the top.

Edabo.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: joker on February 04, 2009, 05:37:06 PM
loved this film.for all you looking for a real life muse to this story, look up jake the snakd roberts. Or watch beyond the matt.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: FroHam X on February 04, 2009, 05:40:47 PM
I've heard Beyond the Mat is great.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: joker on February 04, 2009, 05:47:58 PM
it is, watch it and remember funk and foley are still wrestling. Can not wait to see rourke atwrestlemannia.he will wrestke just wait till after the oscars. they are downplaying it now because of tge oscars.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: NedMeier on February 04, 2009, 06:16:18 PM
I've heard Beyond the Mat is great.

I fondly remember seeing Beyond the Mat in theaters. It would be a great companion piece to The Wrestler. I never thought I would get teary eyed watching grown men romping around in tights but both of these movies are very emotional. Whether you enjoyed The Wrester or not check out Beyond the Mat.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: FroHam X on February 04, 2009, 07:06:57 PM
I've heard Beyond the Mat is great.

I fondly remember seeing Beyond the Mat in theaters. It would be a great companion piece to The Wrestler. I never thought I would get teary eyed watching grown men romping around in tights but both of these movies are very emotional. Whether you enjoyed The Wrester or not check out Beyond the Mat.

I think everyone here knows how I feel about The Wrestler and if you don't then I suggest you hit up this page (http://hamsterfactor.blogspot.com/2009/01/wrestler.html) and this page (http://hamsterfactor.blogspot.com/2009/01/hamster-approved-top-10-films-of-2008.html).
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Bill Thompson on February 05, 2009, 06:35:44 AM
I've heard Beyond the Mat is great.

It's decent, but far too sympathetic to the wrestlers, most of the problems they face in Beyond The Mat they incurred through their own actions. Plus, Jake Roberts is the opposite of Randy Robinson in that he is a completely detestable human being without the ability to garner an ounce of sympathy from any rational thinking viewer.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: jbissell on February 05, 2009, 09:11:00 AM
I've heard Beyond the Mat is great.

It's decent, but far too sympathetic to the wrestlers, most of the problems they face in Beyond The Mat they incurred through their own actions. Plus, Jake Roberts is the opposite of Randy Robinson in that he is a completely detestable human being without the ability to garner an ounce of sympathy from any rational thinking viewer.

Jake's whole story is creepy/depressing as hell.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: joker on February 05, 2009, 10:10:23 PM
look at the daughter parellels with the ram and roberts.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: FroHam X on February 05, 2009, 10:22:33 PM
look at the daughter parellels with the ram and roberts.

It really sounds like I need to check out that doc.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: kizik on February 05, 2009, 10:25:14 PM
I do not like your new avatar. How about The Brain from Pinky and the Brain to match your quote?

Or is that "time to take over the world"?
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: FroHam X on February 05, 2009, 10:32:56 PM
I do not like your new avatar. How about The Brain from Pinky and the Brain to match your quote?

Pinky and the Brain are laboratory MICE whose genes have been spliced.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: kizik on February 05, 2009, 10:37:44 PM
Geez. Sensitive. My sincerest apologies. I didn't mean to be Rat-ist.

BTW congrats on having your email read on the show
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: pixote on February 05, 2009, 11:02:49 PM
So is The Wrestler pretty much just an adaptation of the Jake the Snake segments of Beyond the Mat?

edit: Google sez I'm not the first person to suggest this link.

pixote
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Variable on February 06, 2009, 01:54:48 AM
So is The Wrestler pretty much just an adaptation of the Jake the Snake segments of Beyond the Mat?

edit: Google sez I'm not the first person to suggest this link.

pixote

it's at most based on, I thing there's definitely a link there, but it's not "just an adaptation" by any means.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: NedMeier on February 06, 2009, 05:34:02 PM
So is The Wrestler pretty much just an adaptation of the Jake the Snake segments of Beyond the Mat?

edit: Google sez I'm not the first person to suggest this link.

pixote

it's at most based on, I thing there's definitely a link there, but it's not "just an adaptation" by any means.

I saw Beyond the Mat a very long time ago but I don't think there is much of a connection between Jake and Randy. Maybe loosely based on...
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: pixote on February 06, 2009, 05:35:21 PM
Just to clarify:  That post of mine is from long before I saw the movie.

pixote
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: joker on February 06, 2009, 10:58:32 PM
Better to take from jake the snake, then, let's say, beniot?
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: NedMeier on February 07, 2009, 07:32:53 AM
I want to see a Andre the Giant biopic.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: THATguy on February 07, 2009, 11:13:20 AM
I want to see a Andre the Giant biopic.

It's not supposed to be very good, but... (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475218/)
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: philip918 on February 07, 2009, 11:42:15 AM
I want to see a Andre the Giant biopic.

It's not supposed to be very good, but... (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475218/)

How can it be bad if it's written and directed by a guy named Rokki James Hollywood and his next film is called Psycho Jesus?
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: NedMeier on February 07, 2009, 01:59:09 PM
I want to see a Andre the Giant biopic.

It's not supposed to be very good, but... (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475218/)

How can it be bad if it's written and directed by a guy named Rokki James Hollywood and his next film is called Psycho Jesus?

I was thinking the same thing. I have a Rokki James Hollywood poster hanging above my bed.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: gateway on April 19, 2009, 03:28:18 PM
Just watched this for the second time last night, and I've re-evaluated some aspects of it. First and foremost, I'm giving Marisa Tomei more credit. I still wouldn't put her in my top 5 list for supporting actresses last year, but she's quite good here and I'm taking back my comment about any actress being able to do her part. On a more negative note, Evan Rachel Wood grated on me a lot more the second time around. I think it was a combination of her overplaying all her scenes (either ramping up the hystrionics or getting all luvey-duvey with Randy, such as the shot of her latching onto his arm) as well as the way Siegel wrote her character full of chiched scorned child dialogue. Also really noticed a lot more of the camera work that was framed as a wrestling match this time around. I took note of the "tunnel shot" at the deli my on first viewing, but I think I notice a lot more shots set up to frame Randy constantly as a wrestler this time. And of course, the ending is just as powerful as I remembered. Overall, I definitely liked it better the second time around, even though I liked it quite a bit the first time.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: ferris on May 01, 2009, 02:33:19 AM
I just watched this for the first time tonight. 

So yeah I can totally see all the praise for Mickey Rourke in this.  I won't get into to it all because it's all been said already.

And this movie wins the prize for having a scene that made me cringe the most I ever had watching a movie (since perhaps seeing "Victory" as a teenager.)

Some little touches I thought were just great.  The Nintendo Game, the ferrets, the catheter.  But other scenes were just a bit much to accept - like the day at the beach and the totally predictable result of "meet you on Saturday".  That kind of thing annoys me.

But overall, what a fascinating look into the the world of hangers on. 

On Tomei's performance.  Ya' know I really wish I hadn't seen Before the Devil Knows You're Dead  before seeing this movie.  She had the role that is one of my top 5 pet peeves in movies:  lie around in bed naked until the protagonist gets home.   So I came out of this thinking crap - same basic concept. 

But reading people's opinions made me appreciate her performance quite a bit more.  One lasting impression I get from her performance is how tired and battered she looks in the club, but how pretty she looks in the outside world. 

I was really relieved that the final match was not nearly as unrelenting as some of the previous ones.  I was bracing myself for some real nastiness.    I guess Aronofsky gets credit for my emotional tenseness!

Overall I'm pretty torn by this.  I had really no interest in this until the Rourke reviews came out.  Even then, I really watched it out of obligation rather than anticipation.  Now that I'm done watching it I'm glad I did, but I'm happy to return it after one viewing and never see it again. 

As Mr. Burns once said "I know what I hate, and I don't hate this".
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on June 25, 2009, 12:47:38 PM
Saw this last weekend and was moved by both Rourke and Tomei - I though she was excellent at playing the aloof stripper card to a T and Rourke just captured a guy who fights to be something more but in the end, sadly accepts his fate - driving away one more person...

I like to think that Tomei pulls him out of his spiral after the film's end - but I know she won't...
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Thor on June 25, 2009, 01:44:39 PM
Saw this last weekend and was moved by both Rourke and Tomei - I though she was excellent at playing the aloof stripper card to a T and Rourke just captured a guy who fights to be something more but in the end, sadly accepts his fate - driving away one more person...

I like to think that Tomei pulls him out of his spiral after the film's end - but I know she won't...

That's generous. I thought he wasn't going to make it out of the ring alive.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: ma˝ana on June 25, 2009, 02:00:02 PM
He's dead, big time. But don't worry he'll be resurrected on Easter. The wrestling version of Easter being WrestleMania XXVI.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: ferris on June 25, 2009, 07:13:36 PM
Is there a special place between heaven and hell (a la purgatory or limbo) for characters who have abiguous screen deaths?  I can see Micky Rourke, Kelly Macdonald and Boba Fett are  sippling Mai Tais together in some parallel universe somewhere waiting for news on their promotions.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Junior on June 25, 2009, 07:55:50 PM
Boba Fett lived on in the belly of the Sarlacc. It's covered in the Mandalorian Armor trilogy of books (which were pretty good, I think).
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: FifthCityMuse on June 25, 2009, 08:58:22 PM
Is there a special place between heaven and hell (a la purgatory or limbo) for characters who have abiguous screen deaths?  I can see Micky Rourke, Kelly Macdonald and Boba Fett are  sippling Mai Tais together in some parallel universe somewhere waiting for news on their promotions.
According to the book, Kelly Macdonald is a whole lot less ambiguous. One of the reasons I liked the movie more.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: gateway on June 26, 2009, 12:01:22 AM
Is there a special place between heaven and hell (a la purgatory or limbo) for characters who have abiguous screen deaths?  I can see Micky Rourke, Kelly Macdonald and Boba Fett are  sippling Mai Tais together in some parallel universe somewhere waiting for news on their promotions.
According to the book, Kelly Macdonald is a whole lot less ambiguous. One of the reasons I liked the movie more.

I don't think it was ambiguous in the movie. The Coens tell you everything you need to know whether she lives or dies.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Bill Thompson on June 26, 2009, 12:14:46 AM
Boba Fett lived on in the belly of the Sarlacc. It's covered in the Mandalorian Armor trilogy of books (which were pretty good, I think).

Don't ever reread them then, keep the idea that they are good in your mind, it took me two years to read through them, that's how bad I thought they were.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Basil on June 26, 2009, 12:21:55 AM
Is there a special place between heaven and hell (a la purgatory or limbo) for characters who have abiguous screen deaths?  I can see Micky Rourke, Kelly Macdonald and Boba Fett are  sippling Mai Tais together in some parallel universe somewhere waiting for news on their promotions.
According to the book, Kelly Macdonald is a whole lot less ambiguous. One of the reasons I liked the movie more.
I don't think it was ambiguous in the movie. The Coens tell you everything you need to know whether she lives or dies.

Yeah, thought it was far from ambiguous in the film.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: ferris on June 26, 2009, 09:16:54 AM
Boba Fett lived on in the belly of the Sarlacc. It's covered in the Mandalorian Armor trilogy of books (which were pretty good, I think).

Don't ever reread them then, keep the idea that they are good in your mind, it took me two years to read through them, that's how bad I thought they were.

I'm not rewatching "Life is Beautiful" for the same reason
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Junior on June 26, 2009, 05:44:21 PM
Boba Fett lived on in the belly of the Sarlacc. It's covered in the Mandalorian Armor trilogy of books (which were pretty good, I think).

Don't ever reread them then, keep the idea that they are good in your mind, it took me two years to read through them, that's how bad I thought they were.

I'll leave that task to you.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Bill Thompson on June 26, 2009, 06:40:59 PM
Boba Fett lived on in the belly of the Sarlacc. It's covered in the Mandalorian Armor trilogy of books (which were pretty good, I think).

Don't ever reread them then, keep the idea that they are good in your mind, it took me two years to read through them, that's how bad I thought they were.

I'll leave that task to you.

Thank you, I quickly realized when I started the SW blog that there were certain things I would be revisiting that I never, ever intended to look upon again. Such is the price of being a fan and setting a goal.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: HaroldsMaude on June 26, 2009, 07:58:36 PM
Is there a special place between heaven and hell (a la purgatory or limbo) for characters who have abiguous screen deaths?  I can see Micky Rourke, Kelly Macdonald and Boba Fett are  sippling Mai Tais together in some parallel universe somewhere waiting for news on their promotions.
According to the book, Kelly Macdonald is a whole lot less ambiguous. One of the reasons I liked the movie more.
I don't think it was ambiguous in the movie. The Coens tell you everything you need to know whether she lives or dies.

Yeah, thought it was far from ambiguous in the film.

Maybe not far from ambiguous, but it did force a few of us to question it after the film ended. Those of us who held out against hope that an innocent would be spared from the evil force that was Anton Chigurrh (sp?).
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: Variable on June 27, 2009, 02:06:54 PM
I don't think he died right then, although really the nicest future I can imagine for him is that he died on that jump, not months/years later after more time being alone and sick.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: UberGeekyGirl on October 29, 2009, 04:02:01 PM
I loved this movie and I plan to rewatch it soon. Once I do I will write up a review. I wrestled in an independent circuit for a couple years and this film does an amazing job of portraying the realistic details of that scene.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: FroHam X on October 29, 2009, 05:42:04 PM
I loved this movie and I plan to rewatch it soon. Once I do I will write up a review. I wrestled in an independent circuit for a couple years and this film does an amazing job of portraying the realistic details of that scene.

You sound like on of the most interesting people on this forum. No Colleen, of course, but in the upper echelon for sure.
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: UberGeekyGirl on October 29, 2009, 05:53:44 PM
I loved this movie and I plan to rewatch it soon. Once I do I will write up a review. I wrestled in an independent circuit for a couple years and this film does an amazing job of portraying the realistic details of that scene.

You sound like on of the most interesting people on this forum. No Colleen, of course, but in the upper echelon for sure.

Wow, thank you. I think I had some interesting past experiences but now I'm boring. *smile*
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: ferris on October 29, 2009, 11:49:48 PM
I need to see this again too.  I think I gave it an A- the first time through, but I'm really finding I'm missing those characters and would like to have them over for a few hours again some night. 
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: neetusharma on November 04, 2009, 07:07:43 AM
I too like this film :)
Title: Re: The Wrestler
Post by: IchigoNL on November 04, 2009, 12:34:22 PM
I need to see this again too.  I think I gave it an A- the first time through, but I'm really finding I'm missing those characters and would like to have them over for a few hours again some night. 
Second time it was even better imo.