Reviews

Nicholas Cage? Bruce Willis? Wrong. Never would have worked. No one else could have played Randy "The Ram" Robinson with the compassion and energy he brings to the role--it's painful to see the fading professional wrestler coming to terms with both his mortality and the emptiness of his life outside the ring, and this is largely due to Rourke's excellent acting. Twenty years after the defining match of his career, Randy is still a fan favorite and loving his work--until he suffers a heart attack. The film follows the gentle giant as he tries to adjust to living without wrestling, reconnect with his estranged daughter (Evan Rachel Wood), and kindle a bond with a friend who works in a strip club (Marisa Tomei).

This isn't just a film about professional wrestling, but Aronofsky gets that part right. He does a beautiful job showing the sport with realism without mocking it: he highlights the humor, but never makes fun of it. He doesn't just deconstruct the mythical image of wrestlers' performances, but he also destroys their apparent rage towards each other. It's clear that these guys are friends--they care about and respect each other. These other wrestlers in the film are all played by professionals, and they do a great job with the acting. The film respects them and their world, and demands the same from the audience.

The other supporting characters are strong as well. Tomei and Wood's characters could easily have fallen into clichés, but they give Randy some of his best moments on screen. Tomei's storyline, especially, serves as a nice parallel and contrast to Randy's. Wood's could use a little more juice, but her story arc does the same. Both are effective.

Another notable aspect of the film is its music. The character of Randy is a big '80s rock fan, and for the film, they got the rights to use Guns N' Roses' "Sweet Child o' Mine." A special thanks at the end of the film went out to Axl Rose. On the softer side, Bruce Springsteen wrote "The Wrestler" for the credits, and its sweet melancholy serves as the perfect coda for the film.

Overall, 'The Wrestler' is great. It's a rich, round film that smoothly weaves together pathos and comedy and soul. It's funny and dramatic, tear-jerking and tough. Definitely a must-see this winter.

I must admit, I was a bit disappointed. However, I knew the story that was the basis for this film, and being well aware of Gabriel Garcia Marquez's acclaim, I expected nothing short of a masterpiece. The cinematography was decent; the acting, good. My main problem was the direction and the writing.

I felt that this story was beautiful in theory: man falls in love, woman spurns him, he continues to love her for 50+ years while finding physical consolation in 600+ women the mean time; and when he finally wins her over when she's widowed and in their mid-seventies, so overtaken by age that they're heartbreaking to see, they consummate their love on a boat. Does that sound like an insensitive capsule summary? Well, that's what I felt this film did to the story.

I could tell it was going for a sweeping love epic of a serious nature, trying remind its audience what love really is and how long it can last when true. Yet, mostly, I felt that the poor man was somewhat pathetic, that his love was forced and false, to a degree, and the woman he loved was silly and backbone-less. My rational side kept reminding me that it's a story, that there are other things that must be taken into account - differences in class, differences in family situations, the setting (early 20th century Colombia) - but emotionally, all I could see were two very silly, selfish people. I feel like this is a result of the way it was directed, and perhaps edited as well. The tone was off.

Aside from that, the film was beautiful--breathtaking shots of Colombia. If you can get past the lacking character portrayals and simply let the story move you, you'll definitely like it.

Honestly, I don't even really know what to say. This was a very powerful film shot as sort of a mixed media collage slash documentary with a strong and obvious message but it definitely has its share of flaws.

It pretty much goes down like this: the soldiers (mostly recruits, in this squad) stationed in Samarra in spring/summer 2006 are bored, restless, and to be honest, not the most intelligent men in the world - I say this not to judge, but they were clearly meant to be understood as some of the more simpler men recruited by the Army. Anyway, they're held back in Samarra longer than they were supposed to be, and fall down a slippery slope of frustration that leads to a midnight raid of a house they know is terrorist-free, and later, a drunken return to this house by 4 of the soldiers, during which 2 rape a 15-year-old girl and burn her body, and execute the rest of her family. They pretty much get away with it, though one of their friends is killed as a result, and one of the other guys tries bringing charges against them.

The film itself is interesting. You have the segments from the one private's video journal, recordings from the online blogs of one of the men's wife, and clips from security cameras. It's an unusual way to tell a story, and it works. Yet, this doesn't compensate for the flaws. The characters are flat and stereotypical, and they aren't very well explored. The end felt uneven - there was no resolution of any kind, no closure. For all the emotion it evoked, for all the interest it stirred in me, I felt let down.

The main problem, though, is the film's intended message. You can see what De Palma was going for - the whole, "This war is bad, it's unnecessary, even our soldiers agree, and it's affecting them psychologically, which is causing more pain for everyone involved, and pretty much destroying humanity" thing. The problem is, it's hard to watch and simply think, "Wow, this war is terrible because we shouldn't be there and it's having a detrimental effect on our soldiers, poor them, poor everyone." Two of them commit such terrible deeds, that it's hard to find sympathy for them. You end up feeling that not only is the war a terrible thing, but the troops are terrible people doing terrible things. Not only does it offend any one in the armed services and their family and friends, but it offends anyone who supports the troops and not the war. It could have been worse, as a film. It has a powerful and strong message, but it doesn't really specify what its message is supposed to be. I think it doesn't do what De Palma wanted, it doesn't achieve what it seems like he intended.

Fascinating French film on a group of university students and their self-appointed leader, Mourney, who is a big fish in a small intellectual pond. He considers himself a supreme authority on writing - people only write, he says, because they are too weak not to. What begins as a strong, amiable friendship is rooted in Mourney's pompousness, jealousy, and competitive edge, which makes him lie and manipulate his friends to seemingly greater success than theirs. His lies, temper, and falseness leads to his demise, as each of his friends realizes his true nature, and escapes to independence and personal success. Very dark, shadowy, and cold feel to this movie. This was a great film, taking a close look at a character many people have known who is truly poisonous.

I saw a screening of this film recently, and the most fitting word to describe it is "interesting." This film is a *fictionalized* account of the Mountain Meadows massacre by the Mormons and Native Americans in Utah Territory on September 11, 1857. Great artistic license is taken in the plot - the screenwriter deliberately attempts to humanize the event by infusing it with a love story between one of the immigrant girls and a Mormon bishop's son who is beginning to disagree with the requirements of his faith. An additional relationship story between the aforementioned son and one of his more obedient but dissenting brothers also adds emotional value. The love story itself is corny, but with the brothers' story, it exponentially increases the powerful effect of this film, which is all the more touching for its human aspects.

The film sparked numerous discussions among the audience members - political comparisons, Mit Romney comments, religious terrorist comparisons, 9/11 observations, and questioned how it would affect people's views of the Mormon faith. While it was historically accurate in some ways, it is affirmed at the end of the movie that it has never been proved that Brigham Young was associated with the attacks and that John D. Lee was the only one ever punished for the massacre. Though the immigrants are clearly made the victims in the movie, the settlers' reasons to distrust them are not discounted completely. A lot of questions and conversations were raised over the film.

All in all, this film was worth seeing. The flaws created by the love story detract from the overall plot, but what it gives back in its emotional effects adds much more. The cinematography and editing were beautifully done. What you take away is really up to you, whether you see it as a love story, historical piece, attack on the Mormon faith, or simply for what it literally is: a film.