It's not called "The Wrestler" for nothing

Rating: 5/10 (25 December 2008)

something that should have been obvious to me before going in. But the art-house cred that the film has gotten, the film festival screenings, the huzzahs from the critics, and Aronofsky's previous films made me think this would be much more than what it is: a fairly conventional, low-budget retooling of the same material that made "Requium For A Heavyweight" such a sensation in the 50's. Set in the world of professional wrestling, it hypes that 'sport' while at the same time bemoaning Rourke's character's fate, a typical commercial ploy these days in movies: condemning and exploiting at the same time, e.g., the poor, sad, lonely character played by Marissa Tomei, forced to do all that dirty dancing. Don't get me wrong: it's not a bad film, of its kind. And it could just as easily be sold as something for WWF fans. In fact it probably will be. But if it were, I certainly would have no interest in seeing it. So be warned: there's an awful lot of 'professional wrestling' in "The Wrestler". And what remains, minus the nudity and grisly violence, could have just as easily been a network television movie.