|
|
Post by jakesully on May 5, 2018 22:52:34 GMT
Gave this one a recent re watch. Thoughts on this film? Did Rourke deserve the Oscar over Penn?
Now I pretty much dig all of Aronofsky's work but he has been known to go off the deep end with some of his films (to put it mildly haha)
This is Darren Aronofsky's least pretentious & most accessible film so far imo . I just love it. Its a great character study featuring a tour de force performance by Mickey Rourke . Including some good work from Tomei & Wood but make no mistake about it, this is Rourke's show . Its a shame he pretty much squandered his come back though (aside from Iron Man 2 , he starred in a bunch of duds after this film came out)
Also, thoughts on the ending? I thought it was fuckin PERFECT.
9/10
|
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on May 5, 2018 23:00:26 GMT
I rewatched this pretty recently too, and I think it's Aronofsky's best film by far. While it's thematically connected to some of his other work, it has a warmth to it that you don't really feel in his other films. Rourke is amazing, and I'm still annoyed that Penn beat him that year (though Penn is also great in his film). I'm starting to think that Aronofsky's films are much better when he doesn't write them himself...
|
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on May 5, 2018 23:03:33 GMT
Aronfosky's best, a near-masterpiece. Rourke and Tomei both deserved an Oscar, especially Rourke who gave like, I don't know, decade-best kind of perfomance. And Springsteen should have been nominated as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on May 5, 2018 23:45:21 GMT
I rewatched all of Aronofsky's first 5 films about a year ago, and The Wrestler about some months ago. And this is by far my favorite from him - the others aren't even worth my time. I think it had some heavy Heavy Metal vibes, and while most people would associate that with soullessness, soul is what this film had - in doses. This is Aronofsky's "Raging Bull," in some ways it's even better. For one, it portrays decline - something I don't see portrayed enough in films. Rourke's soul slowly dying as his glory days of fame become obsolete. Even Sunset Blvd., a film with a superb idea and concept, is actually a better idea than it is a film. While I don't think this does anything original, or even tries - it just paints all corners, and has Aronofsky with the full works going on here.... he implicitly implys the changing times (80s-90s-00s), and a man out of his era. Gets better as I discuss it. It's such a rough and strongly felt film.
|
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on May 5, 2018 23:58:03 GMT
It's excellent, definitely one of Aronofsky's best. Such a simple yet powerful story that never feels phony while hitting all the right emotional notes. It's also one of the few times Aronofsky didn't try so hard to be 'special' - his other films have a sense of 'ain't I filming something great' to them while this one feels vanity-free.
|
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on May 6, 2018 0:17:08 GMT
A damn fine flick with some damn fine acting from it's damn fine leads (and Rourke).
|
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on May 6, 2018 0:26:26 GMT
Possibly my favorite film from Aronofsky. It's terrific, with some absolutely great performances.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 6, 2018 0:29:00 GMT
It's a very great performance and well acted across the board - a fine film too though a bit too neat in how its constructed, it's a "built-in" tragedy.
As for Rourke, its no surprise why he lost - he's not a major actor and while that is the performance of his life (and I agree it is like best of decade level), but the Oscars don't care anyway, if they never thought you were that great, you can't win in lead actor (ask 0 time nominee Michael Keaton about that and in Supporting actually, ask Burt Reynolds) - and they never thought Rourke was anything in the 80s, in fact Sean Penn was the better version then.
The levels of irony .......
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 6, 2018 1:13:32 GMT
It's a very great performance and well acted across the board - a fine film too though a bit too neat in how its constructed, it's a "built-in" tragedy. As for Rourke, its no surprise why he lost - he's not a major actor and while that is the performance of his life (and I agree it is like best of decade level), but the Oscars don't care anyway, if they never thought you were that great, you can't win in lead actor (ask 0 time nominee Michael Keaton about that and in Supporting actually, ask Burt Reynolds) - and they never thought Rourke was anything in the 80s, in fact Sean Penn was the better version then. The levels of irony ....... Rourke was one of the most admired (talent-wise) actors in the industry in the 80's. The Academy ignoring him had nothing to do with him not being considered "anything", and everything to do with him being famously one of the biggest pricks in Hollywood. To all but a few, he was intolerable and unlikable, but he was tolerated for most of that decade by the industry due to his sheer combination of star quality and talent. Penn , despite cultivating some phony "Hollywood rebel" image for the wider public, was one of the biggest brownnosers in the industry. If you are anyone in the industry, Penn managed to get your number in his rolodex. Rourke was a genuine outsider. Both of them managed Zero nominations in the 80's. Rourke was playing grown-ass men in the 80's. Based on his appearence and demanour, Penn was playing kids and playing dress up....still trying to find himself with facile imitations of Dean or DeNiro in At Close Range or The Falcon And The Snowman. Of all the major"serious actors" that came out out of the 80's generation (DDL, Washington, Oldman, Rourke etc), Penn may have got the most work (along with Rourke), but he was by far the least developed in his craft. I think he only began justifying his hype in the early 90's with Carlito's Way. Rourke was lightyears ahead of Penn in the 80's. Penn wouldn't even be capable of a performance like Barfly in that decade. Those precious few years of life experience Rourke had over him made a massive difference to the calibre of their performances. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2018 1:43:54 GMT
It's my favorite from Aronofsky, but that isn't saying too much as I generally find his work pretty weak. Rourke is quite good in it and I agree with the above that it's a fairly genuine feeling film, just nothing I would call great.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 6, 2018 2:18:04 GMT
I don't see Rourke the way pupdurcs does, sorry - to me Rourke has 0 great performances in the 80s - maybe, maybe his Teddy the arsonist in Body Heat (an extremely small part) and Rumble Fish in a one note way (though he's quite poetic in RF).........but otherwise he's all tics and mannerisms and posing - and that includes Barfly. To compare him to Penn in the 80s is to lie to yourselves or to rewrite the 80s - he was a lesser actor than even Eric Roberts in that decade (Star 80, Raggedy Man, Coca Cola Kid, Runaway Train) - he's wildly overrated, but worse he's lazy, doesnt have the work and he's the one doing Brando impressions and playing the Hollywood rebel in that decade actually.
Meanwhile Penn was straight up great playing boys (Bad Boys, Falcon and The Snowman, Fast Times, Racing With the Moon, At Close Range) or men (Colors, Casualties of War). Penn might have evoked Brando and DeNiro, but Rourke was the copycat of them and while he had talent he wasted it - tough break, way it goes......
I'm just saying that's why he lost - a lot of people don't believe the hype for Mickey Rourke - now he gave a great performance in The Wrestler and had a great one scene in The Pledge etc. but in the 80s................nah, he's a hype machine and whatever game he was playing, I'll pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 6, 2018 2:33:01 GMT
Well, I have no particular investment in either Penn or Rourke, and I think both of them are probably going down as afterthoughts in tha annals of supposedly "great actors".
So I got no horse in this race (I know you love Penn, so your stance is understandable). Got no need to "lie". Rourke was legit in that decade. Extremely legit. Penn was playing boys, and looked impressive when compared to Tom Cruise, Charlie Sheen or Rob Lowe, but that's about it. Rourke was actually challenging DeNiro, Pacino et al....maybe that's a reason you aren't a fan. He wasn't trying to be an acolyte to these guys like Penn. He had this attitude like, "I'm here to kick your ass" (stories of his antagonism towards DeNiro on the set of Angel Heart are legendary). Rourke had no respect for his supposed elders.
Anyway, not sure who is lying to themselves about Rourke, but it certainly isn't me. I really don't like the guy. I think he's a tool and not particularly intelligent. But he was absolutely legit in the 80's. And Rourke never "played" a Hollywood rebel. He was one. A guy who came from poverty, who had no Hollywood connections and couldn't quite understand the social niceties of the industry. Penn was a Malibu rich kid with film industry parents that prepared him from day one. He was always a poesur.
|
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on May 6, 2018 8:27:12 GMT
I would love to know what lead him to that movie, where he found it inside himself. It sticks out like such a sore (or should that be not sore) thumb in his filmography in the most wonderful way. I still remember watching it that first time and just being in disbelief at how unlike all his previous stuff it was, how it was the Aronofsky movie that even Aronofsky haters could appreciate. 10 (TEN?!) years later and with a bunch more movies under his belt, its uniqueness is all the more apparent. I like some of his movies a lot, but to me this is comfortably his crowning achievement. Sometimes less really is more, and this is total testament to that. It's not just the Mickey and Marisa show either, I think it's really well/smartly made. I don't know what inspires him to make movies the way that he does, but he clearly is capable of not overthinking everything, taking his foot off the gas, and just working off the fundamentals, and I would love to see him try it again to know whether this was just some random fluke  |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 6, 2018 10:23:40 GMT
Well, I have no particular investment in either Penn or Rourke, and I think both of them are probably going down as afterthoughts in tha annals of supposedly "great actors". So I got no horse in this race (I know you love Penn, so your stance is understandable). Got no need to "lie". Rourke was legit in that decade. Extremely legit. Penn was playing boys, and looked impressive when compared to Tom Cruise, Charlie Sheen or Rob Lowe, but that's about it. Rourke was actually challenging DeNiro, Pacino et al....maybe that's a reason you aren't a fan. He wasn't trying to be an acolyte to these guys like Penn. He had this attitude like, " I'm here to kick your ass" (stories of his antagonism towards DeNiro on the set of Angel Heart are legendary). Rourke had no respect for his supposed elders.Anyway, not sure who is lying to themselves about Rourke, but it certainly isn't me. I really don't like the guy. I think he's a tool and not particularly intelligent. But he was absolutely legit in the 80's. And Rourke never "played" a Hollywood rebel. He was one. A guy who came from poverty, who had no Hollywood connections and couldn't quite understand the social niceties of the industry. Penn was a Malibu rich kid with film industry parents that prepared him from day one. He was always a poesur.I will say this, his attitude towards DeNiro suggested he was mentally ill - I can distinctly recall him going on a long rant about how he was tougher than DeNiro - like he was the real Raging Bull and it wasn't a joke - this was around the time he stopped showering too (Angel Heart/Barfly) but after he played a perfectly manicured Marlon Brando wannabe in the Last Tango rip-off 9 1/2 Weeks. The 50 Shades of its day.... Maybe I shouldnt make fun, but the quality of his work isn't there to me and rather than challenging Pacino/DeNiro he was really more setting the stage for Shia LeBeouf - thats his 80s legacy as far as I see. As for Penn being a Malibu Rich kid and a poseur well, maybe he was spoiled but no more so than Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, Robert Downey etc. But yeah its a fake comparison anyway - Penn has 2 lead Oscar wins - not many people do, Rourke, our opinions on his merits, mental health and talent aside is a one time nominee who gave an out of left field performance great performance once after wasting his whole career |
|
lee
Junior Member
Posts: 301 
Likes: 111
|
Post by lee on May 6, 2018 11:29:46 GMT
One of my favorite films
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 6, 2018 15:03:36 GMT
As with all Aronofsky films, it's very much a "one-and-done" experience, because on rewatches, it really does fall apart.
People like to throw around words like "raw" and "intense" when describing the film and Rourke's performance in it, but it all just comes off to me like so much posturing and leaning heavily on Rourke's real-life issues. I mean, yeah, the role is tailor-made to Rourke (or rather, Rourke was tailor-made for playing down a washed-up bruiser), but there's surprisingly little meat to the role itself. It's basically a watery rehash of The Champ. When people were talking about it being his comeback and the role of a lifetime . . . well, did you guys not watch Sin City three years earlier? That was Rourke at his finest, because he took a ludicrous character on paper and imbued him with humanity and vibrancy; Marv is Rourke's signature role, not Randy the Ram, and while it seems unfair to belittle the latter in favor of the former, it just annoys me that so many people hyped Rourke's "return to greatness" in 2008 when he'd pretty much achieved it in 2005 (and promptly squandered it a few years later).
With that said, there is some worth to The Wrestler. Marisa Tomei is seismic in it; I love that she's become such a respected actress of late that her previously-derided win (which I consider one of the greatest victories in that category) is beginning to get a renaissance, and she galvanizes the screen whenever she shows up. And Springsteen's song is perhaps the worst robbery in that category's history.
So yeah, it's not as dire as Black Swan or mother!, but I'm one of the few IMDb vets who didn't cry highway robbery when Penn beat Rourke at the Oscars (though both were at the bottom of the nomination barrel; I'd have even taken Pitt over the both of 'em), although to be fair, we were sadly denied what might've been a real cracker of an acceptance speech from the Mickster.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 6, 2018 15:10:15 GMT
I don't see Rourke the way pupdurcs does, sorry - to me Rourke has 0 great performances in the 80s - maybe, maybe his Teddy the arsonist in Body Heat (an extremely small part) and Rumble Fish in a one note way (though he's quite poetic in RF).........but otherwise he's all tics and mannerisms and posing - and that includes Barfly. To compare him to Penn in the 80s is to lie to yourselves or to rewrite the 80s - he was a lesser actor than even Eric Roberts in that decade (Star 80, Raggedy Man, Coca Cola Kid, Runaway Train) - he's wildly overrated, but worse he's lazy, doesnt have the work and he's the one doing Brando impressions and playing the Hollywood rebel in that decade actually. Meanwhile Penn was straight up great playing boys (Bad Boys, Falcon and The Snowman, Fast Times, Racing With the Moon, At Close Range) or men (Colors, Casualties of War). Penn might have evoked Brando and DeNiro, but Rourke was the copycat of them and while he had talent he wasted it - tough break, way it goes...... I'm just saying that's why he lost - a lot of people don't believe the hype for Mickey Rourke - now he gave a great performance in The Wrestler and had a great one scene in The Pledge etc. but in the 80s................nah, he's a hype machine and whatever game he was playing, I'll pass. You gonna sit there and deny the greatness of Angel Heart in front of me, old man? I'm very much a proponent of the idea that Rourke was everything Sean Penn wanted to be in the 1980s, but Penn smartly recognized (at least back then) that he couldn't get away with the shit that Mickey was doing and not have it blow back in his face. Penn was a class-A networker back in the day, and I think that made up for what I consider a real deficit in his talent compared to some of his cohorts. I do agree that Rourke lost largely because Penn was just more well-liked, and his film was as well. Now you know my feelings on Penn: I think the man has some incredible performances to his credit, but it's largely not what he's been acknowledged for. I hate what he did in Dead Man Walking and Mystic River, but I love it when he "tones it down" for things like The Thin Red Line and 21 Grams I even opt for viewing Casualties of War as a very strong performance, regardless of its divisive nature. But I do think that Rourke was inherently more talented that he was, and there are several performances that decade that show that. Problem is, he had piss-poor career management and acted like a supreme tool. And even when he tried to be contrite for his "resurgence," it was short-lived and he went back to being an ass. And because he looks like a catcher's mitt, well, guy's not exactly going to be cast for his versatility. Rourke kinda reminds me of post-'60s Brando, who always seemed to resent his matinee-idol image and did seemingly everything in his power to destroy it: Marlon got fat, Mickey got botox. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 6, 2018 15:57:34 GMT
I looooooooooooove the first part of Angel Heart but not when he leaves New York, that's where it falls apart for me. I have this thing where if I made movies myself one of them would be a detective noir involving a cult/Satanic connection. It is almost never been done right - or the way I see it in my head, but Angel Heart in some ways is close to it early on.
Kill List recently tried it and that didn't work for me.......True Detective was sort of it but not a really a noir......the original Wicker Man (love it, but again it's something else imo), and the John Carpenter TV episode of Cigarette Burns which should be remade as a feature film RIGHT NOW imo. The early scenes in Angel Heart are really brilliant though and eerily use that music of the time and the locale and setting to spectacular effect.
Your feelings on Penn are somewhat how I feel about certain actors both big and more niche - Paul Giamatti for one is like that for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 6, 2018 16:01:50 GMT
I looooooooooooove the first part of Angel Heart but not when he leaves New York, that's where it falls apart for me. I have this thing where if I made movies myself one of them would be a detective noir involving a cult/Satanic connection. It is almost never been done right - or the way I see it in my head, but Angel Heart in some ways is close to it early on. Kill List recently tried it and that didn't work for me.......True Detective was sort of it but not a really a noir......the original Wicker Man (love it, but again it's something else imo), and the John Carpenter TV episode of Cigarette Burns which should be remade as a feature film RIGHT NOW imo. The early scenes in Angel Heart are really brilliant though and eerily use that music of the time and the locale and setting to spectacular effect. Your feelings on Penn are somewhat how I feel about certain actors both big and more niche - Paul Giamatti for one is like that for me. Brother, I have been working on such a noir for a few years. If you were feeling up to it, I wouldn't mind hooking you up with an excerpt or two.  Yeah, there are very few films and stories that scratch that itch for me. If you haven't read them already, the works of Will Christopher Baer and Craig Clevenger are right up your alley. They don't play around much with cult/Satanism, but they definitely have that tone. For me, the only weakness of Angel Heart is that godawful VFX at the penultimate scene. You know what I'm talking 'bout. How has that not been fixed in successive re-releases? Giamatti's kind of in the same boat for me. I think he's phenomenal as John Adams (which I seem to recall you disliking him as, correct me if I'm wrong), and there's a handful of roles he's done that are great ( American Splendor, Love & Mercy, Billions, much of Sideways, but for the most part he's just a dependable character actor. I love that he's kinda transcended that, because how often do guys like him do that? |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 6, 2018 16:28:30 GMT
You can always PM me an excerpt or two if you like stephen, I'd be happy to check it out  You're right, I am not a big fan of his John Adams (way in the minority on that) or Cinderella Man or even Barney's Version - some of the stuff that everybody loves - though I am quite a fan of American Splendor and Sideways and some other things he's done. I had a negative experience with him in the theater too - I saw him off Broadway in Al Pacino's "The Resistable Rise Of Arturo Ui" - it's a long story, but it is an exceedingly difficult play (Brecht) with a huge all star cast because it was for the National Actors Theater (it had Buscemi, John Goodman, Blly Crudup, Palminteri, Dominick Chianese, Tony Randall, Sterlng K. Brown, etc) He missed his marks repeatedly, called for his lines repeatedly (and he's not the lead, come on!), gave no other actor anything back in his performance, he just really blew my mind. Like you don't expect him to do that star stuff and I've never seen a star do it. Maybe he doesn't know the stage but it was like "dude I PAID for this" |
|
|
|
Post by getclutch on May 6, 2018 22:22:32 GMT
The film has an almost documentary feel about it thanks to Aronofsky's no-frills direction and Maryse Alberti's washed-out cinematography.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,207
Likes: 1,592
|
Post by Nikan on May 19, 2018 22:55:18 GMT
moving.
|
|
Yeah, there are very few films and stories that scratch that itch for me. If you haven't read them already, the works of Will Christopher Baer and Craig Clevenger are right up your alley. They don't play around much with cult/Satanism, but they definitely have that tone.
