The Wrestler (2008)

3/18/09- Before I say what I had to say below (which I happened to have written a month ago) let me just go on the record in saying that this review is about as experimental as they come (in my world of reviews at least). It wasn't easy comparing a movie to a embrace between two people on common ground (a hug if you will) and to be quite honest with you-- I am not too happy with the review, but I am going to post it anyway. I just don't think I got the message across and I tried to be more "different" or "revolutionary" with my review techniques than reviews the film itself (it is in there somewhere I am sure of it) and I don't think I will try to complicate things like this ever again, but I can say I did have fun doing it and I feel that it is a pretty valid opinion, so read on.


Before I say anything allow me to say this; I liked this movie, I really did. I laughed and cheered and I suppose I felt a little emotional when I was directed to, but this movie, in no way, was mind blowing. Allow me to digress...

Having just finished watching this movie only a few hours ago, I am still in a state of confusion as to why this was such a big film (besides what the media blew it up to be). Sure it was the "come back" of Mickey Rourke and sure Darren Aronofsky did a really good job showing the harsh realities of drugs in Requiem for a Dream, but this movie can be summed up to the equivalence of a "hug" in the world of cinema. Allow me to further digress...

Take into consideration a situation in which you are going to see someone you haven't seen in a long time, you make it to their nice quaint looking flat on the west side of town, you walk up their "3-step stone patio complete with a hand rail" out front and knock on the door. Alright, the initial shock and anxiety everyone feels is over, you hear footsteps approach the solid oak door and you hear the door knob turn and you come face to face with your dear friends from years ago. They allow you to walk in, handshakes of mandatory nature take place, and then your dear friends fiance (who politely waited for the dust to settle) comes and hugs you. Okay, now that I have that whole situation set up, time to show you how this film is just like that, but a little less endearing.

The beginning of the film starts off good enough, much like a hug. There is that initial embrace that brings the two of you (person, film, whatever) together. You are locked in, committed to ride this ride out, and this isn't like hugging your sweaty uncle or anything, this is someone you haven't seen in a long time and neither of you sweat ungodly amounts. The embrace this movie displays is that of "he is human, not some immortal", he looks and sounds old, he is obviously not in the kind of wrestling he used to be in (or maybe he is....it is Jersey after all) and you get to empathize with him. Much like the hug displays that no one is above anyone, you both are just alike, even if it is for a moment.

Step one in the "The Wrestler is a hug" explanation- the initial embrace and showing that both parties are human and all is well.

Alright, so the hug has been committed to, no one smells bad and there is no uncomfortable feelings between anyone, so here come the fluctuations of tight squeezes and back rubbing (in little circles) and there might be a few moments of some teary eyes. To compare this to the film, the scenes of wrestling (and everything that comes before and after) are the best part of the film.
The embrace is still going on strong and now it is time to show how good friends you really are, this isn't hugging some complete stranger mind you. These scenes of wrestling and supermarkets fall in tandem with the scenes at the strip club (Cheeks or something dirty sounding name like that) the "being human and taking account for all of the problems that come with this fact" are still there, and it doesn't feel over done or out of place, everyone loves and respects someone, even if it is strippers and wrestlers.
There is little small talk while the squeezing takes place, y'know, "How are you doing?" and "How is the family?" so on, these questions (in the film) are about family. I know that this is suppose to show just how human these people are, but it just feels out of place and kind of expected and just not done good enough. The cardboard cut out known as Evan Rachel Wood is what I am talking about here people (this woman was horrible).

A shitty family life is automatic tears in some peoples eyes, but this is too much of an obvious step and it isn't even done well.

Spurts of excitement and the random questioning takes place for a moment, there to show a common bond between the two and just because it is common to ask these questions and nothing should be thought of it, much like in the film.

Step two- A few squeezes and back throughout, accompanied by random questions in the ear, some of which might be either answered perfectly or half-assed. There might be some teary eyes. Continue hugging.


Okay, so the hug is still sorta going on, much like this movie is. The embrace felt at the beginning is starting to sputter out and the back rubbing is gone and more of the questions. This is the downfall of the hug, much like our Wrestler here- Randy "The Ram" Robinson ( Robin Ramzinski to those who know, probably only his parents and landlord)- and the realization of the world around him. Let us say that you aren't as well off as your dear friends and these factors come center stage during this point. I am not saying everyone is a washed up wrestler or even an aging stripper, but everyone knows someone better than them.
These moments fluctuate much like the good feeling of the squeezing and rubbing of the second step of a hug. No one likes saying they are unemployed, their family life isn't necessarily the Brady Bunch and that girl you liked and you thought you had a thing for? Gone in a flash. These things will keep getting brought up at this moment, and The Wrestler likes to lay the "person with problems" down thick. This man has nothing to live for but the ring and it takes a few kicks in the balls (the equivalent to awkward questions here people, my logic isn't that hard) for him to realize this, but you still manage to put up with it and play along.

Step three- More questions and more self-realization that your life sucks, a lot.

Did I mention Evan Rachel Wood sucks in this movie? She really does.

Alright, so now that one of two people are uncomfortable, you manage to fall into the world of "small talk", these questions has spawned into full explanations of "why this?" and "how so?", and they aren't really answered the way anyone wants them to be. You should have known this was going to come, you can't be down and out forever and expect no one to ask about it or bring it up constantly, and it does no one any good, but what you take from this is the strength to rise from all of this and stand tall and prove everyone wrong. The two of you go your seperate ways and you sit by yourself and contemplate your life a little bit.

Step four- Break off from it, talk a bit, feel like shit and go on about your business, forever thinking what exactly the other person really feels about you. Hug has ended.


The road to redemption is a long one, and this movie runs out of steam somewhere along the road and ends in a flop of ambiguous emptiness. I hated the ending (not the last scene, but the ending of the last scene) and I really felt it wasn't what anyone would have expected ( I had a far more elaborate ending in my head, but I didn't make the film....) and I feel that if there is one place to really grab the audience it would be this time ( I know what the director was intending, but he failed to capitalize on it or anything in the film really).

Maybe I don't like seeing Mickey lose, maybe I hate Evan Rachel Wood, maybe I like the fact that it pretty much explains that wrestling is all a show (it isn't fake people, it falls into the category of "a play with punches") but hate the fact that humanity had to rear it's ugly head in such a way that I feel it was too fake and too human. It gives off at times a feeling of being a documentary (something I would have liked a lot more) and it would have been a damn good one, but the fact that it is a drama takes away from it a bit (too much drama done in a obvious and unconvincing way) and the fact that most of the dramatic elements were done in a shallow nature don't help it any.

This movie never makes it to redemption, it takes a jump off the top rope, and we are left to wonder if it makes the pin for the win or lands face first on the mat. I suppose this is the route that movie watchers like to take, but I personally am not too fond of an open ended conclusion. It is either one thing or another and to leave it up to the audience is putting too much faith in their ability to come to a justifiable end to it all.

Brick (2005)

First of all, if you have not seen this movie, shame on you. I have been a fan of this movie ever since I saw it a few years ago at a close friend of mines house (on a whim actually). Needless to say I was blown away by how clean and original the overall production was. I actually managed to pick it up for three dollars a few days ago (probably the greatest deal I have ever found) and it still holds onto every strand of amazement it entangled me in almost three years ago.

The thing that seperates this film from everything else that I saw that year is how smart of a movie this is. For one, the American noir film has truly been a neglected genre in the last couple decades (a hit every couple of years or so) and it is always good seeing a fresh take on it. For those who are clueless as to what "noir" is then perhaps you should take this time to watch a few of the hardboiled classic films (the old Bogart pictures are a good place to start). They usually involve some kind of murder and some kind of detective investigating and there is always a femme fatale. How this movie approaches this style of film is by having the entire script ripped right from a classic detective movie and submerges it in the world of a contemporary California high school with a hearty helping of the drug culture (but done in a way that almost makes it glamorous).

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (of 3rd Rock from the Sun fame) stars and is practically made for this role. The entire cast suffers from "rather perfect casting" syndrome, and this is something that you will never find in a major motion picture. It is almost sickening how well everyone does portraying a classic type of character in modern times.

Being a noir film, it has a certain way of setting up every shot. There has to be a clear distinction between light and dark, with the use of shadows playing almost as a character themselves. These distinct attributes don't really contrast well in a film with color as they do in a black in white world, but Brick manages to stay true to the world of film noir and yet adding a feeling of being set in modern times (fancy shots and special effects are what set this movie in the present age). I wouldn't say the shots are beautiful as they are stark, precise and show only what you are suppose to see (playing on the power of shadows and low angles).

Being original is what makes this film a true gem, it isn't some big Hollywood blowout or filled with A-class actors who don't put as much emotion into it for what they are getting paid. It knows what it is and it isn't trying to be something far superior. To be honest, it is far better (to me at least) that the neo-noir films being produced for millions of dollars. It is as gritty and dark as noir is suppose to be and it manages to do this with the bare essentials and it will keep you guessing till the very end (a true noir rule indeed). The story is true to what it sets out to do and there is no beating around the bush with unecessary character arcs or pointless plot holes. It may not shine as bright as some big budget films, but I can gurantee the luster will retain longer than most films twice as huge and four times as confusing.

Like I said, I picked this up for three dollars a few days ago (still in its original factory seal and everything) and that is the only bad thing about this movie, is that it has been banished to the discount dollar bin at the local discount store. Do yourself a favor, if you happen to find this movie for such an abysmal price (good for me, but also a disgrace to a fine piece of art, seeing it cost less than a fast food meal) pick it up. With several well deserved accolades under its belt, watching this film will shine a whole new light on the genre great America was once known for.

I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967)

I was curious, and had I been a cat when I watched this movie I would not be sitting here telling you about it. This is, Ladies and Gentlemen, my first semi-negative review.

Much like America was changing in the 60's the same could be said for the Swedes in Vilgot Sjöman controversial "I Am Curious" series (the other part being "I Am Curious (Blue)). "I Am Curious (Yellow)" is a romp through the streets of Sweden in a decade that seemed to effect the entire world.

This movie is hard to catagorize, as it doesn't use traditional methods of Hollywood filming. In some instances it looks like its going to be a rugged documentary tackling social traditions such as a class system and civil strife (guest appearance by Martin Luther King jr.), but then quickly changes into an even more rugged voyeuristic home movie (sex on a bridge, sex in a tree, sex just about anywhere really) and every now and then there will be little game show esque interjections that only add to the confusion.

This is going to be a rather short review, as im not really a fan of this movie (i have yet to put the blue version in my dvd player for a fear i might fall asleep). I commend it for its lack of structure and unique way of filming, but only to an extent. The movie is all over the place and its hard to really keep track of the plot (is there really one?) and the characters were hard to keep track of (im not sure if it was because they were all Swedish or what), but I understand that this is only because we are following a young lady, Lena Nyman (portraying herself actually) as she finds herself in the ever changing world around her and the shooting matches her tenacity. What it really boils down to is that the movie was made for that generation of people and doesn't have much vaule to anyone else who trys to understand its meaning.

I can only recommend this film for anyone who is trying to broaden their movie horizons (as I am) because the casual viewer (don't think it will be fun to watch this movie and don't try and make a "curious" pun) will quickly be turned away from the complicated premise and lack of anything American besides MLK Jr. This is a Swedish film for the Swedish people, and even most of them won't get what the hell is going on.

Remember, curiosity isnt always a good thing.