DISQUS

Nevernude · 10 months ago

Wow..very indepth review. I simply enjoyed The Wrestler on a basic level. Well written, well directed, well acted. Simple. These are/should be the requsite for every movie made, action, drama, comedy etc..

Also, a great performance by Mickey Rourke. I doubt anyone else could have carried that role like he did. Absolutely nigh-on perfect film.

Josh · 10 months ago

To answer your question, not every film is either "Burn After Reading"/"The Wrestler" or "Disaster Movie". "The Wrestler" stands above not only the crap films, but above all the other ok, solid or even very good films.

There's too ways to respond to that hypothetical:
1) In that world where all are of the same quality, all would be of the same quality. I know that sounds redundant, but it's true. "Reading" wouldn't be on the Bottom 100, they'd all be tied for first.
2) Masterpieces are subjective. A lot of people thought "Reading" was just an ok film. There's no world where every film is a masterpiece to everyone.

I just thought I'd add that those two films were two of my top 5 films of the year (others being "Wall-E", "The Dark Knight", and "Milk").

JDShapiro · 10 months ago

Hey, Josh, thanks for the reply. Sorry if my conclusion was a bit murky.

What I meant by that hypothetical was: If all movies were *at least* as good as "Burn After Reading" or "The Wrestler," (which means that there are countless other movies better than them), then would these two be at the bottom of the heap because of their *lack of suspense*? Put more simply, if there were films with more excitement and bite-per-page, but with as good cinematic crafting as these two films exhibit, would these two be at the very bottom?

Further, to address your first point, my hypothetical world was not one in which each of its film are of the same quality, nor was I suggesting that all films are either "BAR/TW" or "Disaster Movie" quality.

Josh · 10 months ago

Alright, yeah, I'm a little slow sometimes, but I get what you mean and it's actually a great point. I somehow completely missed the "at the bare minimum" part, and for that I am sorry.

I guess my response to that is that some people find their lack of suspense (or other common elements in film) to be what makes them so great.

Julian Dean Shapiro · 10 months ago

Ahh, I really like that--great point.

Damonstration · 10 months ago

i really enjoyed this post.

d0x · 10 months ago

I think the slow pacing of The Wrestler was done to bring you down to his level in the only way possible while watching a movie. It was such a sad story and one of the very few that made me feel bad for the person I was watching.

Sure it wasnt action packed, but it didnt need to be. It was incredibly interesting to watch and its almost a guilty pleasure.

Even if every movie was as good, this would still stand out. Its not an action pick or sci-fi epic. Its a emotionally deep drama which makes it great for its own reasons.

duke · 10 months ago

All you people who think The Dark Knight was such a great film need to rethink what defines a great film. Absurd vocalizations by Bale and Ledger that actually made people break out in laughter around me (in the theater), three "tacked-on" endings that weren't plausible or interesting but merely plot points that needed to be tied up, taking out the love interest at the end of Act II - whom by the way, you never really even care that she's wasted because it was such a throw away role, two boat loads of people whom the audience has absolutely no established empathy for-- I didn't care who died, the criminals or joe public, and the two best scenes ripped off from Heat-- give me a break! It was okay as a caped crusader popcorn flick but it certainly wasn't a "great film". Think of what great cinema is supposed to do for us -- (hint: think)

Adam_Sweeney · 10 months ago

I disagree. Anyone who deems a film great doesn't have to rethink a thing. It's their opinion and they're entitled to it. The word great will always be seen differently between individuals. The Dark Knight transcended genres and burst the ceiling of what moviegoers should expect from a comic film. It also had well thought out characters, ones that make you "think", as you put it, about the burdens that are placed on a man who takes it upon himself to rid the world of evil. Just because you didn't enjoy the film as much as others doesn't make them thoughtless. There's a thought for you.

leonkennedy · 10 months ago

duke, though i respect you're opinion as a person, you have terrible reasons to talk shit on the dark knight, people do not just jump on band wagons for this kind of movie just because everyone else liked it. Christopher nolan has expanded as a director and shown everyone that he can truly bring a unique story that has been done so many times in the comic world and bring something fresh to us. its exactly what every other comic book movie has failed to do, not only was the dark knight very character driven but it was very story driven, the way it was shot and directed was amazing, the movie and the story holds it self up compaired to a lot of other movies in the same genre.

for you too say absurd vocalizations by bale and ledger!? would you have rather have ledger speaking in his accent the whole film instead of the clown we know from the comics that is a mental psycho,

would you rather have bale speak in his normal tone of voice when hes bruce wayne, just like george clooney did when he played batman, which is why it failed so terribly aside from that movie just being terrible. The reason that bale speaks in the "batrasp" is because, if you watched the first movie you would know he is trying to become a symbol, more than just a man, more than just bruce wayne, you cant do that with a normal lame ass voice.

even though i said i respect you're opinion, ill have to say you are quite moronic for you're comment.

DMuff · 10 months ago

Very deep and very well said. I think there is a point where you can dive too deep as with any pseudo philosophical conversation but thats very relative in nature.

The Wrestler was my movie of the year, I know people personally that thought it was just mediocre. A lot of it comes to how much you relate to Ram and his transgressions, you may relate it to something you see in yourself or someone else you know personally; for me it was both. A movie such as Seven Pounds that had a great cast and potential was easily shunned due to it being border line unrealistic and melodramatic. The Wrestler may have walked that fine line but it did it well. Honestly it was the first movie since Terminator 2 that made me some what emotional, if you knew me personally that is quite the statement. I could only wish that we had a standard in contemporary cinema that flicks as The Wrestler and Burn After Reading were considered nothing more than ordinary.

Julian Dean Shapiro · 10 months ago

That's an interesting point: To what degree does personal identification improve someone's perception of a film? And, I have to ask... Terminator 2 made you emotional? Maybe I should rewatch it... it HAS been a while...

DMuff · 10 months ago

You'll have to forgive me, I was being a bit facetious with the T2 making me emotional thing. Albeit it did make me emotional but that was when I was a boy when I first saw it. When I think about it, my own personal identification was a factor to my initial reactions to T2, I am mostly referring to the end when Arnold lowers himself into the molten metal or whatever it was. Yeah I am a bit eldritch.

Obviously it all depends on the person you are and the life experiences you have had. Some movies you may not relate to at all yet you enjoy it but that same movie could make you weep or jump for joy if you have dealt with something similar, it's all very subjective.

A13 · 10 months ago

I take a different view on your hypothetical. If we were to compare The Wrestler to other well crafted more suspenseful and quicker paced movies released in recent years, where would it stand, indeed where does it stand? (thus nullifying the hypothetical part of this argument). I admit I do not have the data to draw any conclusions. However, I personally don't think that those more mainstream (more cinematic perhaps) movies, fare any better than the Wrestler at IMDB or at the Oscars (though only time shall tell). I think of "The Bourne Ultimatum", "Atonement", "Michael Clayton", "American Gangster", or "Hellboy II" (in the last couple of years).
Also on the point of contrast, Do you mean mean contrast with movies of comparable quality and simply of a different style? or to movies which are simply bad ("Disaster Movie")?
I'm pretty sure it's the first (as you would obviously prefer "The Wrestler" to such swill as "Disaster Movie"). However, I think that the "TW"'s quality is derived from it's "uniqueness" as are all good movies (even the more mainstream suspenseful ones, such as "Ultimatum" (with its cam work) and Atonement (with its unique direction and score) and even the Dark Knight (we've never really seen a comic book adaptation with that much of thought and psychology)). So I don't think you like them SIMPLY by contrast, I think that the contrast in born out of their ingenuity and is a true mark of their quality.