Update: THE WRESTLER has won the Golden Lion, the Venice Film Festival's top prize! Here's what Mickey Rourke had to say in tribute to his director:

"Darren Aronofsky came here a couple of years ago and fell on his ass," Rourke told the packed Sala Grande theatre, referring to the director's critical flop "The Fountain" which premiered in Venice in 2006.

"I am glad he had the balls to come back. I don't think he wanted to come, I said, 'You've got to come'."

I love that man's honesty. Now on to Toronto!

Beaks here...

Though Darrren Aronofsky's THE WRESTLER has yet to make its North American premiere (that'll happen Sunday at the Toronto Film Festival), it has bowed in Europe to great acclaim from... three critics who saw it in Los Angeles (Variety's Todd McCarthy, The Hollywood Reporter's Stephen Farber and some asshole with a ridiculous pseudonym)! Regardless of where it screens, I expect that the responses will generally be very enthusiastic - unless viewers go into the film anticipating the Aronofsky of REQUIEM FOR A DREAM. Then, they might spend a great deal of the running time adjusting their expectations when they should be settling into Aronofsky's quiet, intimate drama.

Here's a review from a reader who wanted the ol' razzle dazzle...

Just got back from the Premiere of the Wrestler at the Venice Film festival.

First off I would like to say I'm a huge fan of Aronofskys work and he has been very influential.

The Wrestler received a standing ovation!

Good movie but I would put it at the end of the list of films hes made. The reasons...

I expected something visually amazing, composition wise, art direction etc. As a big wrestling fan in the past, you have to consider that its all eye candy/sensory overload, huge explosions, outrages costumes and Aronofsky could of made us experience this on the largest scale with how he knows to play with sound and visuals. I DO realize The Ram is washed up and going through the after effects of an illustrious career, I think Aronofsky wanted to achieve the same effect in another way with Rourke BEING the visually amazing. But why not do it all? Did he think it would take away from Rourke's performance? Requiems amazing inventive visuals didn't take away from Burstyns performance... My favorite scene from the The Wrestler shows Randy the Ram working behind the deli counter at a supermarket and an old fan starts to recognize him, as he starts pointing out who he is, Randy sticks his finger in the cutter that he was using to chop some food up and starts roid raging! Smearing his face with his own blood and yelling at everyone in sight. Just losing it! Part of the film I disliked was the repetitive back shots, If I ever see this film again Ill have to count how much time we spend following Rourke from the back, this started getting annoying after a while, it fills the movie.

A few areas i would like to point out

Camera
My biggest concern with the film is its bland visual approach. Why not stick with DP Libatique who is at the top visually? I felt alot of The Wrestler was very poorly shot, composition wise and obviously the lack of lighting did not add to the mood. What does this mean? Is Aronofsky trying to test himself by trying to achieve something great with the most minimal?

Story
Why Aronofsky picked this script is beyond me. The story is average, it had alot of weight lifted off from the performances . When Aronofsky writes or cowrites his material he is at his best. The great Leto and Burstyn scene in Requiem towers over the strikingly similar "I'm alone" scene of Wood and Rourke. I will have doubts in the future of anything he doesn't write. Whats so great about Aronofsky is his brilliant ability to make movies of his own, this is why I think we all love him. He says F to Hollywood in a sense similar to Kubrick. Lets hope he has this creative freedom with Robocop.

Acting
Mickey Rourke has always been a great actor in my eyes and if anything that stands out in this film is his performance. I went in expecting him to deliver and he did! I wouldn't be surprised if he receives some awards for it. Wood also was a strong supporter. Tomei had the similar tone to Lumets Tomei, and shes pretty naked for most of her scenes as you would expect from a stripper.

Big question in my head is who does this movie cater to? This is a question of all Aronofskys films. I say young Intellectual males and females were his past films. I don't see any girl finding interest in the Wrestler whatsoever or going to see it for that matter. WWE fans want to see the glamor and glitz side as well, at least I did. Definitely has ECW fan written all over it. Still hope it gets proper distribution I think threes a place for everything even as niche as this.

Final note, I don't want people to think I'm being too hard on this film, it really is a good movie, its a good movie done in a basic docu-fashion that I wasn't expecting from a director such as Aronofsky. I praise him for trying to remain versatile.
But it just doesn't stick, usually his films stick in my head... I guess only time will tell.

FT

Interesting that FT had a problem with the camera frequently being at Ram's back; I like that we're often following the character as he trudges through the indignity of the day. It's not often that you get to see an actor act with his back (and that's a good thing), but Rourke does a beautiful job of conveying Ram's bottled-up sadness in those hunched shoulders of his. Also, the camera is always moving at his pace, so we're acutely aware of Ram's dour mood even when he's doing everything to tell the world that he's coping with the disappointment. Again, it's not flashy technically, but it's emotionally true - and that's all that matters in a movie like this.