The Wrestler (2008)
Authors Note: This is my first ever movie review, guys. I write video-game reviews for my school paper, and I watch a ton of movies, so I figure I should find out how to write reviews of them. I'm sure I missed something important, so don't be afraid to tell me how bad it is. Any feedback is appreciated. Also, first post here, I hope this is in the right place and that I'm abiding by all of the rules. Right then. Onto the review...
The Wrestler The Wrestler is a hard movie to watch. Mickey Rourke is thrown, punched, kicked, bloodied, beaten, battered, and even stapled on one occasion – it’s gruesome stuff – but that’s not the reason it’s hard to watch. Director Darren Aronofsky’s 4th flick is hard to watch because of how painfully real it feels. I had to turn away from the screen on multiple occasions, because I couldn’t bear to see Rourke’s character, Randy “The Ram” Robinson, self-destruct any further. I wanted Randy to succeed so earnestly that I forgot that I was watching a movie. Back in the ‘80s, Randy Robinson used to be a headlining professional wrestler. He was young, got all of the women, and his name was in all of the magazines. Fast-forward 20 years and our tale about a washed-up, non-headlining, professional wrestler begins. “The Ram” has given his whole life for professional wrestling, and what does he have to show for it? A lonesome trailer. And he’s often locked out of it for missing the payments. Apart from the occasional reminiscing with fellow wrestlers, Randy is alone. No wife or kids – it’s the price he paid for devoting himself so entirely to wrestling. Some neighbor boys down the road think he’s great, but for the most part, he’s unrecognizable on the street as well (apart from the “die-hard” fans). There is a certain stripper (Marisa Tomei) that he’s got his eye on, but she can’t be seen with a “customer”. The camera is most always locked onto Randy, as we watch him struggle both in and out of the ring. This is undoubtedly a good thing, because Mickey Rourke gives an absolutely incredible performance as The Ram. The physical acting on display (and not just by Rourke, either) is astounding, but the care given to every single conversation is why Rourke should have won an Oscar. There are a few memorable scenes late in the film that are truly special. In one particularly special scene, Rourke is giving a monologue that encapsules everything the movie is about: and I didn’t want it to ever end. I wouldn’t dare spoil anything specific; you really need to watch the movie to understand how spectacular Rourke is in this role. Rourke’s isn’t the only great performance, though. Marisa Tomei does a nice job as an aging stripper, whose only consistent customer is Randy Robinson. This sort of amazing acting, coupled with some great directing, gives The Wrestler a “real” quality. The Wrestler never shies away from the violent nature of wrestling. The movie opens with The Ram doing a low-end wrestling match for maybe a hundred people. That scene does two things: Show us how far Randy has fallen off the lime-light, and how brutal the sport is. It’s often sickening to see the wrestlers go so far to give the fans some entertainment. They put razor-blades under the tape on their wrists to make themselves bleed. Aronofsky shows the sport in its true light – he never intends to glorify it. This movie even sounds sincere. Bruce Springsteen wrote the “credits” song and, much like Rourke, he shows he can still produce. Most of the score entails ominous tones (which usually work), but the licensed music is what really works. They somehow managed to get Axel Rose to let them use “Sweet Child O’ Mine” – which is no easy feat. The Wrestler just oozes atmosphere. The world of wrestling entertainment is something not explored in many movies, and it works as a perfect backdrop to show the true story: that being one of hardship, loneliness, sadness, humor, love, and passion. It sucks you in so totally, so truly, that you could go on watching it forever. It deserves to rank up with the best movies, not only of 2008, but of this century. The Wrestler is a hard movie to watch, and I loved every last second of it. |
Re: The Wrestler (2008)
Nice job. Welcome to MoFo.
|
A solid film, mostly thanks to Rourke and the increasingly impressive Tomei. I'm an Aronofsky fan, and while this is the weakest of his films, I'm pleased to see him break out and do something very different from his prior efforts. But if he makes Robocop..........:indifferent:
|
Originally Posted by CayceP (Post 535931)
I'm an Aronofsky fan, and while this is the weakest of his films, I'm pleased to see him break out and do something very different from his prior efforts.
Again, I'm not one to place my argument on the shoulders of film critics, but these numbers I largely agree with. So I'm curious as to why you feel The Wrestler is his weakest film. Please elaborate. |
Either you're using the opinions of critics as "ammunition" or you're not. If you are, I'm........befuddled. They don't mean anything. If you're not, then I don't understand why you would look up all these numbers and introduce them as if they meant something.
In any event, The Wrestler is the weakest of his films for one simple reason: the rest are all better. Pi is a bracing, kinetic examination of the line between genius and paranoia. Requiem is one of the most intense, harrowing things I've ever seen put to film, a thundering emotional experience all around. The Fountain is an (overly?) ambitious multi-thread journey through love, loss, death, and classic existential angst. The Wrestler is a solid character study, but it strips away all the visual panache & tricked-out editing Aronofsky had previously trafficked in; you get the feeling that many people could have made a similar film. I don't get that feeling with his prior features. |
Re: The Wrestler (2008)
Very nice review mjhhiv, well done :)
|
Re: The Wrestler (2008)
Excellent review. The Wrestler is one of my all time favourites and Rourke's performance is stunning.
|
Originally Posted by CayceP (Post 535958)
Either you're using the opinions of critics as "ammunition" or you're not. If you are, I'm........befuddled. They don't mean anything. If you're not, then I don't understand why you would look up all these numbers and introduce them as if they meant something.
Originally Posted by CayceP
In any event, The Wrestler is the weakest of his films for one simple reason: the rest are all better. Pi is a bracing, kinetic examination of the line between genius and paranoia. Requiem is one of the most intense, harrowing things I've ever seen put to film, a thundering emotional experience all around. The Fountain is an (overly?) ambitious multi-thread journey through love, loss, death, and classic existential angst. The Wrestler is a solid character study, but it strips away all the visual panache & tricked-out editing Aronofsky had previously trafficked in; you get the feeling that many people could have made a similar film. I don't get that feeling with his prior features.
The Wrestler, I think, is the superior film for two reasons: (a) Aronofsky concentrated on infusing his story with a heartbreaking reality that comes dangerously close to documentary, and (b) Mickey Rourke was in the right emotional and psychological place in his own life to make the character more believable than anyone else who might have taken the role. These kinds of things, for me, bring creedence and memorability to a film in a way that snazzy visuals and editing never will. It just gets too thick if it goes unchecked, and to criticize its absence in The Wrestler is unfair, I think, because it would have been largely out of place. I actually praise Aronofsky for trying not to be a one-trick pony with this one. I guess he just needed The Boss to tell him that. ;) |
I tried to watch The Wrestler... I really did... and for awhile, things were going okay, but I dunno... it eventually turned really, really slow on me...
I shut it down. |
Originally Posted by Sleezy (Post 536044)
These kinds of things, for me, bring creedence and memorability to a film in a way that snazzy visuals and editing never will. It just gets too thick if it goes unchecked, and to criticize its absence in The Wrestler is unfair, I think, because it would have been largely out of place.
|
Re: The Wrestler (2008)
I think it's time I see Requiem for a Dream.
|
Re: The Wrestler (2008)
I have this on my coffee table - Perhaps I will catch it tonight...
Oh and Cayce - Welcome to MoFo! :) |
Originally Posted by Sleezy (Post 536340)
I think it's time I see Requiem for a Dream.
I liked it a lot more than The Wrestler. |
Re: The Wrestler (2008)
How can anyone "like" Requiem for a Dream?
|
Re: The Wrestler (2008)
By recognising it as a powerful (if not necessarily original and creative) film.
|
Originally Posted by mark f (Post 536527)
How can anyone "like" Requiem for a Dream?
|
Re: The Wrestler (2008)
The Wrestler would not be on my list of movies to watch a second time. I personally thought it dragged out too long and was a little slow for me. Perhaps I wasn't into the character development.
|
Originally Posted by Sedai (Post 536342)
Oh and Cayce - Welcome to MoFo! :)
|
Originally Posted by mark f (Post 536527)
How can anyone "like" Requiem for a Dream?
|
Originally Posted by CayceP (Post 536935)
Could you elaborate on that? Do you mean you thought it was simply bad and don't understand why anyone would appreciate it? Putting 'like' in quotes makes me think it's something different, though.....?
|
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 09:27 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums