Kenny Turan pins 'The Wrestler'

If you're running an Oscar campaign for a low-budget movie that needs all the help it can get from rave reviews, as Fox Searchlight is doing right now with "The Wrestler," the very last thing you want in life is to open up the L.A. Times and see a scathingly negative review from our lead critic, Kenny Turan, who put the critical equivalent of a Vulcan death grip on the movie. The headline for the review, which took up most of the front page of today's Calendar section, said it all: "As Fake As Wrestling: Despite Mickey Rourke's performance, the tale doesn't ring true." As any Oscar consultant could tell you, that's not the kind of headline you want the thousands of academy members who read  The Times to see with their morning bagel and coffee.

I admit to being of two minds about Kenny's review, which calls the movie "off-putting and disappointing," not to mention "hopelessly contrived and predictable." On the one hand, I'm a bit baffled that Kenny--who's a friend--didn't like the movie more. After all, it offers what critics always say they admire most: uncompromising filmmaking tied to a spirited, emotionally raw acting performance. When I first saw "The Wrestler" at the Toronto Film Festival in early September, I was ecstatic, since it brought two great talents back from the abyss: Mickey Rourke--who had very publicly destroyed his acting career--and the filmmaker Darren Aronofsky, who finally fulfilled the promise of his stunning debut, 1998's "Pi," after losing his way with a pair of troubled projects, 2000's "Requiem for a Dream" and "The Fountain," which had bombed in Toronto in 2006. 

On the other hand, even if I disagree with him, I'm happy to see Kenny take such a bold stand, clearly knowing that he'd be largely out of step with the critical establishment, which has lavished praise on "The Wrestler," a movie destined to turn up on dozens of end-of-the-year critic Top 10 lists. The movie is such a cinematic darling that it currently has a 100 rating at Rotten Tomatoes, the leading online review rating site. (I guess they haven't posted Kenny's review, which would obviously bring down the score.) The movie's been getting raves across the board, from the New Yorker to Variety to Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman, who said it was "like 'Rocky' made by the Scorsese of 'Mean Streets.' " (The film's only other high-profile detractor has been Time's Richard Corliss, who after seeing the film in Toronto called it "bogus" and "visually inert.")

Call me old-fashioned. But I admire critics who trust their taste--and are enough of a contrarian--to take a stand, even if they know it's going to be unpopular with their peers. When I read Kenny's recent lukewarm review of "Milk," I suspected that he'd pulled his punches, not wanting to knock a feel-good movie with such a popular following. Kenny's "Wrestler" review speaks its mind, much as his now-notorious pan of "Titanic" did a decade ago, which inspired weeks of angry letters from its fans (not to mention James Cameron). I thought Kenny was just as wrong about "Titanic" as I think he is about "The Wrestler." If you care about film, "The Wrestler" is a must-see movie about a beautiful loser trying to hang on to the one thing in his life that keeps his soul intact. I hope Rourke and Aronofsky reap even more rewards from putting so much passion into the project.

Does that mean Kenny was wrong to put a sleeper hold on the film? Should a critic always be in step with the rest of us? Not at all. I've had my disagreements with Manohla Dargis (our former critic who's now at the N.Y. Times), but I value both her ardor and cool analysis, even when I think she's dead wrong. I guess what I'm saying is that if you admire a critic, its just as important to read them when you're mad at them as when you're contentedly nodding your head in agreement. In today's world, we're surrounded by round-the-clock advertising, designed to satisfy our every whim. It's nice to have a few critics around who don't just soothe us into submission, but can ruffle our feathers too.

RELATED:

Read Kenny Turan's Pan Here:

Mickey Rourke Tells All at the Toronto Film Festival:

Photo of Mickey Rourke in "The Wrestler" by Niko Tavernise / Fox Searchlight

Comments

[Toby]

I would really care but Kenny Turan ALWAYS disagrees with the critical establishment.

To the point were he's worthless.

If I wanted contrary for contrary sake, I'd hang out with my mother.

[Frederick Reland]

Regardless of Patrick Goldstein's encouragement for critics to 'speak their minds', can a critic for a major paper be so out of touch as Kenneth Turan has been of late and still collect a paycheck?

[Rose Chu]

Let me start by saying that I admire Patrick Goldstein for the article he wrote earlier in the year entitled, "How The Mighty Have Fallen". That article rightfully shined a spotlight on the repeatedly awful film choices that Robert De Niro and Al Pacino have made in the past decade. Mr. Goldstein was courageously correct in pointing out that critics routinely lavish praise on De Niro and Pacino despite the fact that they have not turned in a compelling performance in years. By contrast, what Kenny Turan has done in his review of "The Wrestler" seems incredibly tendentious and unmerited. Did he actually watch the movie? Everyone is entitled to their opinion but the derision Kenny gratuitously heaps upon "The Wrestler" is undeserved and intentionally contrarian to the point of being ridiculous. Honestly, Rourke's role has to be one of the best performances I have witnessed in years and it's a solid film to boot. If Mr. Turan has an editorial axe to grind, please ask him to do it somewhere else.

[John Anderson]

I'm sorry to see that Kenny Turan has resorted to the type of negative hyperbole that I have come to expect from him once again. His assessment of "The Wrestler" comes across as self indulgently negative and serves little purpose to the average reader (me). Okay, Kenny we know your clever but...

[Linda Black-Bruno]

"It's nice to have a few critics around who don't just soothe us into submission, but can ruffle our feathers too."

If you want your feathers ruffled, honey, try reading N.P. Thompson.

[stewq]

Kenny Turan must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed when he penned his review of "The Wrestler". I'm not sure what Kenny was trying to prove to the "critical establishment" with his absurdly negative attack on Darren Aronofsky's latest film but I found his rant to be sorely lacking in the "noble intent" category.

[Will Phillips]

What's with the Grinch-like vitriol from Kenneth Turan? Jeez, sometimes a good movie is just a good movie and "The Wrestler" happens to fall into that category.

[SlappyJones]

When I read a review like Turan's the first thing thing I think is ulterior motive.Perhaps a "Milk" fan, bashing a huge rival movie would help Milk along it's way towards it's award goals,what with the whole prop 8 debacle happening in California.Then again there are always people who will never positively review a Mickey Rourke movie or a wrestling movie for that matter regardless of how good either one of them are.It's the only reason I can think of to pan such a brilliant piece of acting by Rourke in an altogether moving and affecting film.

[peter]

Let's remember, Turan is the guy who gave a positive review of Indy 4.

[John Boccia]

Turan, completely missed it. Have no idea what movie he was watching, cause he missed a great flick!