182 replies to this topic

[dodge]

This piece is from New York Magazine:

To look at Mickey Rourke is to see a man who has consistently failed to destroy himself, despite repeated, determined attempts. Through all the spousal batteries, the Vespa DUI, the mob ties, the soft-core pørn, the Chihuahua obsession, and, of course, the repeated blows to the face (and subsequent horrifying facial reconstruction), Mickey Rourke has, against all logic and notions of common decency, remained a riveting screen presence. He’s survived because, no matter how awful his career choices and chaotic his personal life, onscreen, he’s hypnotic, a wounded animal you’re forced to eye … warily. Even when he’s sleepwalking through a role, Rourke has an authenticity he can’t shake off. As damaged as he has been, he’s always been a prime candidate for a Travolta-esque Career Resurgence, one that might have happened years ago had he not turned down, among other roles, Butch in Pulp Fiction.



With Darren Aronofsky’s The Wrestler (which closes the New York Film Festival), the comeback is finally here. As broken professional wrestler Randy “The Ram” Robinson, Rourke’s already an Oscar favorite. Variety said Rourke gives a “deeply moving portrait that instantly takes its place among the great, iconic screen performances.” It’s the type of praise that puts him in league with Marlon Brando. But if you take a look at Rourke’s career arc—if such a rapidly vacillating beast could possibly be classified as an “arc”—it’s clear he’s been Brando all along, as we attempt to prove (with apologies to chronology).



Phase 1
Marlon Brando of On the Waterfront (1980–1985)
Rourke, in just his third film, steals Body Heat as a professional arsonist, but the Brando comparisons first arise in Barry Levinson’s Diner, where his sweet-faced dirtbag-gambler persona hides an oddly sentimental soul. (To be fair, it’s easy to look tough next to Steve Guttenberg and Paul Reiser.) After Diner, Rourke consistently nails the tough-but-soft-rebel Brando parts, specifically in Coppola’s Rumble Fish and the tragically forgotten The Pope of Greenwich Village. The sky’s the limit; clearly he’s a contendah.



Phase 2
Marlon Brando of Last Tango in Paris (1986–1990)
For an actor as raw, daring, and masculine as Rourke, it’s inevitable that he starts doing arty soft pørn. He is feral ravaging Kim Basinger in 9½ Weeks—even if some sex scenes seem to defy the physical laws of space and time—then follows it up by having sex with Lisa Bonet in a pool of blood (Angel Heart) and with then-wife Carré Otis in a scene rumored to have not been simulated (Wild Orchid). In between all the fornication, he sneaks in a brilliant portrayal of Charles Bukowski in Barfly. Warning sign: He writes and stars in Homeboy, in which he plays a boxer.



Phase 3
Marlon Brando of The Island of Dr. Moreau (1991–2001)
The lost decade. Rourke quits acting in 1991 to become a professional boxer; he wins a few fights but breaks his nose and his ribs and severely compresses his cheekbone, leading to the surgeries that will haunt him forever. When he returns to acting in 1995, he stars in Double Team with Dennis Rodman, Fall Time with Stephen Baldwin, and Out in Fifty with someone named Scott Leet. He also makes Another 9½ Weeks with Angie Everhart. He walks off the set of one movie because the director refuses to allow his Chihuahua in the film.



Phase 4
Marlon Brando of Apocalypse Now (2001–2007)
Now that he’s deformed and broken, directors realize casting Rourke will give their movies a glint of authenticity and world-weariness. Tony Scott uses him twice, to good effect, in Man on Fire and Domino, but it’s Robert Rodriguez’s Sin City that captures Rourke’s late-blooming, defeated anger—romantic, elusive, deadly. And he does it by somehow deforming Rourke’s face even more.



Phase 5
Marlon Brando of The Godfather (2008–present)
In the same way that Coppola saved Brando after ten years of vanity projects, Aronofsky wangles a classic performance by tapping into what made Rourke so hypnotic in the first place: his peculiarly tender toughness and buried sadness. (Watch for The Wrestler’s crushing scene where he plays Nintendo with a 12-year-old.) For the first time in years, the movie is as good as he is. Moreover, though he’s equally eccentric, Rourke proves that Method-y machismo doesn’t have to lead to kissing Larry King. In that one way, he’s trumped Old Man Brando.

source: http://nymag.com/mov...features/50498/

[dodge]

The new Entertainment Weekly may feature Craig on the cover and a four-page article...but it devotes seven full pages to Rourke's incredible comeback.

Prediction: when the film premiers in L.A., the theater will be packed with big stars saluting a fallen angel who regained his wings.

[dodge]

Here's some Rourke news that might be of interest. This upcoming project has HOT all over it, imo:

From Ingmar Bergman's Smiles of a Summer Night to Michael Cimino's The Deer Hunter, russian roulette has often provided film-makers with a ready-made mechanism for creating high drama. Now Sam Riley, Ray Winstone, Mickey Rourke and Jason Statham are to star in a remake of a French film about an underground den where the deadly game is played for cash.

13 (Tzameti) Release: 2005 Countries: France, Rest of the world Cert (UK): 15 Runtime: 86 mins Directors: Gela Babluani Cast: Augustin Legrand, Aurelien Recoing, George Babluani More on this film According to Variety, 13 is based on the 2005 Sundance favourite 13 (Tzameti), which won the jury prize for world cinema at the US festival. The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw described it as "not just an accomplished arthouse film, but an unendurably tense thriller".

British newcomer Riley, best known for his acclaimed performance as Ian Curtis in Anton Corbijn's 2007 Joy Division biopic, Control, will play the main character, a young man who decides to risk his life in the deadly game. Rourke, fresh from festival success in Darren Aronofsky's forthcoming film The Wrestler, will play a convict in a Mexican prison who is sold into the competition.

Winstone's character has similarly been freed from a mental institution in order to take part, while Statham has signed up to play a rich man who bets on the outcome of the roulette games. Ray Liotta also stars as a policeman trying to find out more about the competition.

Géla Babluani, who wrote and directed the original, will take the same roles on the new film, which starts production in New York on November 20.

source:http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/nov/05/13-remake

[dodge]

Heads up, everybody: this babe's about to open soon...with rave reviews still coming in: now from Time and Entertainment Weekly. Joe Bob Dodge says check it out. I can scarcely excite my containment! I mean...

[danslittlefinger]

Golden Globes - 2008
Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama
Leonardo DiCaprio – Revolutionary Road
Frank Langella – Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn – Milk
Brad Pitt – The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler

Finally the scar ridden alley dog may be allowed back into the the warmth...

(like he cares)..

...to me, Mr Rourke, you've never left

Edited by danslittlefinger, 14 December 2008 - 09:57 PM.

[dodge]

One final, for now, thing that intrigues me: the studio's almost unheard-of protectiveness of imagery from the film. Even the official on-line trailer shows a still shot of Rourke and flashes of reviews. There's a brilliantly kept and nurtured sense of mystery about this film.

[Harmsway]

One final, for now, thing that intrigues me: the studio's almost unheard-of protectiveness of imagery from the film. Even the official on-line trailer shows a still shot of Rourke and flashes of reviews. There's a brilliantly kept and nurtured sense of mystery about this film.

Well, there is the theatrical trailer, which features a decent amount of footage. It's what genuinely convinced me that THE WRESTLER was worth going to see.

But other than that, it's been low-key, with very little footage laying about. It's genuinely nice to see a flick that doesn't have footage all over the place.

[dodge]

One final, for now, thing that intrigues me: the studio's almost unheard-of protectiveness of imagery from the film. Even the official on-line trailer shows a still shot of Rourke and flashes of reviews. There's a brilliantly kept and nurtured sense of mystery about this film.

Well, there is the theatrical trailer, which features a decent amount of footage. It's what genuinely convinced me that THE WRESTLER was worth going to see.

But other than that, it's been low-key, with very little footage laying about. It's genuinely nice to see a flick that doesn't have footage all over the place.

Thanks, Harms, for the insight. I haven't been to a theater in several weeks now.

It'll be interesting to see if Rourke's past shenanigans and ill will he may have caused will block him from an Oscar bid. I note that Entertainment Tonight, for example, has avoided all mention of him or the film so far. On the other hand, the reviews have been excellent and Rourke's peers--including Sean Penn and Christopher Walken--have rallied behind Rouke and the film. We shall see.

[Harmsway]

Thanks, Harms, for the insight. I haven't been to a theater in several weeks now.

I saw it online, actually, at apple.com/trailers.

[Loomis]

Here's the trailer:

http://www.apple.com...ht/thewrestler/

Now, THE WRESTLER does look like a very, very fine film indeed, and I'm looking forward to it enormously. Seems Rourke really is as good in this as they say.

However, none of that changes the fact that I actually saw THE WRESTLER two years ago.... when it was called ROCKY BALBOA.

I'm aware that, a couple of months ago and on this very thread, I wrote: Hazarding a guess, I'd say that THE WRESTLER differs from ROCKY BALBOA in being a darker and more "adult" piece of work, featuring a less obviously sympathetic protagonist.

Having now seen the trailer, though, I note that Rourke's character does not appear to be "a less obviously sympathetic protagonist" than the elderly Italian Stallion. Indeed, he seems to be the same old Rocko by another name. The trailer sells us a loveable lunk right from the get-go, and not the Travis Bickleish "dark" character I'd expected.

I mean, Rourke seems to copy Stallone's speech patterns and dialogue, delivering a line like "You hang in there, you got a lotta ability" for all the world like a cut scene from ROCKY BALBOA.

And I'm staggered by how many of the film's plot points and even camera shots seem to be lifted straight from ROCKY BALBOA. A heart-to-heart in a van (or car) with the "fallen" woman our hero has found a quantum of solace with. Our hero being employed in the catering industry (okay, he works at a deli counter and doesn't have his own business like Rocko, but, hey, it's.... similar). Our hero having to mend his relationship with his child while fighting to unleash the, uh, stuff in the basement.

I'd somehow expected THE WRESTLER to be more like RAGING BULL than ROCKY BALBOA, but this trailer shamelessly sells us a sentimental story of a loser with a heart of gold and all coming right in the end.

It's pure Hollywood schmaltz. It's ROCKY BALBOA by another name. Sorry, but it is (or, at least, that's the strong impression I get from the trailer). Now, it does look terrific stuff, and, like I say, I can't wait to see it, but let's not be fooled, eh?* We've seen it all before, and more often than not it would come bearing the credit "Written and Directed by Sylvester Stallone".

*Any more than we should be fooled by the absurd idea put about by some of the more vocal Eon-defenders that the makers of QUANTUM OF SOLACE have practically never even heard of the Jason Bourne films.

[dodge]

Here's the trailer:

http://www.apple.com...ht/thewrestler/

Now, THE WRESTLER does look like a very, very fine film indeed, and I'm looking forward to it enormously. Seems Rourke really is as good in this as they say.

However, none of that changes the fact that I actually saw THE WRESTLER two years ago.... when it was called ROCKY BALBOA.

I'm aware that, a couple of months ago and on this very thread, I wrote: Hazarding a guess, I'd say that THE WRESTLER differs from ROCKY BALBOA in being a darker and more "adult" piece of work, featuring a less obviously sympathetic protagonist.

Having now seen the trailer, though, I note that Rourke's character does not appear to be "a less obviously sympathetic protagonist" than the elderly Italian Stallion. Indeed, he seems to be the same old Rocko by another name. The trailer sells us a loveable lunk right from the get-go, and not the Travis Bickleish "dark" character I'd expected.

I mean, Rourke seems to copy Stallone's speech patterns and dialogue, delivering a line like "You hang in there, you got a lotta ability" for all the world like a cut scene from ROCKY BALBOA.

And I'm staggered by how many of the film's plot points and even camera shots seem to be lifted straight from ROCKY BALBOA. A heart-to-heart in a van (or car) with the "fallen" woman our hero has found a quantum of solace with. Our hero being employed in the catering industry (okay, he works at a deli counter and doesn't have his own business like Rocko, but, hey, it's.... similar). Our hero having to mend his relationship with his child while fighting to unleash the, uh, stuff in the basement.

I'd somehow expected THE WRESTLER to be more like RAGING BULL than ROCKY BALBOA, but this trailer shamelessly sells us a sentimental story of a loser with a heart of gold and all coming right in the end.

It's pure Hollywood schmaltz. It's ROCKY BALBOA by another name. Sorry, but it is (or, at least, that's the strong impression I get from the trailer). Now, it does look terrific stuff, and, like I say, I can't wait to see it, but let's not be fooled, eh?* We've seen it all before, and more often than not it would come bearing the credit "Written and Directed by Sylvester Stallone".*Any more than we should be fooled by the absurd idea put about by some of the more vocal Eon-defenders that the makers of QUANTUM OF SOLACE have practically never even heard of the Jason Bourne films.

Loomis, your sheer adulation of Sly Stallone--I mean, I'm simply head over heels for the guy--has warped your usual judgment. I'm shocked that you haven't noted parallels between QoS and OVER THE TOP or RHINESTONE COWBOY. If we want to keep this real here, you should also check out the almost unknown wrestling film starring William Smith, called BLOOD AND GUTS. It also has to do with an aging wrestler and the quest for honor and redemption in a sham, show business industry. That film came out, of course, a couple of years after ROCKY, which could lead to a long and bloody debate about artistic originality and imitations. Now, ROCKY's a superb, maybe even a great, motion picture--but how original was it? And should originality even be our prime criterion in judging motion pictures? ROCKY BALBOA'S origins probably date back, at least, to THE CHAMP...and I don't mean the clunker with Jon Voigt.

Even more to the point, how can you judge a movie by its trailer? Can't you be true to Sly while giving the Mickster a chance? Love 'em both, for cryin' out loud, and live more recklessly!

P.S. The above was written without the benfit of having seen the trailer, which I can't pull up from your link or Harms'.

[Loomis]

Loomis, your sheer adulation of Sly Stallone--I mean, I'm simply head over heels for the guy--has warped your usual judgment. I'm shocked that you haven't noted parallels between QoS and OVER THE TOP or RHINESTONE COWBOY. If we want to keep this real here, you should also check out the almost unknown wrestling film starring William Smith, called BLOOD AND GUTS. It also has to do with an aging wrestler and the quest for honor and redemption in a sham, show business industry. That film came out, of course, a couple of years after ROCKY, which could lead to a long and bloody debate about artistic originality and imitations. Now, ROCKY's a superb, maybe even a great, motion picture--but how original was it? And should originality even be our prime criterion in judging motion pictures? ROCKY BALBOA'S origins probably date back, at least, to THE CHAMP...and I don't mean the clunker with Jon Voigt.

Points taken. It's just that plenty of critics are proclaiming THE WRESTLER the best thing since sliced bread without giving the Slymeister what would appear to his due.

Even more to the point, how can you judge a movie by its trailer?

You can only judge a movie by the finished product. However, a trailer can often give you the flavour of a movie (and can even, like this one, give away rather too much of the plot).

There is, as Harmsway says, "a decent amount of footage", and the Harmsmeister goes on to point out that: "It's what genuinely convinced me that THE WRESTLER was worth going to see."

I think it's legitimate to have reactions to trailers. After all, you're not reacting to thin air. You're reacting to something that's been carefully crafted to represent a forthcoming fillum. Like Harms, the trailer for THE WRESTLER has sold me on the flick (truth be told, though, I was already onboard thanks to the reviews I'd read). But another reaction that I have is that THE WRESTLER seems to be ROCKY BALBOA REVISITED.

Can't you be true to Sly while giving the Mickster a chance? Love 'em both, for cryin' out loud, and live more recklessly!

Oh, I can. And I'm sure I shall. Like I say, I think THE WRESTLER looks terrific. But I also see more than a passing resemblance to ROCKY BALBOA and a certain degree of debt on the part of the Rourke to the Rock.

More importantly, THE WRESTLER has become a critics' darling. ROCKY BALBOA, bless it, never exactly had reviewers turning cartwheels, killing the fatted calf for its makers and tattooing their backs with images of its star.

But you know what? You know what? Well, I'll tell you what: on the evidence of this trailer, THE WRESTLER - while it does strike me as a very good flick - does NOT appear to me to be any more intelligent or substantial or, like, a more better piece of work than ROCKY BALBOA.

What does THE WRESTLER have that ROCKY BALBOA doesn't have? I'll tell you:

NUTHIN'!

And if I were Stallone, well, frankly, I think I might feel just a tiny bit peeved at the existence of THE WRESTLER and by how every Tom, Dick and Harry seems to be behaving as though Rourke and his cohorts have somehow reinvented cinema.

[dodge]

Loomis, your sheer adulation of Sly Stallone--I mean, I'm simply head over heels for the guy--has warped your usual judgment. I'm shocked that you haven't noted parallels between QoS and OVER THE TOP or RHINESTONE COWBOY. If we want to keep this real here, you should also check out the almost unknown wrestling film starring William Smith, called BLOOD AND GUTS. It also has to do with an aging wrestler and the quest for honor and redemption in a sham, show business industry. That film came out, of course, a couple of years after ROCKY, which could lead to a long and bloody debate about artistic originality and imitations. Now, ROCKY's a superb, maybe even a great, motion picture--but how original was it? And should originality even be our prime criterion in judging motion pictures? ROCKY BALBOA'S origins probably date back, at least, to THE CHAMP...and I don't mean the clunker with Jon Voigt.

Points taken. It's just that plenty of critics are proclaiming THE WRESTLER the best thing since sliced bread without giving the Slymeister what would appear to his due.

Even more to the point, how can you judge a movie by its trailer?

You can only judge a movie by the finished product. However, a trailer can often give you the flavour of a movie (and can even, like this one, give away rather too much of the plot).

There is, as Harmsway says, "a decent amount of footage", and the Harmsmeister goes on to point out that: "It's what genuinely convinced me that THE WRESTLER was worth going to see."

I think it's legitimate to have reactions to trailers. After all, you're not reacting to thin air. You're reacting to something that's been carefully crafted to represent a forthcoming fillum. Like Harms, the trailer for THE WRESTLER has sold me on the flick (truth be told, though, I was already onboard thanks to the reviews I'd read). But another reaction that I have is that THE WRESTLER seems to be ROCKY BALBOA REVISITED.

Can't you be true to Sly while giving the Mickster a chance? Love 'em both, for cryin' out loud, and live more recklessly!

Oh, I can. And I'm sure I shall. Like I say, I think THE WRESTLER looks terrific. But I also see more than a passing resemblance to ROCKY BALBOA and a certain degree of debt on the part of the Rourke to the Rock.

More importantly, THE WRESTLER has become a critics' darling. ROCKY BALBOA, bless it, never exactly had reviewers turning cartwheels, killing the fatted calf for its makers and tattooing their backs with images of its star.

But you know what? You know what? Well, I'll tell you what: on the evidence of this trailer, THE WRESTLER - while it does strike me as a very good flick - does NOT appear to me to be any more intelligent or substantial or, like, a more better piece of work than ROCKY BALBOA.

What does THE WRESTLER have that ROCKY BALBOA doesn't have? I'll tell you:

NUTHIN'!And if I were Stallone, well, frankly, I think I might feel just a tiny bit peeved at the existence of THE WRESTLER and by how every Tom, Dick and Harry seems to be behaving as though Rourke and his cohorts have somehow reinvented cinema.

Now, we can't possibly answer that for certain until we see the finished film. But it does, in fact, have something going for it that RB didn't have: and while many critics have praised the film, I don't think any of them have gone overboard in their praise of the script. Let's be fair here, the raves have almost unilaterally been for the one thing that RB emphatically did not have:

a fallen, world-class actor rising from his ashes to deliver a bravura, triumphant performance. I admit that Sly's been grossly underestimated. But Rourke fell from being one of the sexiest and most respected actors on the planet...to a bar-room joke for decades.

I don't expect TW to be a revolutionary bit of film making. Then again, as I argued in my last post, I don't think any of the ROCKY films has been either. Singular? Yes. Brilliantly done? For the most part, imo, definitely yes. But the most innovative thing about ROCKY was Stallone's courageous insistence on his playing the lead role. The impacts of this decision rippled through the industry.

I know you feel a little hurt and angry that Stallone's still not getting the respect that he truly deserves. I'm with you, my brother. But let us not forget that the real grounds for celebration re TW will be the chance to see former greatness redeemed.

[Safari Suit]

Rhinestone Cowboy? Blashphamy! It was called Rhinestone

This film looks great. The only problem for me (which most will disagree with) is that it has been directed by the man who made the filmic equivelent of an acid and amphetamine inspired funeral dirdge.

[Loomis]

But it does, in fact, have something going for it that RB didn't have: and while many critics have praised the film, I don't think any of them have gone overboard in their praise of the script. Let's be fair here, the raves have almost unilaterally been for the one thing that RB emphatically did not have:

a fallen, world-class actor rising from his ashes to deliver a bravura, triumphant performance. I admit that Sly's been grossly underestimated. But Rourke fell from being one of the sexiest and most respected actors on the planet...to a bar-room joke for decades.

Well, Sly was never one of the sexiest or most respected actors on the planet (although, round about the time of ROCKY, a revered critic - Pauline Kael, it may have been - did dub him The Next Brando™).... but wasn't he also pretty washed-up when he made his comeback with ROCKY BALBOA?

Granted, Rourke may have been even more of a has-been, and I doubt that he was getting $20 million a movie the way Stallone (for some unearthly reason) reportedly was prior to ROCKY BALBOA. Still, Sly had had flop after flop, turkey after turkey and bomb after bomb in the years leading up to ROCKY BALBOA. He was Direct-to-DVD Dave. His last "proper" Stateside hit was 1993's CLIFFHANGER.

[Harmsway]

Loomis, I agree with you on the ROCKY BALBOA comparisons. After watching the trailer, it struck me how Rocky-ish the whole thing felt. Though I daresay I'll probably like THE WRESTLER more than ROCKY BALBOA, just because Rourke seems to be delivering a performance considerably more impressive than Stallone's admirable return to form as Rocky.

The only problem for me (which most will disagree with) is that it has been directed by the man who made the filmic equivelent of an acid and amphetamine inspired funeral dirdge.

I outright detest REQUIEM FOR A DREAM. Up there with FIGHT CLUB as one of those overrated pieces of nonsense that gets thrown about as "important."

But Aronofsky isn't all bad in my book. I'm interested to see what he does with the ROBOCOP reboot.

[Safari Suit]

I did like Pi, but I did indeed loath Requiem and am truly baffled by those who seem to see it as a genuinely "deep" movie. Had it really never occurred to these people before that there is an ugly side to drug addiction?

[Loomis]

Loomis, I agree with you on the ROCKY BALBOA comparisons. After watching the trailer, it struck me how Rocky-ish the whole thing felt.

Thanks, Harms. I was beginning to wonder whether I was just reacting to it as a partisan Rocky fanboy, so it's good to see a normal fella like yourself having similar reactions to mine.

Though I daresay I'll probably like THE WRESTLER more than ROCKY BALBOA, just because Rourke seems to be delivering a performance considerably more impressive than Stallone's admirable return to form as Rocky.

On the strength of this trailer, I wouldn't say "considerably more impressive" - I'd say "about the same" (although I note and thank you for your "Stallone's admirable return to form as Rocky"). I know I would say this, but I think Sly's turn in ROCKY BALBOA is one of his very best performances (although perhaps that ain't saying all that much - after all, 90% of his canon consists of wretched "performances" in wretched films! [But when he's good - on those once-in-a-blue-moon occasions - he's phenomenal]), up there with his work in ROCKY, NIGHTHAWKS, FIRST BLOOD and COP LAND.

Stallone does Wounded Old Has-Been Tough Guy Athlete Struggling to Express His Deepseated Disappointed and Years of Pain™ quite superbly in ROCKY BALBOA. See, for instance, the look on his face and the way he spits out the line "She didn't leave me, Paulie, she died", as well as his lecture to his son and many, many other moments. It's real, authentic and straight from the heart.

I'm sure Rourke is similarly terrific in THE WRESTLER, and just as raw and real, but I must say that I don't see any grounds to believe he's any better than Sly in ROCKY BALBOA. I know that I haven't seen THE WRESTLER, but purely on the strength of this trailer I'd say that he's merely as good as Sly in ROCKY BALBOA. Which is, of course, high praise indeed. Especially coming from me.

[Harmsway]

Loomis, I agree with you on the ROCKY BALBOA comparisons. After watching the trailer, it struck me how Rocky-ish the whole thing felt.

Thanks, Harms. I was beginning to wonder whether I was just reacting to it as a partisan Rocky fanboy, so it's good to see a normal fella like yourself having similar reactions to mine.

Yeah. And I'll have you know that in Richard Corliss' review for TIME (where he has plenty of kind words for Rourke's performance, but harsh words for the film itself), he says the following:

"The character stereotyping makes Sylvester Stallone's ROCKY BALBOA, by comparison, seem as swathed in moral ambiguity as Luchino Visconti's ROCCO AND HIS BROTHERS."

On the strength of this trailer, I wouldn't say "considerably more impressive" - I'd say "about the same" (although I note and thank you for your "Stallone's admirable return to form as Rocky").

I wouldn't say they're about the same. Now, I know you and I have very different stances on Stallone in general, so that probably has something to do with it, but I don't think Stallone's performance in ROCKY BALBOA - while good - was anything that merited award attention.

Rourke's work here looks like it does deserve that attention, even in these small clips. That feeling seems buoyed by the critical response, which has heaped oodles of praise on Rourke. In fact, the only reason I'll see the flick is for Rourke. I'm not convinced that the rest of it will be anything special.

[Loomis]

Rourke's work here looks like it does deserve that attention, even in these small clips.

Like I say, I don't see any evidence in the trailer that Rourke's performance is any better (or worse) than Stallone's in ROCKY BALBOA. From what I can see, the two performances are about the same. On present evidence (or at least on present evidence that's available to me here in Britain), Rourke is just as raw, real, heartfelt, surprising and winning (in both senses, ho ho) as Stallone is in ROCKY BALBOA, but he doesn't leave Sly in the dust. He doesn't bury him. He doesn't put Stallone out of business.

So why is Rourke getting the critical raves and whispers of Academy Awards that Stallone didn't get for ROCKY BALBOA? Well, it may be in large part due to the fact that Rourke has never won or been nominated for an Oscar before (as far as I know, at least). He's "due" his "recognition", just like Scorsese with THE DEPARTED (which is actually one of his worst films) and the Coens with NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (which ain't their best by a long chalk). OTOH, Stallone got a lot of Oscar coverage for ROCKY (1976), so he's unquestionably had his time in the sun. Not so the Rourkemeister, which may partially explain why every Tom, Dick and Harry is falling over himself to proclaim Rourke an American national treasure who must get an Oscar for THE WRESTLER.

Having said all that, it may be that when I've actually seen THE WRESTLER I'll be raving about an incredible performance from Rourke. Like I say, though, judging by what I can see in this trailer right now, I can't discern anything Rourke's giving us that Stallone hasn't already done at least equally as well if not better.

[dodge]

Rourke's work here looks like it does deserve that attention, even in these small clips.

Like I say, I don't see any evidence in the trailer that Rourke's performance is any better (or worse) than Stallone's in ROCKY BALBOA. From what I can see, the two performances are about the same. On present evidence (or at least on present evidence that's available to me here in Britain), Rourke is just as raw, real, heartfelt, surprising and winning (in both senses, ho ho) as Stallone is in ROCKY BALBOA, but he doesn't leave Sly in the dust. He doesn't bury him. He doesn't put Stallone out of business.

So why is Rourke getting the critical raves and whispers of Academy Awards that Stallone didn't get for ROCKY BALBOA? Well, it may be in large part due to the fact that Rourke has never won or been nominated for an Oscar before (as far as I know, at least). He's "due" his "recognition", just like Scorsese with THE DEPARTED (which is actually one of his worst films) and the Coens with NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (which ain't their best by a long chalk). OTOH, Stallone got a lot of Oscar coverage for ROCKY (1976), so he's unquestionably had his time in the sun. Not so the Rourkemeister, which may partially explain why every Tom, Dick and Harry is falling over himself to proclaim Rourke an American national treasure who must get an Oscar for THE WRESTLER.

Having said all that, it may be that when I've actually seen THE WRESTLER I'll be raving about an incredible performance from Rourke. Like I say, though, judging by what I can see in this trailer right now, I can't discern anything Rourke's giving us that Stallone hasn't already done at least equally as well if not better.

I pray for you and hope the following assessment revives your justly-acclaimed critical faculties:
ROCKY BALBOA: The movie is the star. A fabulous turn wherein Stallone shows a new maturity and generosity far greater than his ego. So long to his biceps and hi to his heart.

THE WRESTLER: The star is the movie. Rourke has been to low-down states of soul that Sly can't even dream of. And while I'll still wait for the movie, the scores of reviews indicate that his performance taps them in an utterly masterful way. No disrespect to Sly, who gave a splendid performance. I predict that Rourke's will prove the critics right--as a towering achievement.

[Loomis]

Well, I also think that in ROCKY BALBOA the star is the movie. Rocky Balboa is an incredibly personal role for Stallone - indeed, in a way, it's fictionalised autobiography, maybe not so much with, say, ROCKY IV, but definitely with ROCKY and ROCKY BALBOA. It's all authentic and "felt", and much as I adore ROCKY BALBOA I cannot really claim that there's all that much to the flick beyond Stallone's performance. It's his deeply personal star turn that carries the whole thing.

[dodge]

Well, I also think that in ROCKY BALBOA the star is the movie. Rocky Balboa is an incredibly personal role for Stallone - indeed, in a way, it's fictionalised autobiography, maybe not so much with, say, ROCKY IV, but definitely with ROCKY and ROCKY BALBOA. It's all authentic and "felt", and much as I adore ROCKY BALBOA I cannot really claim that there's all that much to the flick beyond Stallone's performance. It's his deeply personal star turn that carries the whole thing.

In a sense. But in a sense anything can be made to seem true. Still, there simply is no way on earth to make a case for Stallone matching, or exceeding, Rourke's great acting chops. I believe a single viewing of TW, when it finally gets to my neck of the woods, will back my case that Rourke carries the whole thing better and farther.

[Safari Suit]

I find it a little distasteful/disrespectful the way the press for this film seems to suggest Rourke has been living in a cave for fourteen years and onnly the might Aronofsky could save him. You could argue Rourke had already made comebacks with stuff like Once Upon A Time in Mexico, Spun and Sin City, even if they weren't big grossers or huge roles. That's certainly how those roles were treated at the time, in some areas anyway. Still, it will sell the film.

[dodge]

I find it a little distasteful/disrespectful the way the press for this film seems to suggest Rourke has been living in a cave for fourteen years and onnly the might Aronofsky could save him. You could argue Rourke had already made comebacks with stuff like Once Upon A Time in Mexico, Spun and Sin City, even if they weren't big grossers or huge roles. That's certainly how those roles were treated at the time, in some areas anyway. Still, it will sell the film.

Some excellent points here, SS. A detailed and well-thought-out piece chronicling MR's career rehabilitation would be a pleasure to read. Still, maybe what's excited the press--and us--most is that THE WRESTLER finally allows us to see MR's acting chops and range in a way no other role has done in memory. Anyway, bravo again.

[Loomis]

Having now seen THE WRESTLER, I'd say that it's a very good film, and Rourke is indeed superb.

However, neither Rourke nor the movie manages to hit any spots that Stallone and the Rocky flicks (and plenty of other movies to boot) haven't hit. It offers nothing that hasn't been seen before - a million times - and it really ends up as nothing more than yer standard Hollywood feelgood schmaltzfest.

Now, please don't get me wrong: I had a contented grin on my face for most of THE WRESTLER, and it is, as I say, a very good film (but perhaps not quite the masterpiece it's being trumpeted as). However, DO NOT look for anything new (or even anything especially brilliant) in this movie - YOU WILL come up empty-handed.

It ain't RAGING BULL. And indeed for much of its running time it is, as I'd suspected, ROCKY BALBOA by another name. Not, of course, that that's a bad thing, particularly for this here rabid Rocky fan. But if anyone suggests that THE WRESTLER has somehow reinvented the wheel or taken audiences on a journey not already mapped out a thousand times by Sly, all I can say is: puh-leaze.

Rourke and Marisa Tomei are mirror images, playing entertainers past or passing their prime who have belatedly realised how badly they're doing in their "real life" guises (Tomei plays a stripper who, like Rourke's character, uses an alias). The world applauds as they bare their impressive physiques and simulate lust (in Rourke's case for battle, in Tomei's for her customers), but repeatedly kicks them in the teeth when they attempt to be, well, regular people, with functioning relationships, children and so forth.

So far so, uh, deep and meaningful.... but the execution is pure ROCKY and ROCKY BALBOA almost all the way (the opening recalls the start of ROCKY, which features Sly's battered club fighter collecting his paltry - and, on top of that, heavily-taxed - winnings, waxing ironic on the subject of our hero's "success"), with a touch of THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON'T THEY?. You know exactly where THE WRESTLER is going and how it's going to get there, and it doesn't surprise you. At all. Except, perhaps, in terms of just how much inspiration a picture can take from the Rocky series (right down to supporting character names). Tomei morphs into Talia Shire as Adrian, and the speechifying ending even recalls (the horror!) ROCKY IV.

IMPORTANT: I'm not saying that THE WRESTLER doesn't work. It does. I'm not saying that it isn't affecting. It is. It is, allow me to reiterate, a very fine piece of work. But what it isn't is anything out of the ordinary. And don't let anyone tell you different.

Indeed, quite bluntly, it's hellishly unoriginal. And, like I say, standard-issue feelgood fare. It's done very well, to be sure, but it's standard-issue feelgood fare nonetheless. I hammer this home because the way people are reacting to THE WRESTLER you'd think that it was the blinkin' second coming of filmmaking or somefink. Honestly, folks, it's predictable with a capital P.

Only a couple of scenes stand out as being relatively fresh and new: Rourke's frustrating day on the deli counter is priceless, and his clothes shopping trip with Tomei is also pure gold. The rest of it? Well, if you've seen an Italian Stallion outing then, essentially, you've seen THE WRESTLER. Also, you can only mine those good old reserves of well-worn cliche so much before you start to make a few missteps: Rourke's folorn figure at probably the most poorly-attended wrestling fans' convention in history does, I'm afraid, bring to mind that SPINAL TAP gag about the record signing no one turns up for.

[Vauxhall]

I agree that it's nothing out the ordinary, and it's pretty much a shake-up of a tried-and-tested formula. I'm happy to say that THE WRESTLER is still comfortably sitting in my top few movies of the year though. In this context, I can never have enough schmaltz, and as you say, Rourke and Tomei are splendid.

Note to Loomis: as promised, I have the Rocky DVD Boxset now and will be working my way though them over the next couple of weeks. Very excited.

[danslittlefinger]

Congrats to Mickey on the Globe!

[JackWade]

I really want to see this. Damn you limited release!

[DR76]

Congratulations to Mickey Rourke for his Golden Globe win as Best Actor in a Drama.