Just watched this. I thought it was very good, bordering on excellent though the first half >>> second half.
It's nowhere as cookie cut as Rootless makes it sound. Very, very strong performances throughout, especially by Rourke who was flat out mesmerizing and I thought Tomei gave one of her best performances ever (which may not be saying much since frankly, I can't recall when I ever thought her acting was off the chain).
Unlike *cough cough* "Slumdog", this pretty much lived up to the hype though, as noted, it some problems in the back half.
Funny thing: I felt the same way about both "Pi" and "Requiem." For whatever reason, he can start a film brilliantly but doesn't have the same touch for closing one.
Just watched this. I thought it was very good, bordering on excellent though the first half >>> second half.
It's nowhere as cookie cut as Rootless makes it sound. Very, very strong performances throughout, especially by Rourke who was flat out mesmerizing and I thought Tomei gave one of her best performances ever (which may not be saying much since frankly, I can't recall when I ever thought her acting was off the chain).
Unlike *cough cough* "Slumdog", this pretty much lived up to the hype though, as noted, it some problems in the back half.
Funny thing: I felt the same way about both "Pi" and "Requiem." For whatever reason, he can start a film brilliantly but doesn't have the same touch for closing one.
O, theater or bootleg? If the latter, how can I be down??
Please believe that if I could I would! I've been waiting for this movie since the day I heard about. Shoot, I started this thread almost 3 months ago!
Problem is, I'm not in a major city so who knows when I'll be able to see it properly. It's not even showing in Phx yet! Man, it's hard being an impatient bastard sometimes!
it just watched it. It was sort of interesting i guess. No ideas original. It was pretty slow and boring. Good acting and all that. It just seemed like a movie i've seen a hundred times already.
it just watched it. It was sort of interesting i guess. No ideas original. It was pretty slow and boring. Good acting and all that. It just seemed like a movie i've seen a hundred times already.
well i forget the name but i felt it was particularly inspired by that documentary that had jake the snake in it. And i believe cactus jack. Even real wrestling..like how the ultimate warrior and iron sheik are running around all flabby and sick.
Then just the whole i'm too old for this shit storyline lol. the last rocky, mr 3000, that movie with the old guy who becomes a pitcher, you average afternoon movie tc..even shit like die hard and lethal weapon. Nothing exactly like it.
i'm babbling now. but i just mean i watched it, it was a good 2 hours, i turned it off, i'll never think about it again. that's all. It's a good one and done movie.
Saw it yesterday. I thought it was great. I don't really gravitate towards movies that are crushingly sad, and I don't think I'll see it again anytime soon, but I really enjoyed it. And it stayed with me, got me thinking about where my life is heading (if you can believe that).
Rourke turns an ordinary script into an oscar worthy performance. The movie definitely lives up to the hype. My favorite scene is Tomei and Rourke singing along to "Round and Round" in the bar :rockon:
Rourke turns an ordinary script into an oscar worthy performance. The movie definitely lives up to the hype. My favorite scene is Tomei and Rourke singing along to "Round and Round" in the bar :rockon:
"F*ck the '90s!"
I was thinking on this film again the other day and I think Ken Turan's review for the LA Times was dead on about the film's shortcomings. I'd have to disagree with F.N.: I don't think the film lacks character development but it does force its characters into behaviors or scenarios which aren't sufficiently developed to make total sense. I think that's a shortcoming of the director, by far.
Rourke turns an ordinary script into an oscar worthy performance. The movie definitely lives up to the hype. My favorite scene is Tomei and Rourke singing along to "Round and Round" in the bar :rockon:
"F*ck the '90s!"
I was thinking on this film again the other day and I think Ken Turan's review for the LA Times was dead on about the film's shortcomings. I'd have to disagree with F.N.: I don't think the film lacks character development but it does force its characters into behaviors or scenarios which aren't sufficiently developed to make total sense. I think that's a shortcoming of the director, by far.
What scenario(s) did you think were underdeveloped/not believable?
Rourke turns an ordinary script into an oscar worthy performance. The movie definitely lives up to the hype. My favorite scene is Tomei and Rourke singing along to "Round and Round" in the bar :rockon:
"F*ck the '90s!"
I was thinking on this film again the other day and I think Ken Turan's review for the LA Times was dead on about the film's shortcomings. I'd have to disagree with F.N.: I don't think the film lacks character development but it does force its characters into behaviors or scenarios which aren't sufficiently developed to make total sense. I think that's a shortcoming of the director, by far.
What scenario(s) did you think were underdeveloped/not believable?
SPOILERS
I thought the front half of the film was much better paced and nuanced but as in "Requiem for a Dream," it was like D.A. was also setting up his pieces to be able to bring everything crashing down in the back half of the film. I thought the quick succession of "F*ck up" sequences that lead Randy back to wrestle - despite knowing his health limitations - felt very, very forced and unlike the first half, also felt un-natural in terms of pacing.
To put it another way, the film felt very un-directed in the first half (I mean that in a good way) but after Cassidy/Pam rejects him in the bar, all of the sudden, the director's hand becomes omnipresent in practically every scene. I thought Stephanie's blow out was way, way overdone (and her relationship with him was the least believable in the film). I thought Randy's "F*ck this, I quit!" scene was highly cliche too. And this rush towards nihilism just felt too overbaked for me.
But that said, the single most watchable thing in the film (yes, even more than a naked Tomei) was Rourke's performance. Totally lives up to the hype.
And overall, I thought the movie was really strong. Those first 30-40 minutes were probably some of the most mesmerizing I've enjoyed in a film in a while.
Rourke turns an ordinary script into an oscar worthy performance. The movie definitely lives up to the hype. My favorite scene is Tomei and Rourke singing along to "Round and Round" in the bar :rockon:
"F*ck the '90s!"
I was thinking on this film again the other day and I think Ken Turan's review for the LA Times was dead on about the film's shortcomings. I'd have to disagree with F.N.: I don't think the film lacks character development but it does force its characters into behaviors or scenarios which aren't sufficiently developed to make total sense. I think that's a shortcoming of the director, by far.
What scenario(s) did you think were underdeveloped/not believable?
SPOILERS
I thought the front half of the film was much better paced and nuanced but as in "Requiem for a Dream," it was like D.A. was also setting up his pieces to be able to bring everything crashing down in the back half of the film. I thought the quick succession of "F*ck up" sequences that lead Randy back to wrestle - despite knowing his health limitations - felt very, very forced and unlike the first half, also felt un-natural in terms of pacing.
To put it another way, the film felt very un-directed in the first half (I mean that in a good way) but after Cassidy/Pam rejects him in the bar, all of the sudden, the director's hand becomes omnipresent in practically every scene. I thought Stephanie's blow out was way, way overdone (and her relationship with him was the least believable in the film). I thought Randy's "F*ck this, I quit!" scene was highly cliche too. And this rush towards nihilism just felt too overbaked for me.
But that said, the single most watchable thing in the film (yes, even more than a naked Tomei) was Rourke's performance. Totally lives up to the hype.
And overall, I thought the movie was really strong. Those first 30-40 minutes were probably some of the most mesmerizing I've enjoyed in a film in a while.
MO' SPOILERS
Ok, I hear ya. But ultimately this is a story about the allure of fame & how that can trump whatever else is going on in a person's life - so those plot resolutions didn't seem particularly difficult for me to believe. He had a near death experience that nearly changed him, but the fame (what little was left for him 20 years after his heyday anyways) was too addictive for him to walk away from. He was a life-long f/u as a dad, so for him to f/u as a dad again b/c he met a bimbo/groupie wasn't too tough to to swallow. Far less believable to me would have been if Randy walked off into the sunset w/ Cassidy/Pam at the end
Oh yeah, I agree with what you're saying there but it's not the "reality of the plot" that I'm talking about. It's about how the film executes on that plot. Everything moves too fast and too deliberately towards the fall. I thought D.A. did something kind of similar in "Requiem for a Dream." He takes his time building up the rise but once he decides to drop the hammer, it's relentless and feels forced to the point of being contrived.
I mean, here's the sequence: 1) rejected by Pam which then leads to 2) getting drunk, then high, then f*cking some random Jersey girl which then leads to 3) missing dinner with his daughter, which is then followed by 4) a bad day at work, which then pushes him to 5) go back into wrestling and potentially killing himself in the process.
It was just way too "neat" for me.
That said, it was balanced out by Rourke's performance which I still found convincing even if I wasn't as moved by the latter part of the plot.
I thought that movie was great and depressing as hell. Mickey Rourke was fantastic. The anything-goes match with the Mick Foley look-a-like was INTENSE! I cringed more than a couple times!
I agree with the feelings that 1). The first half > second half and 2). it being depressing as shit. I wanted to walk out, total bummer. Don't get that confused with me not thinking it was a damn good movie.
But yeah, the first time when he's serving food up in the Deli was great.
"2 breasts, yeah? That's what I want...with brains to"
I checked it out over the weekend and I really enjoyed it. Rourke gives an excellent performance.
FRESH AS MONKEY BREATH!
I agree with the feelings that 1). The first half > second half and 2). it being depressing as shit. I wanted to walk out, total bummer. Don't get that confused with me not thinking it was a damn good movie.
But yeah, the first time when he's serving food up in the Deli was great.
"2 breasts, yeah? That's what I want...with brains to"
That role was made for Rourke.... I liked it especially seeing my old fantasy Marisa Tomei strutting her stuff.... damn..shes got to be hitting 40 at least and still banging....
Im wondering, cus I aint a huge wrestling fan, where there any cameos by old school wrestlers? The movie kinda reminded me of this doco I saw on Brett the Hitman Hart...
Just saw this, and really dug it. Most of my plot points have been spoken upon, and I agree that their were flaws (STEPHANIE to the deli counter, please...) but Mickey Rourke is great.
Just listening to his grunts and sighs, and watching him keep struggling to dress and undress throughout... he was great, and I couldn't keep my eyes off of him.
And, really, I thought it was a great, universal look at what it is like to age and lose what you loved- wrestling was just the vehicle for telling a universal story. Much less-sports-cliche than anything Rocky or Over The Top is serving up...
Comments
It's nowhere as cookie cut as Rootless makes it sound. Very, very strong performances throughout, especially by Rourke who was flat out mesmerizing and I thought Tomei gave one of her best performances ever (which may not be saying much since frankly, I can't recall when I ever thought her acting was off the chain).
Unlike *cough cough* "Slumdog", this pretty much lived up to the hype though, as noted, it some problems in the back half.
Funny thing: I felt the same way about both "Pi" and "Requiem." For whatever reason, he can start a film brilliantly but doesn't have the same touch for closing one.
O, theater or bootleg? If the latter, how can I be down??
Please believe that if I could I would! I've been waiting for this movie since the day I heard about. Shoot, I started this thread almost 3 months ago!
Problem is, I'm not in a major city so who knows when I'll be able to see it properly. It's not even showing in Phx yet! Man, it's hard being an impatient bastard sometimes!
My friend uses that. Guess who I'm bugging tomorrow?? Ha ha! Thanks, sir!
Word? What movies came to mind?
I'm into this.
Then just the whole i'm too old for this shit storyline lol. the last rocky, mr 3000, that movie with the old guy who becomes a pitcher, you average afternoon movie tc..even shit like die hard and lethal weapon. Nothing exactly like it.
i'm babbling now. but i just mean i watched it, it was a good 2 hours, i turned it off, i'll never think about it again. that's all. It's a good one and done movie.
Beyond the Mat. That was a pretty interesting movie. Jake the Snake's life story is like
But I already knew that.
"F*ck the '90s!"
I was thinking on this film again the other day and I think Ken Turan's review for the LA Times was dead on about the film's shortcomings. I'd have to disagree with F.N.: I don't think the film lacks character development but it does force its characters into behaviors or scenarios which aren't sufficiently developed to make total sense. I think that's a shortcoming of the director, by far.
What scenario(s) did you think were underdeveloped/not believable?
SPOILERS
I thought the front half of the film was much better paced and nuanced but as in "Requiem for a Dream," it was like D.A. was also setting up his pieces to be able to bring everything crashing down in the back half of the film. I thought the quick succession of "F*ck up" sequences that lead Randy back to wrestle - despite knowing his health limitations - felt very, very forced and unlike the first half, also felt un-natural in terms of pacing.
To put it another way, the film felt very un-directed in the first half (I mean that in a good way) but after Cassidy/Pam rejects him in the bar, all of the sudden, the director's hand becomes omnipresent in practically every scene. I thought Stephanie's blow out was way, way overdone (and her relationship with him was the least believable in the film). I thought Randy's "F*ck this, I quit!" scene was highly cliche too. And this rush towards nihilism just felt too overbaked for me.
But that said, the single most watchable thing in the film (yes, even more than a naked Tomei) was Rourke's performance. Totally lives up to the hype.
And overall, I thought the movie was really strong. Those first 30-40 minutes were probably some of the most mesmerizing I've enjoyed in a film in a while.
MO' SPOILERS
Ok, I hear ya. But ultimately this is a story about the allure of fame & how that can trump whatever else is going on in a person's life - so those plot resolutions didn't seem particularly difficult for me to believe. He had a near death experience that nearly changed him, but the fame (what little was left for him 20 years after his heyday anyways) was too addictive for him to walk away from. He was a life-long f/u as a dad, so for him to f/u as a dad again b/c he met a bimbo/groupie wasn't too tough to to swallow. Far less believable to me would have been if Randy walked off into the sunset w/ Cassidy/Pam at the end
Oh yeah, I agree with what you're saying there but it's not the "reality of the plot" that I'm talking about. It's about how the film executes on that plot. Everything moves too fast and too deliberately towards the fall. I thought D.A. did something kind of similar in "Requiem for a Dream." He takes his time building up the rise but once he decides to drop the hammer, it's relentless and feels forced to the point of being contrived.
I mean, here's the sequence: 1) rejected by Pam which then leads to 2) getting drunk, then high, then f*cking some random Jersey girl which then leads to 3) missing dinner with his daughter, which is then followed by 4) a bad day at work, which then pushes him to 5) go back into wrestling and potentially killing himself in the process.
It was just way too "neat" for me.
That said, it was balanced out by Rourke's performance which I still found convincing even if I wasn't as moved by the latter part of the plot.
I agree with the feelings that 1). The first half > second half and 2). it being depressing as shit. I wanted to walk out, total bummer. Don't get that confused with me not thinking it was a damn good movie.
But yeah, the first time when he's serving food up in the Deli was great.
"2 breasts, yeah? That's what I want...with brains to"
question[/b]
Is Jersey that shitty and depressing?
That scene had me cracking up.
To answer your question...yes it is.
Im wondering, cus I aint a huge wrestling fan, where there any cameos by old school wrestlers? The movie kinda reminded me of this doco I saw on Brett the Hitman Hart...
Just listening to his grunts and sighs, and watching him keep struggling to dress and undress throughout... he was great, and I couldn't keep my eyes off of him.
And, really, I thought it was a great, universal look at what it is like to age and lose what you loved- wrestling was just the vehicle for telling a universal story. Much less-sports-cliche than anything Rocky or Over The Top is serving up...
In the second video Rowdy Roddy Piper tells a funny little anecdote about his role in They Live.
>>>>> anything Aronovsky ever did.