In today’s "I hate contemporary journalism" rant ...

I bring the "Uh, what?"

Here’s the blurb off the back of “The Wrestler” on DVD:

“Mickey Rourke gives the performance of a lifetime as pro wrestler Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson, a former superstar now paying the price for twenty years of grueling punishment in and out of the ring. But he's about to risk everything to prove he has one more match left in him: a re-staging of his famous Madison Square Garden bout against ‘The Ayatollah.’ Darren Aronofsky directs a powerful cast in this action-packed saga of guts, glory and gritty determination that is ‘as irresistible as a headlock’ (New York Post).”

There. That part right there. What about a headlock is irresistible? The alluring way that it cuts off your oxygen? The enticing way that it cuts off circulation of blood to the brain?

Wait, I think I see what they mean. The person who’s a victim of a headlock must go where their opponent makes them go; it’s not like they have much choice, and therefore little ... “resistance?” But that’s not quite the meaning of “irresistible” that would make me want to watch a movie. I mean, “The New York Post calls ‘The Wrestler’ ‘a film that will grab you around the neck and force you to watch it?’”

Maybe the review means that the headlock is irresistible to the person applying it? That would certainly change the connotation of the review. As wrestling fans well know, the headlock is generally used as a resthold, allowing the athletes some time to get their wind back, while still appearing to do something in the context of the story going on in the ring. Given the grueling physical demands of wrestling, the headlock, i.e. resthold, must be pretty irresistible.

Well, there you go. “The Wrestler” – “as irresistible as a resthold” (New York Post).

NOTE: I tried to look up this whole review on the NY Post’s webpage ... nada. Although using “headlock” as a search term did call up a lot of news stories about someone named Rihanna. Whoever that is.