Do I even need to say: SPOILER ALERT? Actually, it would be more appropriate to say: see the movie first, then come back and read this.
My first reaction: WARRIOR is a great film. It was enjoyable to watch, and I absolutely love Tom Hardy. I haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises prologue, so I haven't seen his performance, but even in this film, I was completely terrified and totally convinced that this man is the one who breaks The Batman. He is an absolute brute and yet so melancholy, which makes him even more dangerous. I want to know at all times what he's thinking, and at the same time, I do know what he's thinking because it's right there on his face, in his eyes. More Tom Hardy please.
Second reaction: this film is exactly what people in the film development and production world are looking for. It fits the paradigm beat by beat, the stakes are high, there are flawed characters seeking redemption, it's the stuff that warrants oscar-worthy performances, etcetera... a little too clear and clean cut for me. There's no room to fill in the blanks, to wonder, to debate. Or so I thought...
Third reaction: there are actually two movies in WARRIOR. The one film where it is clean and concise, structurally sound, a man fighting (literally) to save his house -- I mean, come on, how overused is that? The second, about an awol Marine (as we find out a little later), who comes back to his hometown for the first time in over a decade to an alcoholic father (one-thousand days sober), with whom he has no intention of rekindling personally. Despite this, the father, played by Nick Nolte, who must have been an ex-fighter, agrees to train his son through a UFC tournament that pays the winner five million dollars.
Something happened long ago. In movies, we typically see one incident in which they were driven apart, but I get a sense from this film that it was way too complicated and deep routed to show in one scene, or three scenes for that matter. And frankly, does it matter? Isn't it much more interesting to wonder? To fill in those blanks ourselves? Sure, there was mentioning about what happened in the family's past: a mother left her alcoholic husband and left town with her youngest son. The eldest stayed behind for a girl who would later become his wife, bearing him two children. The mother got sick and passed on, and Tom Hardy's character kept it from his brother out of resentment for some time. And, on top of all that family drama, he's a war hero, kind of. He rips off a door to a military tank and saves his fellow comrades. But... he loses his best friend. He runs away from the war, changes his name and vows to support the family of his best friend.
This movie is much more interesting than the first one. I wish we didn't have to have the other movie. Joel Edgerton plays the estranged brother. I recognized him from Star Wars Episode II. He's fine, and his character is kind of fun to watch -- his high school students, the school principal of his school, his wife all cheering for him -- but his story is just not that interesting. It's what I would expect. I'm not surprised or excited at all.
Of course the two films intersect when Brother goes up against Brother. There's a great weight to this, and although we all know it's coming, the public in the film are not aware that they are brothers until the end, and it's fun to watch that reveal on screen. And SPOILER ALERT AGAIN, it seems so tiny to even point out, but it really made an impact on me: Tom Hardy's tap out. Such a quiet, intimate moment between the two -- there is a hidden message encrypted in that tap that only these two brothers understand at this very moment -- I love moments like that in film. They're small, you can't write it on the page, but they are the stuff that makes great cinema.
Going back to the first movie, here's why I refer to it as a separate movie and not the A Story: although it drives most of the film, we meet its main character late. We've already been introduced to the real hero, and in my opinion, who the story's Theme is about. For me, the movie is what the movie's about. This movie is not about winning a tournament so you don't default on your mortgage. It's about two brothers forgiving each other, and their father too. It is necessary that we have a tournament, and it was smart to have so much at stake for Joel Edgerton's character, but it just felt like another movie. Specifically, it felt like marketing. "There's a guy who... and then he has to... before it's too late..."
Fourth reaction: WARRIOR was great. In the moment, I was entertained and moved. It prompted a blog post. It got me thinking. It got me pumped up; I want to make films every day for the rest of my life. I want to help other filmmakers realize their visions too. There's a lot to like about this film, I just wish it was a little more surprising.
Love,
jer
