The Wrestler

rydenfan · « **on:** 26 Jan 2009, 12:35 am »

Finally got a chance to see this last night. It was a pretty dar and disturbing movie but Mickey Rourke's performance is absolutely incredible. I really enjoyed this film but it is certainly not for everyone.

Biscuit · « **Reply #1 on:** 26 Jan 2009, 01:10 am »

Quote from: rydenfan on 26 Jan 2009, 12:35 am

Finally got a chance to see this last night. It was a pretty dar and disturbing movie but Mickey Rourke's performance is absolutely incredible. I really enjoyed this film but it is certainly not for everyone.

Very interesting. This one is on my short list and I hope to see it before it hits the small screen. Everyone who has seen it seems to think Rourke has a good shot at an Oscar. Do you think he really knew he was acting in a movie or did they just convince him he was a pro rassler?

Related? Just kidding, but it's a shame how Rourke messed up his good looks. His face is painful to watch but it seems to be perfect for the new movie.

launche · « **Reply #2 on:** 22 Apr 2009, 01:45 am »

I really enjoyed this one. Damn fine movie making and understated yet stellar performances all around. I believe in destiny, I can't comment on Rourke's life choices except to say that to this day it all must have been for a reason. The last two movies I have seen him in, he has been the character and has done as good a job as any actor I've seen. There are movies I happily pay to see and would even leave a tip on my way out the door. This is one of them.

jimdgoulding · « **Reply #3 on:** 23 Apr 2009, 05:08 pm »

Quote from: rydenfan on 26 Jan 2009, 12:35 am

Finally got a chance to see this last night. It was a pretty dar and disturbing movie but Mickey Rourke's performance is absolutely incredible. I really enjoyed this film but it is certainly not for everyone.

Man, I TOTALLY agree on his performance. How much more can an actor BE into character? I quit watching it when he called his promoter to sign back on cause I thought this was heading for some conventional movie big ending. Once, he did that, thinks me, it explained the preceding turn of events between him and his love interest, his job, and daughter (for the sake of the ending). I would have prefered a poignant ending to what I thought was a poignant movie. Up to that point I was thinkin . . what integrity this movie and character have. What integrity this actor brought to it. I was just completely blown away by Rourke's performance. Was it a tear jerk ending?

launche · « **Reply #4 on:** 23 Apr 2009, 08:40 pm »

We don't want to spoil it Jim. I found the ending to be fitting of the story. It ends the way you want it to end.

WerTicus · « **Reply #5 on:** 23 May 2009, 06:27 pm »

brilliant movie,

and i could not care less about 'pro' wrestling.
I also thought his lady friend was very well acted, having lived with a girl in her line of work for several years.

Toka · « **Reply #6 on:** 9 Jun 2009, 09:38 pm »

Amazing film...totally robbed on the Awards stage. I'm not a wrestler (duh), but it really struck a chord with me. You felt for the character in a big way. The supermarket deli scenes were incredible.

JoshK · « **Reply #7 on:** 9 Jun 2009, 09:47 pm »

My wife picked it out. Thought it was really good...more-so Rourke's performance though, it was like he wasn't performing.

spudco · « **Reply #8 on:** 9 Jun 2009, 11:18 pm »

A great film. Wonderful performances and excellent writing.

Very true to life (I have knows a couple of wrestling stars, quite a few unhappy kids and several dancers).

Haunting - expecially the "autograph signing" with all the real wrestling wrecks and the "no thanks" dance scenes.

Airborn · « **Reply #9 on:** 10 Jun 2009, 05:49 am »

I just watched this movie on DVD after seeing it in the theater. I think even more that Rourke's performance was outstanding. He just doesn't appear to be acting. I also thought Marisa Tomei performed well as the dancer and she still looks pretty good too. While certainly not for everyone, I think this is one of the few movies that captures the ambiguity of reality accurately. You never got the feeling you knew what would happen in all of Rourke's relationships, just like real life.

mcgsxr · « **Reply #10 on:** 10 Jun 2009, 12:03 pm »

I did watch the whole movie, but was not enthused by much of it.

I very much enjoyed Marisa's performance though!

I can understand that folks were impressed with Rourke's performance, but I have to wonder if it really was a performance at all, or just life imitating art.

Net net, it wasn't for me.

Browntrout · « **Reply #11 on:** 23 Jun 2009, 09:18 pm »

I enjoyed it. It was well made and lacked the rediculousness of most of Hollywoods films. I would not want to watch it twice or more times however which is how I judge what is a good film and what is not.

Stu Pitt · « **Reply #12 on:** 25 Jun 2009, 03:17 am »

I get why people enjoy the movie, but it just wasn't for me. My job involves travel with college sports teams, and the Men's Lacrosse team played this one on the bus during a road trip.

Very few liked it. One guy yelled out "We get it... You have a really shitty life!"

Its definitely a must see though, due to Marissa Tomei's performance. I had no idea she was even in the movie until I saw it.

jimdgoulding · « **Reply #13 on:** 25 Jun 2009, 05:26 am »

Well, Stu, most people can relate to some disappointment in their life. And Hollywood is well aware of what most people can relate to. I'd venture that your la cross player was young, full of himself, and from an upper middle class family. Maybe Harry Potter would be more up his alley? As I have already said, I thought the movie was heading to a conventional ending. The ole three act formula abides tho I think the resolution was admirable as it could be given what I imagine was at play. Aside from that, if you could praise Marisa Tomei's performance, I'm wondering why you couldn't you praise Rourke's. Try viewing the movie without the frat boys. WTF do they know already anyway? Might they have been part of your frame of reference at the time? That's a rhetorical question. And don't become defensive, good buddy. The things we miss when that happens. Cheerio, then.

S Clark · « **Reply #14 on:** 25 Jun 2009, 02:21 pm »

Quote from: Stu Pitt on 25 Jun 2009, 03:17 am

I get why people enjoy the movie, but it just wasn't for me. My job involves travel with college sports teams, and the Men's Lacrosse team played this one on the bus during a road trip.

Very few liked it. One guy yelled out "We get it... You have a really shitty life!"

Its definitely a must see though, due to Marissa Tomei's performance. I had no idea she was even in the movie until I saw it.

Wow! you have to put with spoiled jocks for a living. And the jocks thought the wrestler had a shitty life.

Stu Pitt · « **Reply #15 on:** 26 Jun 2009, 06:13 pm »

Jim,

Hopefully you weren't trying to insult me, but you did. There's no way I can't be a little defensive. You and S Clark did what just about everyone does - stereotype athletes. Being involved in college athletics for 15 years - 4 as a Div I basketball player and 11 as an Athletic Trainer (medical staff, not personal trainer), I take exception to the spoiled jocks, frat boys, etc. stigma. I'm also a member of a fraternity.

A few years ago, the president of the college I was working for had to justify the role of athletics to the board of directors who were trying to cut athletics for financial reasons. Everyone has the opinion they're here to play sports, drink, and party. Nothing can be further from the truth. Are you aware that college athletes have a higher graduation rate than any other group? You're probably also not aware that they have the lowest per capita instances of drug and alcohol use/abuse, domestic violence, and arrest rates. Just because all the news reports is athletes getting arrested for DWI and slapping their girlfriends around doesn't mean that that's all they do. Being 'Spoiled jocks' makes for a far better story than some random college student doing the same thing. Trust me when I say there are FAR more instances of non-athletes doing these things.

It's very much like when we hear about financial advisors. Everyone hears about guys like Madoff, yet few if any stories about the people who helped their clients retire far better than they would have without them get reported. Bernie Madoff makes a far more compelling news report than the unknown guy at a local office who helped my father retire very comfortably and earlier than expected. And he did it without ripping anyone off.

Some of the nicest people I've ever met were college athletes at one time or another. I've played along side of and taken care of a number of athletes who've become physicians, lawyers, and so on. Guys like Michael Vick, Terrell Owens, and Pacman Jones are the exceptions, not the rule. There are a few scumbags in every group.

In regards to Frat boys... While I'd love to say my fraternity is the best, it's really one of countless fraternities like it. The alums of my fraternity include countless senators, judges, attorneys, and CEOs of major corporations. I'm sure other fraternities have just as many respectable members too. IIRC, 80% of our presidents and the last 10 or so have been fraternity members. How's that for a stereotype?

Also, you're way off with your assumption of the kid who made the comment.

As far as the movie...

Again, I get it. I respect the movie. But that doesn't mean I liked it. I respect and understand Classical music, but I don't like it.

A lot of people praised Mickey Rourke's performance. To be honest, personally I don't see a lot of acting going on. Substitute a wrestling ring for a film set, and steroids for drugs, and you have Rourke's life in a nutshell. The real genius was the guy who casted him. He's not like Robert De Niro or Al Pacino who've played so a ton of different characters equally well. Rourke basically played himself. He did an excellent job, but it?s not like he played a Priest or someone equally opposite of himself.

I wasn't praising Marissa Tomei's performance in my post. It was a nice way of saying its a must see due to her nude scenes. Aside from perversion, she did a very good job and her nude scenes were totally relevant and not gratuitous IMO.

Just my opinions. There are a bunch of people who'll disagree, but there are a bunch who feel the same way.

Browntrout · « **Reply #16 on:** 26 Jun 2009, 06:59 pm »

Good reply Stu.

S Clark · « **Reply #17 on:** 26 Jun 2009, 08:06 pm »

Stu,
I apologize. I should've kept my mouth shut and don't know why I didn't. That said, I've been in education and around athletics for over 30 years and don't have such a high opinion of the athletic system in general- actually I find it to be a plague upon public high schools that undermines the importance of academics. Please don't think that I am bashing sports, as they are not the same thing.
I am sure that your young jock will grow to be more empathetic of those less fortunate than himself- most of us don't stay young and stupid forever. Clearly, I have just shown that one can be older and stupid.
Scott

launche · « **Reply #18 on:** 26 Jun 2009, 08:46 pm »

Quote from: Stu Pitt on 26 Jun 2009, 06:13 pm

A lot of people praised Mickey Rourke's performance. To be honest, personally I don't see a lot of acting going on. Substitute a wrestling ring for a film set, and steroids for drugs, and you have Rourke's life in a nutshell. The real genius was the guy who casted him. He's not like Robert De Niro or Al Pacino who've played so a ton of different characters equally well. Rourke basically played himself. He did an excellent job, but it?s not like he played a Priest or someone equally opposite of himself.

I wasn't praising Marissa Tomei's performance in my post. It was a nice way of saying its a must see due to her nude scenes. Aside from perversion, she did a very good job and her nude scenes were totally relevant and not gratuitous IMO.

Just my opinions. There are a bunch of people who'll disagree, but there are a bunch who feel the same way.

Your assessment of Rourke's performance is exactly why it all worked for me, as I mentioned in my previous post. In audiophile-like terms he does what we ask our gear to do, disappear or become so transparent that the music is let through as purely as possible. Same case here for me, his life and experiences make it such that the character appears natural to the actor and the story speaks freely. To me that's getting it right, as your mentioned great casting and great acting...synergy. Anyone notice the writing, director and camera work all it damn good harmony and really getting out to the way.

This is one of those movies that serves movie making well IMO, so well that sometimes we might question too much because we didn't notice more of the process. For instance, I watched "Miracle at St. Anna?" shortly afterwards and all I saw was the process, heavy handed movie making by comparision. And I can count many many movies of the same vein, the vast majority in fact. I find it a gem of a little movie, not perfect or for everyone but I respect and enjoyed the work on most all accounts. I feel the same way about the movie "Doubt", though here more skillful actors are used in the more traditional sense but I felt The Wrestler more touching. IMO, the best acting in "Doubt" was done by Viola Davis (one fine actress) in her limited screen time.

Stu Pitt · « **Reply #19 on:** 26 Jun 2009, 08:57 pm »

Scott,

Apology accepted, not that I was looking for one or expecting one.

I know the criticisms of athletics in schools - college and grade schools. Some are very valid, and some are taken out of proportion IMO. It does seem like a waste of money for a struggling high school to fund a football team, yet have problems coming up with money for things like books and computers. I have several friends who teach in NYC schools (some were high school and college athletes). They have a very valid complaint against athletics getting money.

But athletics is essential IMO. They give a lot of students a reason to stay in school and do the right thing. They give the school a sense of pride. Students who don't participate in athletics have very little to lose, in a sense. A student who loves basketball can easily have that taken away if he/she's not doing what they're supposed to do in and out of the class room. A non-athlete can't have that held over his/her head.

In a perfect world, coaches and athletic directors would make sure the students are doing the right thing and take away their playing privelidges if they didn't. Its too bad we don't live in a perfect world. But there's far more coaches and ADs who do the right thing than those who only care about winning.