Warrior - DVD

Except for the lack of a SPOILER note at the beginning of the first reviewer, I think these first two reviews pretty much cover the story and hit some high points of the film. I do want to disagree with some of the remarks, though.First, I would not call this a sports movie. It is not Rocky, Raging Bull, The Wrestler, or The Fighter. Warrior, according to many professional critics, is better than all of them, and I agree. There is the suspense factor of who will win the championship fight, for sure, and the stand-up-and-cheer factor as the opponents are picked off one by one, and there is the heartwarming factor as the school teacher tries to save his home from foreclosure. These cliches somehow are not relevant to this film and I salute O'Connor and the other writers for telling a story that glosses over them.As some reviewers have pointed out, this film is not really about MMA (mixed martial arts) winners and losers. Like others, I had never heard of MMA and don't like either boxing or wrestling (for me the former is just brutal beating and the second relies on a series of moves that I don't understand). But in this film MMA is choreographed so that you see the intensity and bruises on the fighters faces, the strain and pain on their arms, legs, and shoulders, but are not cringing at any blood and gore. There is no blood and gore in the cage (and probably that is what accounts for its PG-13 rating). As for the cinematography, the periodically trembling camera follows the fighters in close-ups, so you actually feel like you are standing in the ref's shoes. The score, which includes Ode to Joy and The National's About Today, is perfect.I think what really puts the gold on the five stars, though, is the caliber of acting. When the movie was made,over two years ago, Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton were barely known to American audiences. O'Connor said he didn't want the performers to overshadow the characters, and with the anonymity of the actors, he would achieve that. He shouldn't have worried. The brothers, especially Hardy, completely disappear in the characters. Nolte not so much. His real life and his persona as Paddy Conlon are not so far apart, but I can't think of any other actor who could redeem this character with such pathos.As story-telling goes, Warrior is both a movie and a film. Nobody doesn't love Warrior. Teens will love it, the parent-sibling-sibling conflicts relatable. And the cage fighting will thrill them. In fact, the whole family will enjoy this, sitting on the edge of the seats, cheering, and tearing up sometimes simultaneously. By the way, it wasn't only the ladies tearing up a time or two. After the screening I attended, no one, man or woman, moved from their seats, the lights remained down, only some muted sniffling and discreet blowing of noses.For the arthouse crowd, there is profound metaphor embedded in the film. There are actually three warriors (fighters) in Warrior, and not one of them actually wins the war (the big fight). The brothers have not seen each other in 14 years, each of them feeling betrayed by the other at a crucial point in the life of the family. The one thing they have in common is hatred for their father, a former drunk and wife-beater. Brendan, the older son, has moved his own family as far away from Paddy as possible and still be in the same state. Communication must be had only by phone or mail. Tommy, an ex-Marine, shows up at his father's house, again after 14 years --but with zero communication-- and wants Paddy to train him for a big tournament. Why in the world, some would say, does Tommy go to his father for this. He hates him. Well, Paddy, also an ex-Marine and pro boxer, trained both Tommy and Brendan as boys. Tommy in wrestling, Brenden in boxing. But Tommy was a champion. Parallels permitted to be drawn. And so, because his motivation is so strong (and so poignant as we find out later), Tommy wants to be trained by the man who made him champion. Paddy hopes to revive this relationship, but Tommy is having none of it. Hardy absolutely seethes in his scenes with Nolte; every comment is a stab wound, every look a gunshot. Nolte takes it like a dog after he's been kicked. Coming back for the pat on the head. Scenes between these two are Oscar material, hands down.As the story develops, slowly, but with tantalizing bits of mystery in the plot, a lot of gaps are filled in. At the point where the two finalists, Tommy Riordan and Brendan Conlon ("They are brothers!" the announcer shouts), enter the cage, we are so conflicted we want to cry (and we do). Then the script throws us a screwball(another shock, another jerk of a tear). Who the hell to cheer for?! There are no bad guys to fight! Just two alienated brothers who need to beat the crap out of each other in order to win the prize they need so desperately. And when the fight is over, it isn't really over. The end of the cage fight is gut-wrenching. No one wins. Not Tommy, not Brendan, not Paddy. A lot of people say the "ending" of the movie is predictable. Which ending is that? The knockout? The takedown? The tapout? And what exactly do each of those signify? Is there redemption for Paddy? Are there resolutions to the conflicts among the father and brothers? What happens to Tommy, to Brendan, to Paddy, after the tournament ends?Warrior will run your emotions ragged. High, low, and very few in-betweens. I think the movie will make the Best Films list, and it better get its nominations for Hardy and Nolte. I think Edgerton's quietly powerful performance is award worthy, too, but not in contention with the other two. I hope audiences don't pass this film by because they think it's a violent fight movie or, for UFC fans, too tame. This is a jewel that should be treasured by everyone.

One of the most underrated movies. Great storyline. Fantastic acting. Production was good.

Great movie

I watch a lot of movies, I'd say roughly 12-15 a week. I'm a stay at home dad and I watch them while I cook, clean, and as I am settling down to sleep. I have been doing it for a loooong time. I like movies. So when it comes to rating them, I suppose it's only natural that I dole out a lot of 4 stars. However, because I have seen so many, each movie in itself must compete with a list of films which includes most of the greatest creations ever captured on camera. So the 5 stars are much more rare. To say a film has made my own private top 10 list means I have found it better than hundreds upon hundreds of films. This one makes it to my top 5.Yes, the acting is amazing. The cinematography is outstanding. The balance of action and drama is frankly matched only by "Apocalypse Now" and that director had to steal off into the jungle with a blank check and blow up half the Philippines to accomplish what he did. However, this movie is, in my opinion, unique in way that is not capable of being described by a word or blurb. There is no award for the thing that made this film so great. I will try to describe its nature, though.To me, it had elements of many eras and styles of film which I would have considered impossible to combine. I saw here the over the top symbolism of the 60's; think "To Kill a Mockingbird." I saw here the gritty but tightly focused individualism of the 70's; think "Mean Streets," or the more obvious "Rocky." I saw here the blatant emotionalism of the 80's, think "The Breakfast Club." I saw here the academic referential dalliance of the 90's; think "Miller's Crossing," I saw here the journalistic aloofness of the post millennial films; think "Hurt Locker." Each of these iconic films represents, to me, a stylistic tendency that might evoke either praise or criticism on the part of the viewer as the vagaries of personal taste and fashion of the moment dictate. Certainly, before I saw this film, I would have thought some of these styles not only incompatible but mutually exclusive. The plot weave is also very odd. The slow merging of storyline might bring to mind such films as "Traffic" or "Babel" but where those films slowly reveal a connection of the unexpected, this film slowly reveals a connection of the inevitable. By the time I finished my first run of this film, I was left with the feeling that I had watched at least three separate but fantastically emotional films in the space of a little more than 2 hours. I had only absently clicked on the title at bedtime guided by a vague disposition towards fight movies and an appreciation of the versatility of Ben Hardy. I stopped rewatching it after the light of morning was streaming through the bedroom windows.In an attempt to find a critical appraisal that was less than shining as I groped for a way to more holistically define what I had just experienced, I did stumble across the word cliché. I would say that it was cliché like Homer.It might be a man thing, too, possibly. Even for a fight movie there was a whole lot of time spent on action in the ring. But that was another thing. There is not just one climactic fight. There are like 4 or so. How is it possible to have more than one climax? It's difficult to describe. Maybe that's more of a woman thing. I have to say that when it was over I didn't want to roll over and go to sleep. Instead I wanted to sit around and talk about my feelings.

Good movie watched it several times