[jimdgoulding]

Stu-  So, it seems you didn't think all that much of Marisa Tomei's performance either.  I agree with your comment about Rourke's casting.  It was brillant.  The script was brilliant, IMO.  I think that Launche appreciated the movie on its artistic merit.  That would include me.  And I'm a sucker for anti-heroes.  Your crew (and my description of them was a put on) may have had no influence on your impressions.  It just kind of sounded that way to me, bro, and is all too common.  Fare thee well and I hope you continue to share your opinions.  I'll be lurking in the tall grass.

[jimdgoulding]

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.

Agreed.  It wasn't the broad strokes than made this an exceptional piece of work, it was the fine ones.  As to Rourke merely playing himself, that's assuming a lot and I don't recall ever seeing tenderness in his repertoire.  Humility either.  Thought Rourke, the spectacle, was totally absent in his performance.  I believe it was that, his transparency to the charactor, that helped garner his acting all the praise.

[Mike B.]

I watched it last night. Amazing performance. Who else could have so quickly made you forget you were watching acting and not the sad life of a old wrestler? I kind of threw myself into a funk by first watching this dark gritty film and then the documentary Farah made about her fight with cancer.