Seitz. Writes.

I hinted at my dislike for both Peter Travers and the concept of reviews in previous posts, but I want to expand on the former, and maybe clarify the latter.

(First of all, I want to say that I don’t really hate Peter Travers the man. He’s probably an okay guy in person, and I’m sure talking to him would be pretty interesting. My hatred for Peter Travers is purely abstract. I don’t wish any ill will on him, his career, or his family. He’s successful at what he does and he fits his niche, so I wish him a long and successful career that I will try to undermine at every opportunity. It’s like Batman and the Joker, except I’m more like one of those cast-off DC characters that shows up every now and then to fail miserably.)

So, that out of the way, I hate Peter Travers. If you’re not aware, he’s the movie reviewer for Rolling Stone. He’s also hack and a whore who can’t go two sentences without throwing out some overly bombastic turn of phrase that no normal human being would ever consider writing, solely for the purpose of seeing his name come up in a movie trailer.

In fact, before I started this website I was seriously thinking about writing a blog titled “I hate Peter Travers” where I’d just rip apart bad movie reviews. Think Fire Joe Morgan, but not about sports. I would have been fair and hated on all offenders, but “I hate Peter Travers” just has a certain ring to it.

I never got around to starting that site (though I did register www.ihatepetertravers.com, just in case), but I think I can make “I Hate Peter Travers” a regular feature on this site. Take a look at his review for Wrestler. (I’ll overlook him leaving “the” off the title, but I challenge you to read that whole thing and tell me that you learned anything about the movie from it.) Seriously, I’ll wait.

How to describe Mickey Rourke’s raw, elemental tour de force as Randy “The Ram” Robinson in The Wrestler?

Here are the search results for “Peter Travers “Tour De Force”“, confined to the Rolling Stone website. You’ll notice that there are over 100 hits. Even if you account for repeats, that’s still probably around 75-80 uses of the phrase, which, according to dictionary.com means “an exceptional achievement by an artist, author, or the like, that is unlikely to be equaled by that person or anyone else; stroke of genius.”

Think of a stick of dynamite with the fuse lit and ready to blow. Rourke gets everything right about this battler who’s not ready to go over the hill — his pain, his battered body and his grieving heart.

I don’t even know what that means. Are we supposed to be terrified of Mickey Rourke? perplexed by the relative calm, knowing full well that mass destruction is imminent? Should we run away? These are the kind of things I think of when I think of a lit stick of dynamite. How can you possibly go from a perfectly apt description of destruction and demolition to an old washed up wrestler with emotional issues? Shouldn’t that be more like a stick of dynamite with no fuse? Seemingly destructive, but not really a threat?

The scenes in which Ram works out the choreography of a wrestling match with his brothers in the game are funny as hell, and hell to watch when the wrestlers bleed for real.

Using the word “for real” while discussing a work of fiction is kind of a contradiction, isn’t it? I haven’t seen this movie, so maybe somebody can answer this for me (and since nobody’s going to answer, I’ll just direct these questions to the wall above my desk). Is the wrestler not a feature film, but instead a documentary? Did they not have a choreographer on set, and instead let the actors, in character, choreograph their own fights? Were there no special effects, requiring these actors, in character as wrestlers, to in fact bleed their own blood? No, no, and no? So was Peter Travers just making another empty point because he’s in love with his own writing? Alright then, moving on.

Can Ram climb back to the top? Well, Rourke sure can. With movies as bad as Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man, it’s no wonder Rourke switched careers and went into boxing for a fair share of the 1990s.

And here, Peter Travers makes an effort to provide some relevancy to this review. Disregarding, of course, the fact that every feature written about this movie so far has focused on all of these details. Never mind that there’s no mention of Rumble Fish, Diner, Barfly or any of the other roles that made Rourke famous. Nope, we’re supposed to know that Rourke was a big name, but not that it was Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man that sank him.

He inched back with a pow supporting role in 2005′s Sin City, but the star spot in The Wrestler makes Rourke the year’s comeback kid.

I don’t want this to get lost in the rest of this. Peter Travers just used the word “pow” as an adjective. Apparently dictionary.com says this is acceptable to mean “exciting or appealing,” but seitzwrites.com says that the word “pow” sounds goddamn ridiculous. Regardless, it doesn’t even describe Rourke’s role as Marv in Sin City, where he was onscreen for most of the film and, in the opinion of many, carried the movie. In fact, no less a source than Rolling Stone’s Peter Travers wrote that “Mickey Rourke gives a sensational comeback performance as Marv, an ex-con with a Frankenstein jaw line who wakes up next to a dead hooker (Jaime King) and vows revenge. [...] All three of the overlapping stories involve voice-overs, but Rourke puts real heat into his as Marv searches for ‘a soul to send screaming into hell.’” Yep. That sounds like a “pow supporting role” to me.

Rourke doesn’t make a single false move in this movie. His boxing training gave him a new respect for wrestling, and his dedication shows in the ring. You may flinch, but you won’t look away.

This is a series of three loosely related sentences. Taken individually, they make great pull quotes. Strung together with no attempt at transition, they sound stilted. This, however, is an integral part of every Peter Travers review. After meandering around the plot for a bit, he takes a second to make sure that the marketing department for the movie, should they choose, has a number of quotes that they can splash on the screen without putting in the extra …’s that make people suspicious. See, Peter Travers sucks because he cares.

But let’s look at these alone:

Rourke doesn’t make a single false move in this movie.

So wait, you’re telling me that there isn’t a single scene in this movie of him flubbing a line, tripping on his feet, or accidentally cutting a fart? BRILLIANT! I think every movie should adopt this strategy. In fact, I think we should have special people on set to make sure this doesn’t happen. There can be one guy there to direct all of the actors and scenes and make sure they get all the right footage. We’ll call him a “director.” Then, and stay with me here, I know this is revolutionary, you can have another guy to edit all of the footage and and make sure that no “false moves” make it in to the final product. I’m thinking that he can be the “editor.” Now I know what you’re thinking. What if “director” misses something and the “editor” doesn’t have good footage to work with? Well, in that case, they’ll call everyone back for more filming, or “reshoots” to get the right footage. Man, I should work in Hollywood.

His boxing training gave him a new respect for wrestling,

By this logic, my journalism training gave me more respect for movie making, my history classes gave me more respect for English, and my guitar playing gave me more respect for tuba playing.

and his dedication shows in the ring.

Yes, one would almost think that Rourke were trained in the art of showing emotion and dedication, some form of “acting” (which probably gives him an appreciation for dancing). I’m starting to actually think that Peter Travers doesn’t realize that this is a movie.

You may flinch, but you won’t look away.

And another meaningless phrase that sounds good in big type, written solely because Peter Travers loves the sound of his own words. But I gotta admit, even I want to blow this line up and put it at the top of my page.

You watch The Wrestler (with a superb title song from Bruce Springsteen) in a state of pure exhilaration. A great actor in a great movie will do that to you.

Sweet mercy, we’re at the end. By the way, this is what that sentence would look like with out the parenthetical Boss-slobbing:

You watch The Wrestler in a state of pure exhilaration. A great actor in a great movie will do that to you.

Without the Springsteen quote in parentheses (Which, first of all, is illogical in it’s placement. You’re not watching the title song, and I hope the song doesn’t play for the entire length of the movie. Second, he’s merely acknowledging that there is a song by Springsteen in the movie, and that it is apparently “superb.” He just decided to toss it into the second-to-last sentence, rather than trying to, you know, write it into his review.) this is an example of another Peter Travers hallmark: telling you what you should feel. I was always under the impression that a review was supposed to discuss the reviewer’s feelings, not those of the poor, unenlightened souls that make up the imaginary audience in his mind. Worry not children, Uncle Peter will tell you what to think. I’ve gotta say though, I’m impressed with the restraint in that last sentence. Just great? not transcendent, masterful, or brilliant?  I’m guessing that he just ran out of synonyms in the thesaurus at this point, and decided to go out on a weak note.

Wow. This was much easier than actually reviewing the movie (which I still haven’t seen) would have been. As long as he keeps writing this stuff, I’ll keep breaking it down.

Tags: Commentary, FJM Style, I Hate Peter Travers, Jounralism, Mickey Rourke, Movies, Peter Travers, Rolling Stone, snark is the least sincere form of flattery, The Wrestler
Filed under: Commentary, Journalism