Wednesday, February 11, 2009

The Wrestler

I Could Care Less- So I recently sat down and watched a film called "The Wrestler." The idea seems simple enough, a professional wrestler past his prime living day to day, trying to make ends meet, and reconnect with a daughter that he was never there for. For any of you out there that are actually wrestling fans I'm sure you've seen or at least heard of a documentary called "Beyond the Mat" which takes an in depth view behind the scenes of professional wrestling. In BtM is a particular story about Jake the snake Roberts. A man who fell from the lime light and was making his living traveling the country doing small show after small show. He had an awkward relationship with both his daughter and his father and to top it all off was sporting a drug addiction. The movie The Wrestler plays very close to this story.


The film stars Mickey Rourke portraying Randy 'the ram' Robinson. He is an old, worn down professional wrestler that is beyond his better years as far as the industry goes. He lives in a trailer park where he struggles to make ends meet and earns his living doing a day job at a super market unloading trucks. Randy's love, his passion is in wrestling. Wrestling is what he does, and who he is. His primary contact and tenative friend is a stripper at a local club that is, much like Randy, "past their prime." The story follows Randy traveling and shows some of the workings that go on behind the scenes in pro-wrestling but things really get interesting when Randy suffers a stroke after one of his matches. At the hospital his doctor tells him he can no longer wrestle which comes as a huge blow because Randy was preparing to wrestle his old enemy from his most famous match. To add to his now complicated situation when he tries to let his daughter know that he had a heart attack things don't turn out like he planned. Randy decides to retire from wrestling and try and get his life in order. He spends the day with his daughter and tries to repair all the damage done over the years he was gone. But after one night out he finds himself making the same mistakes and right back where he was. He decides to follow through with his plans to wrestle and face his arch enemy once again.


There are a number of things I liked about the movie. The first is Mickey Rourke's acting. He is Randy, it's amazing to watch him in this role because you feel like your watching a movie about a wrestler you grew up watching. I felt connected with his character right from the start, even without a lengthy back story. The other thing I think is key to this film is the relationships between the characters. The energy and interaction, their responses to one another. So much of this film revolves around being connected/being wanted. Everyone in the movie nailed their characters, when you see them talking and responding to one another you can feel the history that they have. It's also amazing watching how they learn and respond from one another. Which leads to a very interesting ending in the film.


Overall I was very pleased with the film, both with the acting and the way it was shot. And it is easily something that I will purchase when it comes out. Any fan of pro-wrestling documentaries will love this, but even more if you like dramas that revolve around relationships, and characters feeling of security is invaded by reality you will be extremely entertained.




Gospel says:

I had been looking forward to seeing The Wrestler ever since I heard it existed. My 13 years of wrestling fandom (which ended a few years ago) primed me to jump on any movie that provides a fictional yet realistic story about a pro-wrestler, and here it was. I didn't care who was in it. The facts that it wasn't a pro-wrestling documentary and was directed by the man who gave me Requiem for a Dream were more than enough to put me in the seat.

People go on and on about Mickey Rourke's performance as "The Ram", and I can't say much against that. I focused more on the writing. The character is written simply as a man who is looking for his place in the world after he has realized he is past his prime in the world he once knew. There's something about such a realization that touches us all. Each and every one of us fears becoming obsolete, losing our family, and losing the worlds we have each made for ourselves. What adds to Rourke's performance, I must say, is that he's a big guy. There's something especially endearing about seeing a huge, intimidating guy cry and reveal that he too is vulnerable.

What makes The Wrestler so great is that it's a movie that takes the sport/performance of pro-wrestling seriously. The behind the scenes look at wrestling is, to the best of my knowledge, very realistic - as is the over-the-top aspect of indie federations trying to get attention. A staple gun? Not made up for the movie. These are the kinds of things that go into the act, and I feel like the physical sacrifices and seriousness of the choreography are something that are necessary to understand in order to respect the activities in the ring.

It's interesting. Wrestling fans think that this movie might bring a larger audience to pro-wrestling. In fact, Vince McMahon, the owner of the WWE, has recently made it so that his federation is rated PG on TV. It's entertainment for the whole family now! Even Freddie Prinze, Jr.-Gellar writes for the company. On top of that, they're running an angle in which Chris Jericho may be challenging Mickey Rourke to a match at Wrestlemania. It may just be me, but I don't see the cross-promotion working out so well.

For all that's great about the film, I kind of realize that making the film specifically about a wrestler was unnecessary. He pretty much could have been anything. He could have been a washed-up rock star, weather man, movie producer, or even actor. All you need is a role in which a person has a public persona that is more a character than the person is in his personal life. That could be anything in which he can sell himself under a nickname. I appreciate this movie's being about a professional wrestler, but it very well could have been Infomercial Man.

One dynamic I really appreciated in the film, though, was that of an old wrestler falling in love with an old stripper. It wasn't until I saw this movie that I was able to note the similarities between activities. Both involve a choreagraphed physical performance on the stage in front of crowds consisting mostly of hooting and hollering men who will cease to care about your existence once you hit a certain age. Oh, and more than likely you'll want to go under a pseudonym in either role. It's sad but endearing that Rourke's character was able to fall for someone so similar to him, despite the trappings of falling for someone who is paid to acknowledge that you exist.

On a related note, Marisa Tomei was quite exceptional in her role as said stripper. What bothers me is that Hollywood casting has made the role unbelievable. She plays a washed-up stripper whom patrons grow to actively reject and call old. She is absolutely gorgeous! I don't get how this was supposed to be taken seriously. I can understand Rourke's being called old and ugly, but Tomei? Are you kidding me?

The Wrestler turned out to be everything I wanted it to be. It was a heartfelt story with a somewhat loving depiction of the art of professional wrestling. It's about a man who loses his place in the world and fails to properly integrate back into society at large and into the life of his own daughter. His choice to enter the ring one more time makes sense. The film's ending, featuring an epic leap, was the most appropriate shot on which to stop the story. What happens after does not matter. Right there and then he knew exactly where he belonged, and we the viewers knew exactly the same.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Feast

Gospel says:

I first watched this flick roughly a year ago, and I remember it was good enough to watch a second time. Having now watched it a second time, I'd like to retract that opinion. The movie is certainly worth watching once for the horror fanatic; that's about as far as it goes, sad to say.

My understanding of the background of the movie is that the creators won a contest and won funding from a number of stars, many of whom have connections to Kevin Smith. Hey, that explains Jason Mewes' involvement. Anyway, the funding they received bumped this up from being a B-grade film to being what I think is in the B+/A- territory. The casting doesn't say much for the budget, consisting mostly of no-names and Henry F-ing Rollins!, but the effects related to the creatures are pretty top notch. Another budget-saving device? Everything takes place in one bar. B-grade film with A-grade effects. Awesome.

There isn't much to say about the story except for the fact that the writers were clever in their subversions. The man labeled "Hero" dies within minutes of his introduction. Other heroes are offed without notice, and many die very quickly. Normally I would be a fan of such things. I love when things happen beyond my expectations. The problem is that it ceases to be that clever when you realize that the writers have helped to inform your expectations. Whenever a character is introduced, information is posted on the screen stating information about the characters and their life expectancies. While these are supposed to be taken with a grain of salt, the viewer still takes in the information simply by reading it.

I focus on this because Feast seems to be meant to strike on two levels: gore and subversion. I talked about the effects, and it works. The movie basks in its sudden, gory violence. OK, done. Then there's the subversion, which is lacking because of its informing the viewers. The only reason we care that "Hero" is killed so suddenly is because he's labeled "Hero". Might as well title the movie, "Everything We Tell You is Wrong". A movie like this would work better if it focused on the horror movie tropes, because those are cliches we have grown to expect anyway. That would be what I'd call "fair". With my stating using normal tropes would be "fair", that implies that I think the movie cheats. It does.

The only other real issue I have with the movie is the quick cutting used in the editing and sped up footage used during the scenes of carnage. It cheapens the action to some degree to get a cheap jump out of the audience. Again, when "Hero" was taken out, it didn't even happen in one cut. Nope, he goes through his speech, and then there's an edit to his already being halfway out of the window behind him. The audience jumps and says, "Oh shit! I didn't see that coming!" No, you couldn't have. There was no human way to have seen it. The movie isn't fair to its viewers.

Despite these criticisms, the movie is fun overall. It's simple in its aim and in its final effect. It wants to be a fun and violent movie. Cheesy graphics pop up to share information about each character mainly for the element of fun and establishing characters without having to spend much time on exposition. Then carnage happens. When looked at simply, it's great. Grab a bunch of friends, a few drinks and perhaps hors d'oeuvres, and have a fun time. Turn off your brain and go in. Tune in, turn on, drop out.





Dais says: Ok, so I've watched this movie about three or four times now. The first viewing was maybe six months ago and I must admit I was thoroughly amused. At first glance this movie has everything a good B film needs to be a cult classic: over the top characters, monsters that are rarely seen, and interesting spins on death and injuries suffered from the monsters. Add all of that with a sense of humor that pokes fun at itself and you have a good movie to watch.

As Gospel mentioned the story is fairly simple, people in a bar are trapped and attacked by monsters. The movie does us the favor of not spending huge amounts of time figuring out where the creatures came from, thus not taking away from the pace of the film. The pressing matter is how do the characters survive. This gets interesting when you consider that cast consists of The Rude guy no one really likes and his handi-capable brother, kind waitress with bubblegum personality, single mom waitress trying to make ends meet, old bartender, the prick that owns the bar, the delivery guy who happens to be a moron, a soldier back from the war, Jason Mewes from Kevin Smith fame, an old lady who drinks and more or less does nothing for her part in the film, a biker chick, and a second rate motivational speaker (HENRY F---ING ROLLINS). With characters like these it's easy to see how the movie uses general stereotype characters that don't have alot of depth but are interesting enough.


Another thing that I thought was great about the movie was the introductories. Each character when they are first shown receive a freeze frame with a small bio to include life expectancy. At first this upset me, I mean how the f--- are they going to just give me information like that at the beginning of the film?!? I mean what is the f---ing poi..... oh wow the hero just got killed..it said he was supposed to last.....SWEET! These bios end up giving just enough info about the characters and still allowing a sense of humor to slide into the movie at this point.


Watching through the movie the first time I was extremly happy with the film. It exceeded my expectations (granted they weren't very high, I've gotten burned on movies that were produced by famous people and horror directors before) and was very entertaining. But there were a few things that bugged me, and the more I watched the movie the more and more they moved from pet peaves to psychotic f---ing hatreds! The first Gospel touched on, the editing isn't smooth and takes alot away from the film. The perfect example is when the hero dies, and it's not so much so that the movie feels choppy, they just happened to take the fluidness out of alot of parts because of the quick cuts. Granted this helps to keep the monsters out of sight for most of the picture, which is something I love horror movies to do but in the end it just becomes a distraction. The second thing that got under my skin was the relativly quick deaths of a number of characters. It becomes clear that the point is the thin out the number or characters and get rid of the dead weight, but the problem is the way that people are killed off. When mewes gets his face ripped off (Mewes I'm with you man, if my face was ripped off I'd yell "What the F---" too and run into something) and when the soldier dies the watcher doesn't really care. It's done so fast that the viewer doesn't really have time to take in what just happened and really feel for the characters. The other problem I had with the movie was the ending was unclear. I mean it was so dark I was having trouble seeing what was going on. Granted it wasn't as bad as Silent Hill was, I mean holy sh-t, you can't even watch that movie unless there are no lights, the blinds are closed, and there's no moon or stars.


In the end I think that Feast is a good film to through on when your in the mood for light hearted horror. Who knows, one day it may gain the cult following that Evil Dead did, though I seriously doubt it. As far as B movies go it's a gem, as far as horror movies go it's tollerable. So turn the lights off, grab some snacks and friends, hell a couple drinks couldn't hurt, and just enjoy the movie for what it is: violence, campy acting (HENRY F---ING ROLLINS), lots of blood, and monster sex.

Monday, December 29, 2008

Feast - pending

Stay tuned for our first movie review -- FEAST