criterionforum.org

The word is they still want an Oscar-qualifying run next month.... It'll probably be just New York and Los Angeles.

This film has no reason to exist without an Oscar qualifying run.

There were dozens of films made every year during the 70s "indie" heyday that were far better than this.

That said, Tomei should get an award for sheer awesomeness. Rourke should get a stint in Celebrity Rehab 3. Derwood should quit the industry entirely.

I agree with the Barmster.

Tomei should be featured as prominently as Rourke in any ad campaign--even if the many tats and piercings she has in this movie are not really hers.

who has actually seen the film?

Antoine Doinel wrote:Here's the poster.

Looks pretty awesome. Is it still December 19th? I thought it was pushed.

Barmy.

Barmy and I saw it at the NY Film Fest (not together--although I did see Armond when I saw it).

So you DID see me!

We saw the film so the rest of you don't have to.

[-X :-& \:D/

There is a certain resemblance between Barmy's posts and Armond's reviews....

I also saw it and found it to be Aronofsky's best film, mostly because he obviously had little to do with it.

moviscop wrote:who has actually seen the film?

I saw this in September at TIFF. The most notable aspects about the film are the performances by Rourke and Tomei. It's successful mostly because Aronofsky is more patient and contemplative than in his previous efforts, though I do wish he would have been more delicate with the Jesus references. Of course, being subtle has never been Aronofsky's strength.

Here's a solid review of the film.

chaddoli wrote:I also saw it and found it to be Aronofsky's best film, mostly because he obviously had little to do with it.

I think it's his best too, and much of that has to do with his admirable show of restraint.

The screeching halt that indeed transpires whenever Wood is onscreen has a lot more to do with the writing of her character than it does her performance. Rourke and Tomei were both great, and I enjoyed the parallels between their characters. Something must be said for the most authentic depictions of second-tier wrestling matches, sketchy titty bars, and even cut-rate supermarket delis that I have ever seen.

I think Mickey Rourke's performance is top notch, I thought the story though seemed rather mundane. It's very good IMO, but not worth all the acolade's it's been receiving.

An absolutely awesome video interview with Mickey. It's heartening to listen to him speak as, to use Mickey-ese, it really sounds as though he has his shit together finally. And that's encouraging to those of us who have been doggedly devoted fans for decades. Still, even during his sallow period he has produced some uniquely fascinating, idiosyncratic work such as, for instance, Julien Temple's almost absurdist Bullet. And I'd actually go to bat for Anne Goursaud's Another 9 1/2 Weeks, though that shouldn't surprise anyone.

That's because it isn't an Aronofsky film. =D> [-o<

Trying to see the real film behind the somewhat formulaic trailer was a bit difficult, but even without doing so, the film looks pretty amazing. It almost looks like the film Rocky VI tried to be but fell 'just short' of becoming.

i saw this at the new york film festival a few weeks ago, and this movie is fucking amazing.
and yes, this is NOTHING like any aronofsky film. in my opinion its his best ("pi" was "cool", but its way to much like eraserhead and less of an original movie. requeim for a dream is good, but people blow that movie up to something its not, and i didnt like "the fountain").
i think its good that aronofsky is trying to show range in subject matter from one film to the next.

if youre a fan of raging bull, rocky (THE FIRST ONE...ONLY) and a fan of free/jazzy/"realistic"/cassavetes-esque cinemetography than you will like this. if you are a fan of 80's/90's pro wrestling you'll like it EVEN more (the wrestling scenes are brutal. especially one match in particular)
seriously, this movie really does deserve all the hype its getting

*keep in mind this is coming from someone (myself) who is the rare combination of a pro wrestling fan, and a big movie nerd (i admire robert bresson just as much as i admire jake "the snake").

Cash Flagg wrote:The trailer

Looks completely different than any other Aronofsky film. Thanks for the link man!
I continue to hear people talking about this film being so good because Aronofsky remained out of the picture. I couldn't disagree more. Thinking back on the interviews with Rourke and the cast, Aronofsky is now showing his ability to lead a difficult cast. He had to work hard with Rourke and even re-wrote the script with his words.

Stop giving Aronofsky such a difficult time. He isn't PTA for this generation, but still pretty fucking good.

He ain't PTA, but he's still PFG!

tavernier wrote:He ain't PTA, but he's still PFG!

you totally 1uped my post in cleverness.

i admire robert bresson just as much as i admire jake "the snake"

I once watched an entire documentary on Jake "The Snake". It was at least two hours long, probably three. I have never watched pro-wrestling, but I watched a three hour documentary about this man.

I believe that was the same night I made an entire cake with my hands, and no other utensils (aside from a pan and an oven; I literally melted the butter in my hands), thus earning me the nickname "Cakehands" among a few privileged individuals.
We used peanut butter for icing.

The Observer interviews Mickey Rourke.

NYT interviews Rourke.

Can anyone explain why he wasn't cast in Death Proof? Or why he turned down the part of Butch in Pulp Fiction?

I don't have the article handy, but I recall reading recently that Rourke said he turned down the Tarantino films because he didn't like the scripts.

Antoine Doinel wrote:I don't have the article handy, but I recall reading recently that Rourke said he turned down the Tarantino films because he didn't like the scripts.