182 replies to this topic

[dodge]

There's a marvelous article on Rourke--maybe the best ever written--in the New York Times magazine.

Who else but my hero would have given mouth to mouth recusitation to a chihuahua who'd just died of a heart attack?

I will never stop singing Mick's praises.

[dodge]

This just in re Rourke's next release, KILLSHOT:

For a movie with its pedigree (Oscar-winning director, Diane Lane, Thomas Jane, and Mickey Rourke in the cast) it’s amazing how under the radar “Killshot” is flying. The film is scheduled to open later this month, and most people don’t know it exists. But then again, if you’ve seen the trailer, it sure looks like your average direct-to-DVD mob hitman movie, doesn’t it? Meaning, you could probably find 10 similar movies exactly like it, minus the A-list cast and crew, on your local videostore shelf starring Dolph Lundgren or some other disposal action movie star. Maybe that’s why “Killshot” hasn’t exactly been getting the “Mickey Rourke is back, baby!” treatment that all Rourke movies are currently getting after his “The Wrestler” triumph.

Carmen Colson (Diane Lane) and her husband Wayne (Thomas Jane) are placed in the Federal Witness Protection program after witnessing a crime. The couple thinks they are now safe, but an experienced hitman, Armand “The Blackbird” Degas (Mickey Rourke), and a rookie killer, Richie Nix (Joe Gordon Levitt) are on their trail.

Starring Diane Lane, Thomas Jane, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Mickey Rourke. John Madden (”Shakespeare in Love”) directs.

Release datre is said to be: January 23.

[bond 16.05.72]

Whereas as I don't think The Wrestler is devoid of sentimentality it is nowhere on the scale of the manipulation used in the Rocky films.

I think the first film is easily the best and Stallone's performance is great, it's a rags to riches story, The Wrestler isn't, there's no redemption so I don't see the emotions manipulated anywhere the way they are with the Rocky films.

The Wrestler is a lower budget version, we get an insight into what happens to veteran wrestlers and what they are reduced to, we get to see that Randy is never destined to get a happy ending.

How that can make Rocky as gritty is beyond me, I guess we were watching 2 different films, it's like comparing the Ipcress File to Goldfinger.

Edited by bond 16.05.72, 17 January 2009 - 05:00 PM.

[dodge]

Whereas as I don't think The Wrestler is devoid of sentimentality it is nowhere on the scale of the manipulation used in the Rocky films.

I think the first film is easily the best and Stallone's performance is great, it's a rags to riches story, The Wrestler isn't, there's no redemption so I don't see the emotions manipulated anywhere the way they are with the Rocky films.

The Wrestler is a lower budget version, we get an insight into what happens to veterans wrestlers are reduced and we get to see that Randy is never destined to get a happy ending.
How that can make Rocky as gritty is beyond me, I guess we were watch 2 different films, it's like comparing the Ipcress File to Goldfinger.

Yeah, one of the interesting differences is that Ram's quest for redemption takes place in a circus of fakery where real, terrible pain can occur. I've read that the ending offers no ROCKY-style boost. Did you find it...downbeat?

[bond 16.05.72]

Whereas as I don't think The Wrestler is devoid of sentimentality it is nowhere on the scale of the manipulation used in the Rocky films.

I think the first film is easily the best and Stallone's performance is great, it's a rags to riches story, The Wrestler isn't, there's no redemption so I don't see the emotions manipulated anywhere the way they are with the Rocky films.

The Wrestler is a lower budget version, we get an insight into what happens to veterans wrestlers are reduced and we get to see that Randy is never destined to get a happy ending.
How that can make Rocky as gritty is beyond me, I guess we were watch 2 different films, it's like comparing the Ipcress File to Goldfinger.

Yeah, one of the interesting differences is that Ram's quest for redemption takes place in a circus of fakery where real, terrible pain can occur. I've read that the ending offers no ROCKY-style boost. Did you find it...downbeat?

No there is no boost, I did find it downbeat and don't see how it could be compared to the crowd pleasing element of the Rocky films, any of them!

[zencat]

Watched this last night. Good film. BRUTAL. But good.

[Loomis]

Whereas as I don't think The Wrestler is devoid of sentimentality it is nowhere on the scale of the manipulation used in the Rocky films.

I think the first film is easily the best and Stallone's performance is great, it's a rags to riches story, The Wrestler isn't, there's no redemption so I don't see the emotions manipulated anywhere the way they are with the Rocky films.

The Wrestler is a lower budget version, we get an insight into what happens to veteran wrestlers and what they are reduced to, we get to see that Randy is never destined to get a happy ending.

We must have watched different versions of THE WRESTLER. The film I saw does give our hero redemption and a happy ending. And, yes, there is a ROCKY-style boost at the finish.

[bond 16.05.72]

Whereas as I don't think The Wrestler is devoid of sentimentality it is nowhere on the scale of the manipulation used in the Rocky films.

I think the first film is easily the best and Stallone's performance is great, it's a rags to riches story, The Wrestler isn't, there's no redemption so I don't see the emotions manipulated anywhere the way they are with the Rocky films.

The Wrestler is a lower budget version, we get an insight into what happens to veteran wrestlers and what they are reduced to, we get to see that Randy is never destined to get a happy ending.

We must have watched different versions of THE WRESTLER. The film I saw does give our hero redemption and a happy ending. And, yes, there is a ROCKY-style boost at the finish.

It just goes to show peoples different interpretation of films, I just asked my Wife if she remembers if the ending gave Randy any redemption or you feel a boost at the end and she agreed with me that it didn't so I guess will just agree to disagree on this one.

I will be interested to hear others view on this whether they will side with your opinion or mine, it was a sobering watch for me and don't remember any Rocky style moments in it.

[zencat]

Interesting. The ending is very open, and was one of things that made the film feel so brutal. I'm pretty convinced he's a dead man. He's in the middle of having a heart attack. Either he's going to die right there in the ring after the jump, or in the locker room. Maybe there is a redemptive quality...kinda. He's dying a "Wrestler". But the whole movie is still a pretty horrible and sad decent. It's the real Rocky.

[Vauxhall]

Interesting. The ending is very open, and was one of things that made the film feel so brutal. I'm pretty convinced he's a dead man. He's in the middle of having a heart attack. Either he's going to die right there in the ring after the jump, or in the locker room. Maybe there is a redemptive quality...kinda. He's dying a "Wrestler". But the whole movie is still a pretty horrible and sad decent. It's the real Rocky.

I'd been meaning to bring this exact point up. The fade to black as he made his final jump suggested death to me, but with Ram dying a happy man given the ovation he had just received. I was wondering how others would interpret this.

[dodge]

Interesting sidebar helping to explain the style of the film:

"Ironically, the casting of Rourke wound up dictating the cinematic style of The Wrestler. Aronofsky says that Rourke doesn't like to rehearse, so it was impossible for the director to block out specific camera shots in advance of each day's filming.

''Mickey doesn't show you how he's going to play it until the camera rolls,'' Aronofsky says. ``He doesn't want to reveal that. I had a sense of what each scene was about and what I needed, but I didn't know how Mickey was going to move or walk or what he was going to do. So I built an entire visual style out of the way Mickey Rourke acts. Between action and cut, he's very free and natural, so I wanted a camera that was free and natural to respond to anything he chose to do.''

That spontaneity led to The Wrestler's documentary-style, hand-held camerawork, which adds a layer of realism to Rourke's raw, heartbreaking performance as a man making one final, all-or-nothing attempt to set his upended life right."

source: http://www.miamihera.../857338-p2.html

[Loomis]

Interesting. The ending is very open, and was one of things that made the film feel so brutal. I'm pretty convinced he's a dead man. He's in the middle of having a heart attack. Either he's going to die right there in the ring after the jump, or in the locker room. Maybe there is a redemptive quality...kinda. He's dying a "Wrestler". But the whole movie is still a pretty horrible and sad decent. It's the real Rocky.

I'd been meaning to bring this exact point up. The fade to black as he made his final jump suggested death to me, but with Ram dying a happy man given the ovation he had just received. I was wondering how others would interpret this.

Personally, I don't think the guy died. Indeed, it didn't even occur to me that he might be dead until I started talking about THE WRESTLER with someone who was adamant that the ending meant curtains for Rourke.

It never even crossed my mind, though, but then I don't think a fade to black automatically equals death.

[Vauxhall]

It never even crossed my mind, though, but then I don't think a fade to black automatically equals death.

I certainly don't intend to suggest that a fade to black automatically indicates death, yet given the context of the fight and the situation of the man and his heart, it was certainly enough for me to immediately consider it as a possibility upon first viewing.

[Zorin Industries]

Interesting. The ending is very open, and was one of things that made the film feel so brutal. I'm pretty convinced he's a dead man. He's in the middle of having a heart attack. Either he's going to die right there in the ring after the jump, or in the locker room. Maybe there is a redemptive quality...kinda. He's dying a "Wrestler". But the whole movie is still a pretty horrible and sad decent. It's the real Rocky.

I'd been meaning to bring this exact point up. The fade to black as he made his final jump suggested death to me, but with Ram dying a happy man given the ovation he had just received. I was wondering how others would interpret this.

Personally, I don't think the guy died. Indeed, it didn't even occur to me that he might be dead until I started talking about THE WRESTLER with someone who was adamant that the ending meant curtains for Rourke.

It never even crossed my mind, though, but then I don't think a fade to black automatically equals death.

It was the length of the fade. He definitely hit the ropes.

I liked the film a lot. Though Rourke is better than the film itself. If I were the creative team behind ROCKY BALBOA, I would be a tad concerned that THE WRESTLER is more than similiar - though Arrenofsky does not need to steal. They both shared a great deal though - the blue collar setting, restaurants and kitchens replacing the boxing ring, winter, the kindlings of love with an older woman, the strained relationship with the now adult child, the same comments about getting older...

[dodge]

Excerpt from an interesting article with the focus on Rourke's odds of actually winning an Oscar. Can his performance transcend his penchant for shooting himself in the foot?

"Faster than you can say "holy comeback kid," Rourke picked up Best Actor honours at this month's Golden Globes, hit the couches at Leno and Letterman and could well be making acceptance speeches at the SAG [Screen Actors Guild] Awards on Jan. 25, and at the Oscars on Feb. 22, as it's expected he'll be among the Academy Award nominees to be announced on Thursday.

But this is Mickey Rourke, and his reincarnation at the age of 56 isn't without controversy.

In a recent interview with Men's Journal, the actor intimated that he not only trained hard as the battered, washed-up Randy "The Ram" Robinson for The Wrestler, but when asked if he took steroids to prepare for the role, said: "When I'm a wrestler, I behave like a wrestler."

Rourke, perhaps sensing that he had crossed a line, even for him, subsequently denied he took any growth hormones or other sports drugs to bulk up, although he said he used "heavy- duty supplements."

He also worked out regularly with a cage fighter and put away up to seven meals a day to bring realism to the bruised, bloodied, and troubled Robinson, a character not unlike himself.

The trouble for Rourke is that he's seeking artistic redemption in a politically correct industry that is unforgiving when stars' controversies attract more attention than their work (just ask Tom Cruise).

These days, Rourke, once an edgy pretty boy and critic favourite, is a foul-mouthed ruffian with scraggly hair, squinty eyes, bad teeth and a countenance that has been so surgically altered as to be hard to look at.

The question is: What is Oscar to make of Rourke?

How do academy voters cast a ballot for such an unsavoury sort, especially if there's even a hint that he took extreme measures, like performance-enhancing drugs, for a role?"

source: http://www.vancouver...4843/story.html

[Loomis]

I liked the film a lot. Though Rourke is better than the film itself.

Agreed.

If I were the creative team behind ROCKY BALBOA, I would be a tad concerned that THE WRESTLER is more than similiar - though Arrenofsky does not need to steal. They both shared a great deal though - the blue collar setting, restaurants and kitchens replacing the boxing ring, winter, the kindlings of love with an older woman, the strained relationship with the now adult child, the same comments about getting older...

Quite. And I'll say it again: I don't think THE WRESTLER even does it better than ROCKY BALBOA. It's no more "adult", harder-hitting or "deep". Good film, though, but, c'mon, we've seen it all before (and done every bit as well).

BTW, Zorin, I'd be interested to read your views on SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Have you seen it?

[Zorin Industries]

I liked the film a lot. Though Rourke is better than the film itself.

Agreed.

If I were the creative team behind ROCKY BALBOA, I would be a tad concerned that THE WRESTLER is more than similiar - though Arrenofsky does not need to steal. They both shared a great deal though - the blue collar setting, restaurants and kitchens replacing the boxing ring, winter, the kindlings of love with an older woman, the strained relationship with the now adult child, the same comments about getting older...

Quite. And I'll say it again: I don't think THE WRESTLER even does it better than ROCKY BALBOA. It's no more "adult", harder-hitting or "deep". Good film, though, but, c'mon, we've seen it all before (and done every bit as well).

BTW, Zorin, I'd be interested to read your views on SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Have you seen it?

Yes. A beautifully rendered tale of childhood and ambition.

[Loomis]

Yeah, I'm also a fan. Seen it twice now.

[dodge]

I liked the film a lot. Though Rourke is better than the film itself.

Agreed.

If I were the creative team behind ROCKY BALBOA, I would be a tad concerned that THE WRESTLER is more than similiar - though Arrenofsky does not need to steal. They both shared a great deal though - the blue collar setting, restaurants and kitchens replacing the boxing ring, winter, the kindlings of love with an older woman, the strained relationship with the now adult child, the same comments about getting older...

Quite. And I'll say it again: I don't think THE WRESTLER even does it better than ROCKY BALBOA. It's no more "adult", harder-hitting or "deep". Good film, though, but, c'mon, we've seen it all before (and done every bit as well).
BTW, Zorin, I'd be interested to read your views on SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Have you seen it?

Oh, you just WAIT till Sunday, when I post my review! Every time you do this, I grow more, and more, convinced that my baby may darn well be even better than your beloved RAGING BULL_ _ _ _.

[bond 16.05.72]

I liked the film a lot. Though Rourke is better than the film itself.

Agreed.

If I were the creative team behind ROCKY BALBOA, I would be a tad concerned that THE WRESTLER is more than similiar - though Arrenofsky does not need to steal. They both shared a great deal though - the blue collar setting, restaurants and kitchens replacing the boxing ring, winter, the kindlings of love with an older woman, the strained relationship with the now adult child, the same comments about getting older...

Quite. And I'll say it again: I don't think THE WRESTLER even does it better than ROCKY BALBOA. It's no more "adult", harder-hitting or "deep". Good film, though, but, c'mon, we've seen it all before (and done every bit as well).

BTW, Zorin, I'd be interested to read your views on SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Have you seen it?

I enjoyed Balboa but please it's no Raging Bull and I'm sorry I don't see anything hard hitting about it like The Wrestler.

Rocky always has someone to go back to, his kid loves him and there is Paulie. The Ram lives in a Trailer and his daughter hates him, his life has fallen apart and he works stacking shelves in a supermarket, the first Rocky might have touched on this but The Wrestler isn't gritty just because of the docu style, it's subject is far more darker than anything Rocky has ever approached.

I'd like to know where your beloved Balboa competes with that, I'm afraid your love for this film has convinced you it's some kind of masterpiece, the original film is so much better than all the sequels but that's a fairytale in comparrison to The Wrestler.

For the record I'm not saying the Wrestler is a better film than Rocky, Balboa yes but gritty, you gotta be kidding.... right?

Balboa is a PG family movie, The Wrestler is certainly not!

[Zorin Industries]

He will win the Oscar for THE WRESTLER.

[Zorin Industries]

I liked the film a lot. Though Rourke is better than the film itself.

Agreed.

If I were the creative team behind ROCKY BALBOA, I would be a tad concerned that THE WRESTLER is more than similiar - though Arrenofsky does not need to steal. They both shared a great deal though - the blue collar setting, restaurants and kitchens replacing the boxing ring, winter, the kindlings of love with an older woman, the strained relationship with the now adult child, the same comments about getting older...

Quite. And I'll say it again: I don't think THE WRESTLER even does it better than ROCKY BALBOA. It's no more "adult", harder-hitting or "deep". Good film, though, but, c'mon, we've seen it all before (and done every bit as well).

BTW, Zorin, I'd be interested to read your views on SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Have you seen it?

I enjoyed Balboa but please it's no Raging Bull and I'm sorry I don't see anything hard hitting about it like The Wrestler.

Rocky always has someone to go back to, his kid loves him and there is Paulie. The Ram lives in a Trailer and his daughter hates him, his life has fallen apart and he works stacking shelves in a supermarket, the first Rocky might have touched on this but The Wrestler isn't gritty just because of the docu style, it's subject is far more darker than anything Rocky has ever approached.

I'd like to know where your beloved Balboa competes with that, I'm afraid your love for this film has convinced you it's some kind of masterpiece, the original film is so much better than all the sequels but that's a fairytale in comparrison to The Wrestler.

For the record I'm not saying the Wrestler is a better film than Rocky, Balboa yes but gritty, you gotta be kidding.... right?

Balboa is a PG family movie, The Wrestler is certainly not!

MY beloved ROCKY BALBOA? Who said it was beloved. It is just a more successful film about the same subject matter, that's all. My fondness for ROCKY BALBOA comes from not loving and avidly watching the rest of them (I couldn't even tell you when I last saw any of the others), but because it is a cerebral film about people getting by (as is THE WRESTLER). I just think ROCKY BALBOA has more heart. And because it did nearly all the same things first, I tip my hat to that more than THE WRESTLER. But don't get me wrong. I liked Rourke's effort. He was mesmerising to watch. The film just didn't do a single thing that that genre hadn't done better elsewhere for the last thirty years.

And although THE WRESTLER is not a PG (due to Tomei's mantlepiece if nothing else), the film is very aware of children. It is about a wrestler who appealed and still appeals to kids. Kids love wrestling.

[bond 16.05.72]

I liked the film a lot. Though Rourke is better than the film itself.

Agreed.

If I were the creative team behind ROCKY BALBOA, I would be a tad concerned that THE WRESTLER is more than similiar - though Arrenofsky does not need to steal. They both shared a great deal though - the blue collar setting, restaurants and kitchens replacing the boxing ring, winter, the kindlings of love with an older woman, the strained relationship with the now adult child, the same comments about getting older...

Quite. And I'll say it again: I don't think THE WRESTLER even does it better than ROCKY BALBOA. It's no more "adult", harder-hitting or "deep". Good film, though, but, c'mon, we've seen it all before (and done every bit as well).

BTW, Zorin, I'd be interested to read your views on SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Have you seen it?

I enjoyed Balboa but please it's no Raging Bull and I'm sorry I don't see anything hard hitting about it like The Wrestler.

Rocky always has someone to go back to, his kid loves him and there is Paulie. The Ram lives in a Trailer and his daughter hates him, his life has fallen apart and he works stacking shelves in a supermarket, the first Rocky might have touched on this but The Wrestler isn't gritty just because of the docu style, it's subject is far more darker than anything Rocky has ever approached.

I'd like to know where your beloved Balboa competes with that, I'm afraid your love for this film has convinced you it's some kind of masterpiece, the original film is so much better than all the sequels but that's a fairytale in comparrison to The Wrestler.

For the record I'm not saying the Wrestler is a better film than Rocky, Balboa yes but gritty, you gotta be kidding.... right?

Balboa is a PG family movie, The Wrestler is certainly not!

MY beloved ROCKY BALBOA? Who said it was beloved. It is just a more successful film about the same subject matter, that's all. My fondness for ROCKY BALBOA comes from not loving and avidly watching the rest of them (I couldn't even tell you when I last saw any of the others), but because it is a cerebral film about people getting by (as is THE WRESTLER). I just think ROCKY BALBOA has more heart. And because it did nearly all the same things first, I tip my hat to that more than THE WRESTLER. But don't get me wrong. I liked Rourke's effort. He was mesmerising to watch. The film just didn't do a single thing that that genre hadn't done better elsewhere for the last thirty years.

And although THE WRESTLER is not a PG (due to Tomei's mantlepiece if nothing else), the film is very aware of children. It is about a wrestler who appealed and still appeals to kids. Kids love wrestling.

Zorin I'm fully aware your not the one with the love fest for Balboa, it wasn't directed at you anyway. Someone else is declaring this is a masterpiece and it's not you.

I'm perfectly aware that the Wrestler has noting new to say but the tone of the film is far more adult than Rocky, I don't agree that Tomei's appearance pushed this into adult arena alone.

Stallone would have never dared make Rocky as dark and unhopeful as The Wrestler. It's a hollywood fairytale, I'm not saying The Wrestler is the most realistic picture out there but the subject and tone gives a far more of a believabilty factor than any of the Rocky films.

I'm not at all really sure that The Wrestler is that entertaining to be honest I didn't feel elated after it at all, but it was captivating to watch Rourke's journey but you kind of new this wasn't gonna end on a high.

There is similarities between it and the Wrestler but The Ram is a far more flawed and on the whole more intersting than Stallone's obvious underdog hero.

[dodge]

I liked the film a lot. Though Rourke is better than the film itself.

Agreed.

If I were the creative team behind ROCKY BALBOA, I would be a tad concerned that THE WRESTLER is more than similiar - though Arrenofsky does not need to steal. They both shared a great deal though - the blue collar setting, restaurants and kitchens replacing the boxing ring, winter, the kindlings of love with an older woman, the strained relationship with the now adult child, the same comments about getting older...

Quite. And I'll say it again: I don't think THE WRESTLER even does it better than ROCKY BALBOA. It's no more "adult", harder-hitting or "deep". Good film, though, but, c'mon, we've seen it all before (and done every bit as well).

BTW, Zorin, I'd be interested to read your views on SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Have you seen it?

I enjoyed Balboa but please it's no Raging Bull and I'm sorry I don't see anything hard hitting about it like The Wrestler.

Rocky always has someone to go back to, his kid loves him and there is Paulie. The Ram lives in a Trailer and his daughter hates him, his life has fallen apart and he works stacking shelves in a supermarket, the first Rocky might have touched on this but The Wrestler isn't gritty just because of the docu style, it's subject is far more darker than anything Rocky has ever approached.

I'd like to know where your beloved Balboa competes with that, I'm afraid your love for this film has convinced you it's some kind of masterpiece, the original film is so much better than all the sequels but that's a fairytale in comparrison to The Wrestler.

For the record I'm not saying the Wrestler is a better film than Rocky, Balboa yes but gritty, you gotta be kidding.... right?

Balboa is a PG family movie, The Wrestler is certainly not!

MY beloved ROCKY BALBOA? Who said it was beloved. It is just a more successful film about the same subject matter, that's all. My fondness for ROCKY BALBOA comes from not loving and avidly watching the rest of them (I couldn't even tell you when I last saw any of the others), but because it is a cerebral film about people getting by (as is THE WRESTLER). I just think ROCKY BALBOA has more heart. And because it did nearly all the same things first, I tip my hat to that more than THE WRESTLER. But don't get me wrong. I liked Rourke's effort. He was mesmerising to watch. The film just didn't do a single thing that that genre hadn't done better elsewhere for the last thirty years.
And although THE WRESTLER is not a PG (due to Tomei's mantlepiece if nothing else), the film is very aware of children. It is about a wrestler who appealed and still appeals to kids. Kids love wrestling.

Well, neither did QoS...but that hasn't stopped your heart from going pitter-patter for tens of thousands of words. I'll be seeing the film this evening and will weigh in once I've seen it. Goal: to put to bed, once and forever, the faux comparisons between TW and RB.

[Loomis]

You're seeing it this evening?

*Apollo Creed voice* It's time to go to school!

[dodge]

You're seeing it this evening?

*Apollo Creed voice* It's time to go to school!

Yes, fortified by the verdict of our very fine local critic:

"...the plot suggests the Rocky films, though The Wrestler is more scupulously honest than any of those and not one tenth as sentimental."

Prepare for school indeed, my friend!

[Loomis]

Well, to quote Adrian in ROCKY II:

WIN, ROCKY, WIN!

[Zorin Industries]

I liked the film a lot. Though Rourke is better than the film itself.

Agreed.

If I were the creative team behind ROCKY BALBOA, I would be a tad concerned that THE WRESTLER is more than similiar - though Arrenofsky does not need to steal. They both shared a great deal though - the blue collar setting, restaurants and kitchens replacing the boxing ring, winter, the kindlings of love with an older woman, the strained relationship with the now adult child, the same comments about getting older...

Quite. And I'll say it again: I don't think THE WRESTLER even does it better than ROCKY BALBOA. It's no more "adult", harder-hitting or "deep". Good film, though, but, c'mon, we've seen it all before (and done every bit as well).

BTW, Zorin, I'd be interested to read your views on SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Have you seen it?

I enjoyed Balboa but please it's no Raging Bull and I'm sorry I don't see anything hard hitting about it like The Wrestler.

Rocky always has someone to go back to, his kid loves him and there is Paulie. The Ram lives in a Trailer and his daughter hates him, his life has fallen apart and he works stacking shelves in a supermarket, the first Rocky might have touched on this but The Wrestler isn't gritty just because of the docu style, it's subject is far more darker than anything Rocky has ever approached.

I'd like to know where your beloved Balboa competes with that, I'm afraid your love for this film has convinced you it's some kind of masterpiece, the original film is so much better than all the sequels but that's a fairytale in comparrison to The Wrestler.

For the record I'm not saying the Wrestler is a better film than Rocky, Balboa yes but gritty, you gotta be kidding.... right?

Balboa is a PG family movie, The Wrestler is certainly not!

MY beloved ROCKY BALBOA? Who said it was beloved. It is just a more successful film about the same subject matter, that's all. My fondness for ROCKY BALBOA comes from not loving and avidly watching the rest of them (I couldn't even tell you when I last saw any of the others), but because it is a cerebral film about people getting by (as is THE WRESTLER). I just think ROCKY BALBOA has more heart. And because it did nearly all the same things first, I tip my hat to that more than THE WRESTLER. But don't get me wrong. I liked Rourke's effort. He was mesmerising to watch. The film just didn't do a single thing that that genre hadn't done better elsewhere for the last thirty years.
And although THE WRESTLER is not a PG (due to Tomei's mantlepiece if nothing else), the film is very aware of children. It is about a wrestler who appealed and still appeals to kids. Kids love wrestling.

Well, neither did QoS...but that hasn't stopped your heart from going pitter-patter for tens of thousands of words. I'll be seeing the film this evening and will weigh in once I've seen it. Goal: to put to bed, once and forever, the faux comparisons between TW and RB.

Well until you see THE WRESTLER you are in no position to say "faux" or otherwise. The comparisons are easily there - but with ROCKY BALBOA, not the other five entries. I have made the reasons why QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a vastly superior Bond film than most die-hard fans can handle on this site and elsewhere. My heart doesn't go "pitter patter" for anything, young Dodge.

I would add that THE WRESTLER is as classically Hollywood as they come - which puts it in the ROCKY camp more than either film's ardent followers would like to admit.

[Harmsway]

I would add that THE WRESTLER is as classically Hollywood as they come - which puts it in the ROCKY camp more than either film's ardent followers would like to admit.

[dodge]

I liked the film a lot. Though Rourke is better than the film itself.

Agreed.

If I were the creative team behind ROCKY BALBOA, I would be a tad concerned that THE WRESTLER is more than similiar - though Arrenofsky does not need to steal. They both shared a great deal though - the blue collar setting, restaurants and kitchens replacing the boxing ring, winter, the kindlings of love with an older woman, the strained relationship with the now adult child, the same comments about getting older...

Quite. And I'll say it again: I don't think THE WRESTLER even does it better than ROCKY BALBOA. It's no more "adult", harder-hitting or "deep". Good film, though, but, c'mon, we've seen it all before (and done every bit as well).

BTW, Zorin, I'd be interested to read your views on SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Have you seen it?

I enjoyed Balboa but please it's no Raging Bull and I'm sorry I don't see anything hard hitting about it like The Wrestler.

Rocky always has someone to go back to, his kid loves him and there is Paulie. The Ram lives in a Trailer and his daughter hates him, his life has fallen apart and he works stacking shelves in a supermarket, the first Rocky might have touched on this but The Wrestler isn't gritty just because of the docu style, it's subject is far more darker than anything Rocky has ever approached.

I'd like to know where your beloved Balboa competes with that, I'm afraid your love for this film has convinced you it's some kind of masterpiece, the original film is so much better than all the sequels but that's a fairytale in comparrison to The Wrestler.

For the record I'm not saying the Wrestler is a better film than Rocky, Balboa yes but gritty, you gotta be kidding.... right?

Balboa is a PG family movie, The Wrestler is certainly not!

MY beloved ROCKY BALBOA? Who said it was beloved. It is just a more successful film about the same subject matter, that's all. My fondness for ROCKY BALBOA comes from not loving and avidly watching the rest of them (I couldn't even tell you when I last saw any of the others), but because it is a cerebral film about people getting by (as is THE WRESTLER). I just think ROCKY BALBOA has more heart. And because it did nearly all the same things first, I tip my hat to that more than THE WRESTLER. But don't get me wrong. I liked Rourke's effort. He was mesmerising to watch. The film just didn't do a single thing that that genre hadn't done better elsewhere for the last thirty years.
And although THE WRESTLER is not a PG (due to Tomei's mantlepiece if nothing else), the film is very aware of children. It is about a wrestler who appealed and still appeals to kids. Kids love wrestling.

Well, neither did QoS...but that hasn't stopped your heart from going pitter-patter for tens of thousands of words. I'll be seeing the film this evening and will weigh in once I've seen it. Goal: to put to bed, once and forever, the faux comparisons between TW and RB.

Well until you see THE WRESTLER you are in no position to say "faux" or otherwise. The comparisons are easily there - but with ROCKY BALBOA, not the other five entries. I have made the reasons why QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a vastly superior Bond film than most die-hard fans can handle on this site and elsewhere. My heart doesn't go "pitter patter" for anything, young Dodge.

I would add that THE WRESTLER is as classically Hollywood as they come - which puts it in the ROCKY camp more than either film's ardent followers would like to admit.

Well, you've certainly stated your reasons on QoS, Zorin-but for my money you've never made your case. As for TW, I've already stated that I'll see the film this evening and will hold off on a review until then. But, till then, I've read scores of reviews by qualified critics who dispute comparisons with ROCKY. I'll let you know on Sunday. I say, till then, TW says No to Hollywood!