35 Responses for "Rose/Rourke"

1. JR February 13th, 2009 at 12:41 pm 1

   Go MICKEY ROURKE!

2. richard crawford February 13th, 2009 at 1:14 pm 2

   i want mickey, but sean will win.

3. daveylow February 13th, 2009 at 1:42 pm 3

   I really will be shocked if Penn wins now. I would love Penn to win, but it’s not going to happen.

4. Annan February 13th, 2009 at 1:47 pm 4

   I’m about halfway through it and it’s great so far. It really re-affirms my belief that Darren Aronofsky should have gotten a Best Director nod.

5. Big Man February 13th, 2009 at 2:16 pm 5

   If Mickey Rourke wins, it will be the best choice. If Sean Penn wins, it will be the right choice. This is Penn’s best performance in my opinion and he should receive his second Oscar. If Rourke does win, though, I’ll still be happy, but even if he doesn’t, he says he’ll still try and try and try…that’s what I’d like to see–Rourke build back up a steady career and then win for something that might be bigger and better down the road. But like I said, if he wins, I’ll still be happy. Go Sean and Mickey!! (and beat up Brad if he steals the Oscar from yous)

6. Casey February 13th, 2009 at 3:17 pm 6

   My support is 100% behind Mickey Rourke.
   And I am solid in thinking Oscar will make the right choice – the right choice being Mickey Rourke

7. Greg Kristopik February 13th, 2009 at 4:45 pm 7

   Mickey Rourke winning the Oscar seems like destiny now. Penn was brilliant but he didn’t live his role, Rourke did. It’s his turn.

   What I’m most shocked by is that Aronofsky didn’t even get an Independent Spirit Award nomination for Director! Injustice!!

8. Bryan Westbrook February 13th, 2009 at 5:01 pm 8

   Just watched this interview and by far one of the most candid and touching interviews that I have seen from an actor to date. I love Sean Penn but he has had his many moments in the spotlight – I think its time to recognize a great actor that has trumped the standard.

9. ladylurks February 13th, 2009 at 5:03 pm 9

   Whoever wins – Penn or Rourke – it will be an outstanding choice. I wouldn’t mind Sean losing since he already has an Oscar, and I’d be thrilled for Mickey. I just don’t want Milk to go home empty-handed, but hopefully Dustin Lance Black’s screenplay Oscar will take care of that.

10. Alex February 13th, 2009 at 6:28 pm 10

    If Penn wins, it is the right choice. If Rourke wins, it is the right choice.

    F—. This is too hard.

    Truly, I think Penn’s is the better performance, but that is just me. Too many people think Rourke is great for me to ignore…

11. Zach February 13th, 2009 at 6:51 pm 11

    All the pro-Rourke comments are so great, there’s nothing more I can add!

    But totally unrelated – can we please have a post on the technical awards already hosted by Jessica Biel? We never hear anything about these awards, but they always sound interesting. It would be great to hear about the innovations that win these awards.

12. Paul Outlaw February 13th, 2009 at 6:56 pm 12

    If

    1) I didn’t love Sean Penn

    2) I weren’t gay

    3) The Dark Knight had been nominated for BP/BD

    4) Aronowsky and The Wrestler had been nominated instead of Ron Howard and The Reader

    5) Mickey Rourke would shave, get a haircut and take off all the shades

    then I might not be so attached to the idea of Sean Penn winning the Oscar (or tying with Frank Langella) this year.

    Now just imagine that I am an Academy member with a ballot to fill out.

13. Sally in Chicago February 13th, 2009 at 7:05 pm 13

    Sean Penn is throwing this fight….and giving it to Mickey. Penn isn’t campaigning, no interviews, very little awards appearance…he’s trying to give Mickey the win. Betcha.

14. ORDINARY COW February 13th, 2009 at 7:18 pm 14

    if Sean Penn had made more promotion, Penn-Rourke would have split into Langella win.

15. Ben February 13th, 2009 at 7:20 pm 15

    You guys should be careful before presuming that the crushes Wells/Sasha/Kris have for Rourke doesn’t necessarily mean the Academy feels the same way. Beware of the echo chamber.

    Rourke may well win, but to think it’s some sort of lock is insanity. Rourke equals Eddie Murphy of 2006 (With less precursors).

16. Zach February 13th, 2009 at 9:23 pm 16

    Rourke PR-wise is in a much better position than Eddie Murphy was.

17. HBK February 13th, 2009 at 9:56 pm 17

    Everyone , including me , is rooting for Mickey .

    He deserves it , for the best performance of the year in a very well made film .

    Too bad He’ll lose to Sean Penn , who does not even need to campaign to win a 2nd Oscar.

18. Lee February 13th, 2009 at 9:57 pm 18

    “Sean Penn is throwing this fight….and giving it to Mickey. Penn isn’t campaigning, no interviews, very little awards appearance…he’s trying to give Mickey the win.”

    I don’t think you are completely off-track with this, Sally. Rourke admits in the Charlie Rose interview linked here that Penn talked to him at Toronto this year and told him “do this, don’t do that” when it came to awards campaigning/publicity. Rourke has spoken to everyone with a microphone or camera that was willing to listen (even The View).

    Penn doesn’t seem to want, or need, this Oscar. He wanted the nominations for the film so it would get a wide(r) release – as he said in his acceptance speech at the SAG awards (or Critic’s Choice – I forget which). He detests doing press for anything, but if it will help get a film he feels strongly about seen by a larger audience he’ll show up when it’s necessary. He can see that Rourke would most definitely benefit more from winning an Oscar this year than he would.

    Penn doesn’t seem to give a rat’s ass about awards in general, unless he’s directing (yes, he was severely pissed that “Into the Wild” wasn’t received better than it was). He’s been invited to join AMPAS around a half-dozen times by the Actor’s Branch. He has declined every time. This goes against him as far as winning acting Oscars, but it does not seem to concern him. He may or may not join if he is ever invited by the Director’s Branch.

    Penn hasn’t done a total “face plant”. He does respect the project, the cast & crew, Lance, and Gus. He did Charlie Rose with Gus in November and Tavis Smiley a few weeks ago (both are PBS only programs). He was at most of the awards (I doubt he’ll ever show up for anything held by the HFPA) and he attended the premieres. He is (or was) minimally campaigning on behalf of the film. I don’t see that he’s campaigning for his individual awards at all. I am not really a Sean Penn fan, never have been – contrary to what some people may believe. But I did like his performance as Harvey Milk (and his behavior during awards season is kind of interesting to watch).

    One thing is certain: It won’t be a personal campaign by Sean Penn that keeps Mickey Rourke from winning the Best Actor Oscar.

19. DoCH February 13th, 2009 at 10:55 pm 19

    Penn or Langella would be the best choices. I think Sasha and Ryan A. are far more influenced by campaigning than most Academy members. Rourke is very good indeed but it is not at the same caliber that Penn or Langella achieve. It seems to be more about the comeback than the quality of the acting when it comes to Rourke. The award is for best performance and not best comeback story by an actor.

    I just wish Penn and Langella would have been joined by Brendan Gleeson (In Bruges), Michael Fassbender (Hunger) and Benecio Del Toro (Che). I like Jenkins and have nothing against Pitt but it is about the best performance not the best campaign. As for Rourke I would definitely have him in the top 15 performances by a lead actor last year. However I am immune to campaigns and sympathy choices. It is about the acting to me.

    By the way, this will be the 2nd time that Penn wins when many are predicting an upset of Penn by someone. Last time it was Depp winning SAG which was supposed to doom Penn. This time it is organizations such as HFPA and BAFTA who could care less about Milk that are causing doubt.

20. Ryan Adams February 14th, 2009 at 12:32 am 20

    “I think Sasha and Ryan A. are far more influenced by campaigning than most Academy members.”

    DoCH, I’m for Penn winning. Have been since the night I saw Milk and nothing about The Wrestler changed my mind. I don’t make a big deal about it but I think most people here know that. I don’t think Langella belongs in the top 5 either. My personal five choices for Best Actor would’ve been:

    Penn
    DiCaprio
    Fassbender
    Pitt
    Del Toro

21. Paul Outlaw February 14th, 2009 at 4:13 am 21

    Ryan:
    Penn / Ledger / Del Toro / Pitt / Rourke
    

22. Dominik February 14th, 2009 at 6:42 am 22

    It won´t matter who wins on 22nd- at the after party they will have a couple of beers together and everything will be fine!
    What I really love about those guys – Penn and Rourke – is that they are not really crazy about all this Oscar stuff (how funny to say that on an Oscar homepage).
    And I agree with Sally from Chicago: Penn seems to be throwing this fight, no campaign, no nothing. But on the other hand: Did he campaign ever before? I don´t think so…
    But I bet this media shyness won´t help: Penn is very likely to win!

23. daveylow February 14th, 2009 at 10:31 am 23

    If Rourke wasn’t crazy about this Oscar stuff, why would he do so many talk shows? I guess Fox Searchlight has put a gun to his head and told him–you must WIN THIS OSCAR.

    Focus Films should hire whomever is doing the marketing for Slumdog and The Wrestler.

24. JK February 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am 24

    Rourke was good in The Wrestler, I really like it, and his winning speeches are great because are refreshing, but everyone is so smitten with him because of his personal life. The fact that an interview and not his performance is making him a “winner” is a clear example

    In my pespective Sean Penn gives a way better performance, if he wins or not it doesn’t matter, it good be sweeter though

    p.s.1. I don’t buy by any means the split scenario and Langella win, I don’t think he has a chance besides Penn and Rourke and also Michael Sheen was better as Frost

    p.s.2. Of course Rourke is crazy about all this Oscar stuff, he wants it so bad and it’s fine, but please don’t say that he doesn’t give a sh$#t about it because is simply not true

25. Sasha Stone February 14th, 2009 at 11:15 am 25

    ” I think Sasha and Ryan A. are far more influenced by campaigning than most Academy members.”

    Yeah, that’s BULLSHIT. I watched The Wrestler and I was floored. I saw Milk and I admired Penn totally – I admired the skill, the liked the character more but I can’t help thinking the love for Penn is really love for Harvey Milk. I’ve been floored by Penn time and time again – for me, Rourke did something amazing and unbelievable.

    The campaigns, despite the ads flashing at you on the sides, have nothing to do with my opinion, at all. Only in the negative, never in the positive. I’m not going to publicly trash a movie who is advertising on Awards Daily but I have never have really done that anyway. I don’t go ass over elbow if I didn’t like the movie or performance; I just stay mum about it.

    I agree that Penn is throwing the race (”it’s your time, brother.”) I also think that Penn has many more performances in him. This means a lot more to Rourke. A hell of a lot more. Oscars are different from critics awards. They are economics and politics.

26. Alejo February 14th, 2009 at 3:31 pm 26

    Amen Sasha!

27. filmfemme February 15th, 2009 at 12:33 am 27

    I’m not naive enough to think that PR blitzes don’t sway Oscar voters, but I would like to think that when it comes to the acting Oscars, that some thought goes into rewarding the best performances..

    I honestly don’t know how anyone can objectively watch Milk and not think that Sean Penn’s performance was out of this world. This uber-serious, straight guy who NEVER smiles embodied Harvey Milk totally — his voice, his mannerisms, his lighthearted wit, his joy as well as his anger.

    Mickey Rourke, on the other hand, gave a great performance in a really good film–and I admit that I liked Milk a lot more than The Wrestler. As good as Rourke was, it doesn’t hold a candle to Sean Penn’s performance. Penn channeled Harvey Milk’s ghost in a role that’s almost nothing like him personally. That’s ACTING. Meanwhile, Mickey Rourke channeled HIMSELF 15 years ago.

    If Mickey Rourke wins the Oscar, it will be because of the backstory and the gladhandling he’s doing with the media (and the Charlie Rose interview was great, IMO. He wants this Oscar BADLY!). Sean Penn may not care about winning this time around, but to answer #17, shouldn’t a transcendent performance like his speak for itself?

28. Ryan Adams February 15th, 2009 at 3:50 am 28

    Cheers, filmfemme.
    Be my Valentine?

29. DBibby February 15th, 2009 at 6:00 am 29

    It’s funny how loads of people have a problem with Mickey Rourke winning because of the backstory, it’s his time, etc., yet few people seem to mind that Kate Winslet is going to win for an OK performance in a mediocre movie. I guess Kate doesn’t have the incredible competition like Rourke does with Penn (without doubt the two best acting performances of the year IMO, regardless of gender or size of role).

    It really is a shame that they both can’t win. But this is feeling like Rourke’s year.

    Just watched the interview too and found Mickey humble and honest. It’s a great interview.

30. Sally in Chicago February 15th, 2009 at 6:33 am 30

    “I honestly don’t know how anyone can objectively watch Milk and not think that Sean Penn’s performance was out of this world. This uber-serious, straight guy who NEVER smiles embodied Harvey Milk totally — his voice, his mannerisms, his lighthearted wit, his joy as well as his anger. ”

    Sorry about my bias, but I just don’t like gay-themed movies, and I think that a lot of Hwd “oldsters” will feel the same.

    Can somebody tell me how Rourke wasn’t homeless after not working for a long while? I mean, I’m sure between boxing and making low-grade movies he had “some” money coming in, but honestly, to live in Hwd you need lots of money. Or maybe I shouldn’t ask?

    I think in answer to Charlie’s question, Mickey probably wants to get to a point where he is making millions of dollars and can live comfortably into his old age. When you hit 50, you realize, retirement is just around the corner and you need to start (if not already) accumulating some big bucks to make it through the next 20 years.

31. Noah R. February 15th, 2009 at 2:05 pm 31

    I think both Penn and Rourke give career-best performances in the respective films but the latter wasn’t just acting; he was baring his soul. If you want to be a truly great actor, you have to be willing to dig deep into yourself on some occasions and that in a way is more admirable than just acting to me. As for the suggestion that the Oscars AREN’T about campaigns, wake up. They always have been about the campaigns, always will be. I remember Sasha bringing this up when the posthumous talk for Heath started popping up. Heath didn’t like campaigning for himself. Had he lived, he may have been nominated but I don’t think he would’ve won that easily. Rourke is running one hell of a campaign and it’s working. He will win the Oscar and deservedly so.

32. filmfemme February 15th, 2009 at 3:45 pm 32

    Noah R. – “If you want to be a truly great actor, you have to be willing to dig deep into yourself on some occasions and that in a way is more admirable than just acting to me.”

    And Sean Penn didn’t do that?

    I’m really not trying to get down on Mickey Rourke here. I’m a longtime fan of his work. But I can bare my soul on film and do it well. That doesn’t mean I would deserve an Oscar, esp. over an actor who is more technically gifted that I am.

33. filmfemme February 15th, 2009 at 3:53 pm 33

    Sally in Chicago – I’m sure Rourke was probably close to homeless a few times, which is why he sold all but one of his Harleys (as he said in the Charlie Rose interview). But maybe he was smart enough to buy his home outright when he was making the big bucks.

    Also, actors get residuals from their previous work. So between his work in the 80s and his recent film work, he’s making a decent income.

34. John O. February 16th, 2009 at 3:22 pm 34

    I think that Sean Penn has told the voters it’s okay to vote for Mickey.

35. MVP February 17th, 2009 at 5:56 pm 35

    Sally in Chicago – Mickey Rourke was broke for about 10 years and lived in a small $500 apartment in Hollywood. Friends gave him a few hundred dollars a month for food to live on. In 2000, Richard Harris put him up in a hotel for a while. From time to time, he would get small parts in films from friends like Francis Ford Coppola, Sly Stallone, Sean Pen, Steve Buscemi, Vincent Gallo, or crappy direct to video movies that nobody has even heard of. In 2005, he received a larger part in Domino and Sin City. It took 15 years for him to get a LEAD role in a great film (the Wrestler).

    He was a multi-millionaire when he quit acting to get into boxing. He used to get paid millions for his film roles as a lead actor and star in the 1980s. When he quit boxing in 1995, he didn’t get his film career back and has struggled since until now.

    Mickey Rourke had it all: Extreme talent (comparable to Marlon Brando), looks, career, fame, beautiful wife, beautiful mansion purchased from Richard Harris, gold-plated Rolls Royce, 12 custom Harleys, other classsic cars, owned a gym called Shapiro’s, had a magazine stand/ snack shop called Mickey and Joey’s in LA, name was put it clubs called Mickey’s in Miami, and a large entourage.

    Mickey Rourke’s story is the most extreme story of someone having it all and losing it all. Most people would give up hope, but he didn’t. The fact that he has a opportunity to win the acting world’s most coveted prize probably means more to him than to Sean Penn who already has one.

    I think this is one of the greatest comeback stories in cinema history. I really hope Mickey Rourke wins. But I don’t mind Sean Penn winning either. They are both talented.