Warrior

So this is the best picture so far this year. An intense emotional and action-packed fireball with the faultless Tom Hardy and unexpectedly great Joel Edgerton, whose future is starting to look promising. A great idea, swimming in Hollywood sauce and the exiting environment of MMA has exactly the right ingredients. Warrior is about a struggle between two losers, both heroes in a way, but just one of them can win. Sorrow is overcome at the end by joy and the classic lesson “Don’t give up" rings true. I wouldn’t be surprised if this picture became a favorite for an Oscar. (08/12/2011)

An ode to (movie and viewer) joy that is spoiled just by trying to catch too many birds in bushes. To hell with all those clichés, but I would welcome it if it concentrated only on the brothers and father (plus their demons); this does actually happen, but not until the very end. Which means that all of the preceding, subordinate motifs just fizzle out. (14/12/2011)

This is why I watch movies: to find a gem like this. I had emotions coming out of my ears, my heart was pounding at 106, and tears were streaming down my face. Drama combined with sports is kind of thin ice. The games have to entertain, they can't be overdone, and they don't mean anything if the drama doesn't come through. But here the foundation is solid, the story is catchy, and the actors have an incredible zest to perform. An amazing cinematic experience. 5 stars. (07/12/2011)

Muscly tough guys torn by emotions, depicted in brilliant performances by the up-and-coming acting elite. Their display of physical prowess, especially Tom Hardy’s, and commitment to the characters and the story are what make this otherwise simple and unoriginal film so powerful. You believe every word they say and perceive the weight of their disaffection, and thus all the more thoroughly feel the film’s ending, which is impossible to watch without a tear in your eye. Veteran actor Nick Nolte is a worthy teammate to the younger guys and director Gavin O’Connor is a guide with a clear vision. Warrior is a brilliantly cast actors’ film. (01/01/2012)

I welcome making the “I’ll take some – I’ll dish some out – I’m the winner” formula exceptional by dividing attention between the two actors in the final conflict, who also happen to be brothers (thus a bit of biblical symbolism to top it off). At the same time, I find it regrettable to not use the plot to generate greater ambivalence. Through the emphasis placed on the familial subtext and the praiseworthy teaching work, we are subtly directed to clench our fists when Brendan takes a punch, not Tommy, whose system is stolen (which, nevertheless, is not appropriate). The film does not show the desperation arising from the endless carousel of defeats and victories as in The Wrestler. Where Aranofsky's drama was critical, Warrior is pathetic. It does not dissuade from mindless violence, but rather encourages it with aggressive music. Furthermore, voluntary self-destruction has been the only option for both brothers from the beginning to preserve (or possibly improve) their existence. In the interest of its own dramatic functionality, the film does not allow any other option. Brendan fights in order to support his family, whereas Tommy fights because adrenaline gives him strength (this post-combat inability to give up fighting was captured more sensitively in The Hurt Locker), which is another reason to have more understanding for Brendan. Despite that, Tom Hardy’s performance made me feel sorry that the entire film is not focused solely on him. However, the more brilliant actor does not disguise the mechanical construction of the drama: the son does not like the father, the father gets wasted, the son pities the father and vents his frustration when he crushes his opponent in a match. This works in a beautifully simple way in films and perhaps we even long for it somewhere inside, but the emotional impact of this would-be psychological film suffers because of it. Warrior does well when, after approximately eighty minutes, it resigns itself to some sort of psychological dawdling and then only shows from different angles how two guys beat and kick each other and how others watch them. The matches are directed as uninventively as the dialogue scenes, which stultify us with endlessly alternating shots and counter-shots. The camera either remains outside of the cage and/or attempts to imitate the unprepared shooting of television cameramen, thus simulating the experience of at-home or live viewing of similar matches. Unlike Scorsese in Raging Bull, for example, O’Connor does not bring an aesthetic element into the violence, and thus does not make it an action surpassing everyday experience, thereby merely promoting the numbness of the audience and giving the impression that it is something ordinary. In short – and unfortunately – an uncritical film. 70% (09/10/2018)