182 replies to this topic

[dodge]

Can't wait till it opens here and I get the chance with my review to save Loomis' poor soul with my own review.

[dodge]

Congrats to Mickey on the Globe!

Well said--and without a single word about how TW 'rips off' ROCKY...which 'ripped off' countless boxing films as well as Ernest Borgnine's MARTY...with a touch of ON THE WATERFRONT!

[Loomis]

Granted, but at least ROCKY wasn't ripping off films that had been released just a couple of years earlier. People are citing similarities between ROCKY BALBOA (2006) and THE WRESTLER (2008) because, well, because those similarities exist and are plain for all to see (to put it mildly). Similarly, those who point out the similarities between the Jason Bourne outings and QUANTUM OF SOLACE do have grounds - they're not just making stuff up to be annoying.

I have seen the Rocky flicks (to death and beyond), and I have seen THE WRESTLER, so I know what I'm talking about. Why, dodge, are you so passionately defending a movie you've yet to watch?

[dodge]

Granted, but at least ROCKY wasn't ripping off films that had been released just a couple of years earlier. People are citing similarities between ROCKY BALBOA (2006) and THE WRESTLER (2008) because, well, because those similarities exist and are plain for all to see (to put it mildly). Similarly, those who point out the similarities between the Jason Bourne outings and QUANTUM OF SOLACE do have grounds - they're not just making stuff up to be annoying.

I have seen the Rocky flicks (to death and beyond), and I have seen THE WRESTLER, so I know what I'm talking about. Why, dodge, are you so passionately defending a movie you've yet to watch?

As I've previously pointed out, THE WRESTLER appears to be at least equally indebted to William Smith's BLOOD AND GUTS which came out just a few years after ROCKY. So, who's ripping off whom here? I'll issue a complete review once I've seen the film. And I'm passionately defending TW for, probably, for reasons similar to yours in defending WATCHMEN, Loomis.

[Harmsway]

I daresay WATCHMEN's easier to defend than THE WRESTLER.

(I say this just having seen the flick. Good stuff. Rourke is excellent - better than Stallone ever was in ROCKY BALBOA - but, as a film, this really is just a retread of old territory.)

[Loomis]

Granted, but at least ROCKY wasn't ripping off films that had been released just a couple of years earlier. People are citing similarities between ROCKY BALBOA (2006) and THE WRESTLER (2008) because, well, because those similarities exist and are plain for all to see (to put it mildly). Similarly, those who point out the similarities between the Jason Bourne outings and QUANTUM OF SOLACE do have grounds - they're not just making stuff up to be annoying.

I have seen the Rocky flicks (to death and beyond), and I have seen THE WRESTLER, so I know what I'm talking about. Why, dodge, are you so passionately defending a movie you've yet to watch?

As I've previously pointed out, THE WRESTLER appears to be at least equally indebted to William Smith's BLOOD AND GUTS which came out just a few years after ROCKY. So, who's ripping off whom here? I'll issue a complete review once I've seen the film. And I'm passionately defending TW for, probably, for reasons similar to yours in defending WATCHMEN, Loomis.

Hmmm.... I don't think I've ever defended WATCHMEN the movie, dodge. But I'll defend to the death WATCHMEN the novel ( ).... because I've experienced it.

I daresay WATCHMEN's easier to defend than THE WRESTLER.

(I say this just having seen the flick. Good stuff. Rourke is excellent - better than Stallone ever was in ROCKY BALBOA - but, as a film, this really is just a retread of old territory.)

How and why is Rourke better than Stallone? I just don't see it. I think they're, well, pretty much the same, really.

With its hearing aid prop for its hero and shots of the Mickmeister injecting steriods into his butt and snorting coke, THE WRESTLER does attempt to be Grittier™ than ROCKY BALBOA. But all it is is Surface Grit™ - once you get past these superficial things, THE WRESTLER is every bit as schmaltzy, as hokey, as predictable and as sentimental as ROCKY BALBOA. It's common-or-garden feelgood fare.

It's still good stuff, but let's not pretend that it's something more than it is. Or that Sly didn't make (more or less) the exact same movie just a coupla years ago.

[Harmsway]

How and why is Rourke better than Stallone? I just don't see it. I think they're, well, pretty much the same, really.

Well, because Stallone wasn't that good in ROCKY BALBOA. It was his best performance in a long time, but it still wasn't a great performance in and of itself. Rourke's performance, ultimately, feels much more genuine than anything Stallone mustered in ROCKY BALBOA. Stallone was getting by on his persona, but Rourke actually impressed me with the details of his performance. And that's the difference.

But all it is is Surface Grit™ - once you get past these superficial things, THE WRESTLER is every bit as schmaltzy, as hokey, as predictable and as sentimental as ROCKY BALBOA. It's common-or-garden feelgood fare.

Entirely agreed.

[dodge]

How and why is Rourke better than Stallone? I just don't see it. I think they're, well, pretty much the same, really.

Well, because Stallone wasn't that good in ROCKY BALBOA. It was his best performance in a long time, but it still wasn't a great performance in and of itself. Rourke's performance, ultimately, feels much more genuine than anything Stallone mustered in ROCKY BALBOA. Stallone was getting by on his persona, but Rourke actually impressed me with the details of his performance. And that's the difference.

But all it is is Surface Grit™ - once you get past these superficial things, THE WRESTLER is every bit as schmaltzy, as hokey, as predictable and as sentimental as ROCKY BALBOA. It's common-or-garden feelgood fare.

Entirely agreed.

Bingo. And however excited I am about seeing TW, I don't expect an Oscar-worthy film...I expect an Oscar-worthy performance from Rourke. Rourke may have hit the skids for years, but he fell from authentic heights--and I'm charged up because the reviews I've read indicate that he's far better here than simply back in form. It sounds as if he's given the performance of a lifetime.

[Loomis]

How and why is Rourke better than Stallone? I just don't see it. I think they're, well, pretty much the same, really.

Well, because Stallone wasn't that good in ROCKY BALBOA. It was his best performance in a long time, but it still wasn't a great performance in and of itself. Rourke's performance, ultimately, feels much more genuine than anything Stallone mustered in ROCKY BALBOA. Stallone was getting by on his persona, but Rourke actually impressed me with the details of his performance. And that's the difference.

We'll have to disagree on this one. Now, Stallone's performance in ROCKY (1976) is probably his one and only truly great performance (and, incidentally, one of the greatest performances of all time). But his turn in ROCKY BALBOA is also very good indeed, and, no, he doesn't merely coast on his "persona" - there are also impressive details to his performance (which, oddly enough, are to a large degree apparent in the DVD deleted scenes). Acting-wise, he pulls out all the stops in ROCKY BALBOA in a way he doesn't in the subsequent RAMBO, and it really pays off.

And, again, I don't see that Rourke has done anything at all not already done by Sly in the Rockys. In which scene(s) does Rourke take the craft of acting above and beyond anything Stallone has done? How, exactly, does he carve out any new territory or hit any emotional highs or lows not already covered by the ol' Stallion? This isn't just my Stallone fandom talking - I really don't see how Rourko beats Rocko.

How and why is Rourke better than Stallone? I just don't see it. I think they're, well, pretty much the same, really.

Well, because Stallone wasn't that good in ROCKY BALBOA. It was his best performance in a long time, but it still wasn't a great performance in and of itself. Rourke's performance, ultimately, feels much more genuine than anything Stallone mustered in ROCKY BALBOA. Stallone was getting by on his persona, but Rourke actually impressed me with the details of his performance. And that's the difference.

But all it is is Surface Grit™ - once you get past these superficial things, THE WRESTLER is every bit as schmaltzy, as hokey, as predictable and as sentimental as ROCKY BALBOA. It's common-or-garden feelgood fare.

Entirely agreed.

Bingo. And however excited I am about seeing TW, I don't expect an Oscar-worthy film...I expect an Oscar-worthy performance from Rourke. Rourke may have hit the skids for years, but he fell from authentic heights--and I'm charged up because the reviews I've read indicate that he's far better here than simply back in form. It sounds as if he's given the performance of a lifetime.

Yeah, I'd say that Rourke more than deserves a Best Actor nomination (whether he deserves to win, though....), but I wouldn't say that THE WRESTLER merits consideration for Best Picture.

That said, it did, of course, win the Golden Lion at Venice, which puts it in pretty exalted company, and I'd certainly say it's far superior to many recent Academy Award Best Picture winners and nominees. I can't help feeling, though, that's it's merely above-par feelgood fare dusted with some superficially gritty and documentary-style trappings, and that it's been somewhat overrated by all and sundry.

[Harmsway]

We'll have to disagree on this one. Now, Stallone's performance in ROCKY (1976) is probably his one and only truly great performance (and, incidentally, one of the greatest performances of all time).

"One of the greatest performances of all time"? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, ol' boy. Given the sea of truly incredible performances we've had over the years, his performance in ROCKY is "very good," at best. And yes, I know you had whatshisname saying that he had the makings of a young Brando, or whatever, but that was just silly hyperbole.

But his turn in ROCKY BALBOA is also very good indeed, and, no, he doesn't merely coast on his "persona" - there are also impressive details to his performance (which, oddly enough, are to a large degree apparent in the DVD deleted scenes).

I daresay deleted scenes don't count.

And I don't mean to say that Stallone is coasting, 'cause he's not. And this is where you and I part ways on Stallone: even his best as a performer isn't great. He just doesn't have it in him. So what ultimately makes his performance in ROCKY BALBOA stand-out isn't the nuances of his performance - make no mistake, he's doing capable work, though - but the fact that he's back in the iconic role.

In which scene(s) does Rourke take the craft of acting above and beyond anything Stallone has done?

Most of them. But for example, compare the two speeches to progeny between the two films. Stallone's speech to his son, while somewhat touching, does not have the deeply-felt genuineness of Rourke's speech to his daughter. His performance has a bit of stiltedness to it. He can't quite shed the artificiality of the moment. But Rourke? Rourke takes it to the next level, and delivers his speech with a level of such reality that it's beyond anything I've ever seen Stallone accomplish.

[Judo chop]

We'll have to disagree on this one. Now, Stallone's performance in ROCKY (1976) is probably his one and only truly great performance (and, incidentally, one of the greatest performances of all time). But his turn in ROCKY BALBOA is also very good indeed, and, no, he doesn't merely coast on his "persona" - there are also impressive details to his performance (which, oddly enough, are to a large degree apparent in the DVD deleted scenes). Acting-wise, he pulls out all the stops in ROCKY BALBOA in a way he doesn't in the subsequent RAMBO, and it really pays off.

You know I agree w/you Loomis. I think Stallone’s performance perfectly encapsulates THE Rocky Balboa realizing, a good step after his career's close, that he doesn’t have his closure. I see the original Rock, but sculpted even further by time, victories and losses, both in and out of the ring.

It’s not the greatest performance of all time or anything, but he’s Rocky again, yet not quite, which is exactly what I would have hoped to see.

[Loomis]

And this is where you and I part ways on Stallone: even his best as a performer isn't great. He just doesn't have it in him.

Well, to be sure, I often find it hard to get my head around the idea that the Sylvester Stallone of RAMBO III, THE SPEcıalısT and many, many other wretched (and I hesitate to even use the term) performances in many, many other wretched movies is the same Sylvester Stallone of ROCKY, NIGHTHAWKS, FIRST BLOOD, COP LAND and ROCKY BALBOA.... but there we are. I think he does have it in him, but unfortunately it only comes out every dozen movies or so. Mostly, he's just a walking car crash of an "actor", an embarrassment. Still, I guess that's part of what makes Sly interesting.

So what ultimately makes his performance in ROCKY BALBOA stand-out isn't the nuances of his performance - make no mistake, he's doing capable work, though - but the fact that he's back in the iconic role.

I really don't agree. If that were true, why is his "performance" in ROCKY V wooden, lazy, self-parodic and utterly flat and dull? He was also "back in the iconic role", was he not? So it's not as though all you have to do is get Sly playing Rocky Balboa and you've got pure gold, 'coz that demonstrably isn't the case.

But for example, compare the two speeches to progeny between the two films. Stallone's speech to his son, while somewhat touching, does not have the deeply-felt genuineness of Rourke's speech to his daughter. His performance has a bit of stiltedness to it. He can't quite shed the artificiality of the moment. But Rourke? Rourke takes it to the next level, and delivers his speech with a level of such reality that it's beyond anything I've ever seen Stallone accomplish.

Again, I don't agree. What a surprise, eh?

[Judo chop]

"One of the greatest performances of all time"? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, ol' boy. Given the sea of truly incredible performances we've had over the years, his performance in ROCKY is "very good," at best. And yes, I know you had whatshisname saying that he had the makings of a young Brando, or whatever, but that was just silly hyperbole.
And I don't mean to say that Stallone is coasting, 'cause he's not. And this is where you and I part ways on Stallone: even his best as a performer isn't great. He just doesn't have it in him. So what ultimately makes his performance in ROCKY BALBOA stand-out isn't the nuances of his performance - make no mistake, he's doing capable work, though - but the fact that he's back in the iconic role.

(Sorry to barge in like this, but…)

Harmsway, I think I caught a whiff of you judging Stallone’s performance not on what is contained in ROCKY, but what is contained in Stallone.

If so, not really fair. I don’t think we should look back on Stallone’s entire career, decide after all that he’s really only a fair-to-good actor, and based upon that retroactively hold back praise of his performance in ROCKY.

Nobody could have been Rocky better than Stallone. Maybe that’s his one and only gift as an actor, but let’s give him full credit for it. Or is the underlined portion where you disagree?

[Loomis]

Exactly, Judo. Well said.

[Vauxhall]

If the discussion is turning into a Mickey vs. Sly debate, I'm going to initially weigh in on Rourke's side. My initial impression was that I felt Ram's pain much more than I felt Rocky's, although I certainly need repeat viewing of both movies. That may be due to the writing rather than the performance admittedly.

[Harmsway]

So it's not as though all you have to do is get Sly playing Rocky Balboa and you've got pure gold, 'coz that demonstrably isn't the case.

That's clearly not what I'm arguing.

As I've said countless times, he's pretty good in ROCKY BALBOA, which makes his performance noticeably superior to much in Stallone's career. But he never does anything as an actor in that film that can fall under the category of great. The only reason his performance is particularly notable in ROCKY BALBOA is because, well, he's returned to the iconic role and does a decent job.

If he gave the exact same performance in any other film than ROCKY BALBOA, it wouldn't have merited much attention at all.

If so, not really fair. I don’t think we should look back on Stallone’s entire career, decide after all that he’s really only a fair-to-good actor, and based upon that retroactively hold back praise of his performance in ROCKY.

That would be an unfair tactic, but that's not what I'm doing. His performance in ROCKY, taken outside of his entire career, is by no means up there with the all-time great performances. He created an iconic character, and that deserves praise all its own. But I'll strongly disagree when someone suggests we should be putting his turn in Rocky alongside Marlon Brando in ON THE WATERFRONT.

Nobody could have been Rocky better than Stallone. Maybe that’s his one and only gift as an actor, but let’s give him full credit for it. Or is the underlined portion where you disagree?

I do disagree.

But even if I didn't, just because he played the role of Rocky perfectly doesn't mean it was one of the greatest performances of all time. One could easily argue that "nobody could have been Indiana Jones better than Harrison Ford" - and in my opinion, that's probably true - but it hardly means that Harrison Ford gave one of the greatest performances of all time in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK.

[Safari Suit]

He created an iconic character, and that deserves praise all its own.

I agree. Perhaps instead of comparing Stallone in Rocky with Rourke in The Wrestler it should be compared with Mickey Mouse in Steamboat Willie or the first issue of Action Comics and in no way do I mean either of them as an insult.

"Nobody could have been Indiana Jones better than Harrison Ford" - and in my opinion, that's probably true.

Two words: Tom Selleck

[Loomis]

If the discussion is turning into a Mickey vs. Sly debate, I'm going to initially weigh in on Rourke's side. My initial impression was that I felt Ram's pain much more than I felt Rocky's, although I certainly need repeat viewing of both movies. That may be due to the writing rather than the performance admittedly.

Well, yeah. The Ram is more broken down than Rocky (even the somewhat implausibly impoverished Rocky of ROCKY V). The Italian Stallion was never as poor (well, except for in the first flick, perhaps) or as ill. The Ram has literally got one foot in the grave, and has a much worse relationship with his offspring than Rocko ever had. In addition, he has severe substance abuse issues and sports a hearing aid. So of course you feel his pain much more. Heck, it's all laid on so thick it's like Little Nell.

[Loomis]

If he gave the exact same performance in any other film than ROCKY BALBOA, it wouldn't have merited much attention at all.

I don't agree. It's a performance several times better than the standard Stallone "performance", and so would have been noted as such in any other film.

One could easily argue that "nobody could have been Indiana Jones better than Harrison Ford" - and in my opinion, that's probably true - but it hardly means that Harrison Ford gave one of the greatest performances of all time in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK.

That's only because there's no depth or really any three-dimensional characterisation whatsoever to the role of Indiana Jones, any more than there is to the role of Han Solo. But the character of Rocky "The Eye-tallion Stallion" Balboa does have those things, at least in ROCKY and ROCKY BALBOA, and to a certain extent in ROCKY II.

[Judo chop]

But even if I didn't, just because he played the role of Rocky perfectly doesn't mean it was one of the greatest performances of all time. One could easily argue that "nobody could have been Indiana Jones better than Harrison Ford" - and in my opinion, that's probably true - but it hardly means that Harrison Ford gave one of the greatest performances of all time in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK.

I understand. Nobody could do Ace Ventura as well as Jim Carey for that matter… your point stands. But I would argue that the distinction between Harrison’s perfect performance as Indy and Stallone’s perfect performance as Rocky, is in the fact that Indy amounts to entertainment, whereas Rocky amounts to a living, breathing feeling human. (And what Loomis just said.)

I do believe that neither actor could ever be toppled in the results they achieved, but the results are made of entirely different substances.

And I do believe I know what you’re getting at, in terms of defining a great performance. The deliberate subtleties. The choices an actor makes from second to second. His/her awareness of the story and the scene and his/her ability to disappear into a role. Things that make DD Lewis so magnificent time and time again.

And I totally agree. But I think there is another way to go about achieving greatness. One that’s admittedly more subjective and much more rare, and I think that Stallone’s Rocky takes that route. If a performance, even if not so perfectly calculated and text-book wonderful, creates a character who becomes beloved by millions…

It’s like Safari just said. Except that I don’t think we should reduce Stallone’s performance to merely being the start of something iconic. Rocky is not beloved thanks to only being in the right place at the right time, or filling a void that wasn’t already there.

It is subjective and so feel like my argument is already slipping away. It all depends on what Rocky: The Film means to you and how it affects you. No one can do Indy like Harrison – TRUE. But Indiana Jones as a being, to me at least, is not on the same level as Rocky. Rocky: The Man transcends the film and his adventure. He pops off the page of the story. There’s just not any other character in film that I adore so much as The Rock. For that, I HAVE to give his performance all-star status. If it’s not a world beating performance he gives, then how on earth is Rocky so special?

I've yanked this thread off the Wrestler enough for today. Sorry everyone!

[Harmsway]

I don't agree. It's a performance several times better than the standard Stallone "performance", and so would have been noted as such in any other film.

Sure, but nobody would be calling it great.

That, for me, is the difference between Rourke's performance in THE WRESTLER and Stallone's turn in ROCKY BALBOA. Let's take these performances out of the context of their respective careers, with the "comeback" nature of those roles disregarded. Stallone's turn would by no means attract any deep praise beyond a "Hey, he doesn't suck!" kind of note. Rourke's performance would still be acclaimed (maybe not to the same extent, but acclaimed nonetheless).

[Loomis]

There’s just not any other character in film that I adore so much as The Rock.

Same here. And the role is quite literally unplayable by anyone other than Stallone. Bond can be recast, of course, and a successful recasting of Indy Jones isn't too much of a stretch to imagine, but no Sly = no Rocko. OTOH, I daresay that quite a number of other actors could have made just as good a fist as Rourke of THE WRESTLER.

[Judo chop]

But the character of Rocky "The Eye-tallion Stallion" Balboa does have those things, at least in ROCKY and ROCKY BALBOA, and to a certain extent in ROCKY II.

Interesting, though, how we part ways when it comes to RIII. Not that we don’t see it the same way objectively. After the ridiculous amounts of dissection on the subject I’m sure that we do. But it does seem that your love for The Real Rocko™ (evident in parts I and VI for certain, and wavering in part II) gives you extended tolerance for something slightly… how shall I say? Adulterated? Where for me it draws a go/no-go line.

Just interesting, sincerely.

There’s just not any other character in film that I adore so much as The Rock.

Same here. And the role is quite literally unplayable by anyone other than Stallone. Bond can be recast, of course, and a successful recasting of Indy Jones isn't too much of a stretch to imagine, but no Sly = no Rocko. OTOH, I daresay that quite a number of other actors could have made just as good a fist as Rourke of THE WRESTLER.

I haven’t seen the WRESTLER (which is, I realize, a cloud over any right I have even being in this thread, much less commenting on comparisons), but I have to agree.

Not to take anything away from what I’m sure is a great performance from Rourke, full of all kinds of acting bells and whistles I’d expect an experienced pro to bring to the table.

[Harmsway]

If a performance, even if not so perfectly calculated and text-book wonderful, creates a character who becomes beloved by millions…

It is a kind of greatness, as you suggest, and its award is enduring appeal and popularity. But I'm none too interested in this kind of greatness. This is the kind of greatness that is decided by the whims of culture and community, not by artistic analysis. That's why, whenever greatness is assessed from this perspective, crowd-pleasers dominate.

[Judo chop]

If a performance, even if not so perfectly calculated and text-book wonderful, creates a character who becomes beloved by millions…

It is a kind of greatness, as you suggest, and its award is enduring appeal, and popularity. But I'm none too interested in this kind of greatness. This is the kind of greatness that is decided by the whims of culture and community, not by artistic analysis. That's why, whenever greatness is assessed from this perspective, crowd-pleasers dominate.

I understand. And I see the risk of this line of thinking. All I can say is that I do think one can invest themselves in this approach in a responsible manner. It really must be reserved for the 'biggies'.

Honestly. If Rocky is THAT adored - and let's forget the millions now, I'm just talking about ME - how do I NOT praise Stallone's performance to the skies? He created one of my favorite, if not my absolute favorite, characters in film. How do I NOT call it perfection? Fine, maybe it's not 'studyable'. But it's got to be something more than a good performance that got lucky.

[dodge]

So now we have the argument that nobody else can play Rocky and therefore ROCKY BALBOA is a better film than THE WRESTLER. May I pursue this line of argument? Nobody else could play Tarzan better than Johnny W...nobody else will ever beat Richard Boone's Paladin...nobody will ever beart Harrison Ford's Indy...etc. Now, the argument is not that these aren't cultural icons. No one's denying the actors their props. No one's disputing the money they made. But the fact that no one else could play a certain role hardly means that the actor is a superior actor. Dan Craig could not play Rocky. Is Stallone a better actor than Dan Craig?

I'll weigh in, in detail, once I've seen the film, re Rourke's performance. For now--puhleeze and jeezlaweez!

[Safari Suit]

I don't believe anybody has said Rocky [x] is better than The Wrestler because no one else can play Rocky. This discussion hasn't been that on-topic!

[Judo chop]

I don't believe anybody has said Rocky [x] is better than The Wrestler because no one else can play Rocky. This discussion hasn't been that on-topic!

Are you lookin' at me?


Are YOU lookin' at ME?

[Loomis]

So now we have the argument that nobody else can play Rocky and therefore ROCKY BALBOA is a better film than THE WRESTLER.

Erm, nope. That's not the argument I'm making. Not sure that anyone else here is making that argument, either.

And I wouldn't say that ROCKY BALBOA is a better film than THE WRESTLER. Neither would I say that THE WRESTLER is a better film than ROCKY BALBOA. For me, the two are neck-and-neck, although I'll play my ROCKY BALBOA DVD more frequently purely by dint of my fandom for the series and for Stallone. But I'm sure I'll also rack up a fair few viewings of THE WRESTLER in the months and years ahead.

[dodge]

So now we have the argument that nobody else can play Rocky and therefore ROCKY BALBOA is a better film than THE WRESTLER.

Erm, nope. That's not the argument I'm making. Not sure that anyone else here is making that argument, either.
And I wouldn't say that ROCKY BALBOA is a better film than THE WRESTLER. Neither would I say that THE WRESTLER is a better film than ROCKY BALBOA. For me, the two are neck-and-neck, although I'll play my ROCKY BALBOA DVD more frequently purely by dint of my fandom for the series and for Stallone. But I'm sure I'll also rack up a fair few viewings of THE WRESTLER in the months and years ahead.

Sorry, I don't mean to be perverse but it does read that way, imo, when you point out that only Sly could have done RB while many could've played Rourke's role in TW. Anyway, I take exception to the second point if it's meant in any disparaging way. Why? Because the fact that many actors have played Hamlet hardly means that none of them has done his job--or is inferior to Boris Karloff, who forever nailed one role. All due praise to both Stallone and Rourke.