CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › WARRIOR Post-Release Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WARRIOR Post-Release Thread

post #1 of 108
Thread Starter 

Before I express my thoughts, I guess I should pre-face this by saying I'm a pretty huge MMA fan, in case anyone thinks that it could play into any biases I may have.

 

This turned out to be a surprising little movie that's not being marketed in a very good way (which seems to be the sentiment amongst those who have also already seen it). There are a lot of places I expected the story to go, editing-wise, but they held firm in keeping the two storylines on their own paths with little crossover until the end. I really enjoyed the night-and-day approach given to the lives of each brother and how it didn't come off as cliched as it could've been.

 

This is my first real exposure to Joel Edgerton (outside of his bit role in Star Wars) and I really enjoyed his portrayal as not simply being "The Good Brother" versus Tom Hardy's "The Bad Brother". They each have their demons, their complexities, but still share a lot of similarities and very easily could've gone through the others' chosen path. Speaking of Tom Hardy: Man, I cannot wait to see this guys' performance as Bane. He looks like he's no bigger than a hobbit, with traps the size of a mountain, and yet he came off so intimidating through the screen. This guy can be scary! And Nick Nolte gave one of the most heartfelt performances of the year, as far as I'm concerned. All of the supporting cast was equally done well.

 

Touching upon what I said above about being an avid MMA fan, I had some concerns about the approach they would give to fight choreography and how much they might exaggerate it for the sake of drama. I can happily say, to those who are like me, that it's the best representation of MMA to date. A few things I could be nitpicky about: the rounds are quick (when they last an average of 5 minutes in real life), the moves are like a highlight real (no decisions, always finishes), etc., but that's neither here-nor-there since film has to make certain concessions, so they're barely even minor gripes. If anything, I found those griefs to be made up for by the fact of how varied the movesets were and how everything wasn't just 90% striking; you get KO's, you get kimura's, omoplatas, triangles, etc. I liked that they showed one brother was a heavy striker while the other was much more proficient on the ground, which is how MMA tends to balance out. All of that said, what you see take place in the cage consists of things that have happened at one time or another in actual fights, however uncommon they might be.

 

The theater response was really positive; lots of laughs at all the right moments, clapping, cheering, worrying. The laughs, in particular, were not an element I was expecting, but the movie has some pretty good lines. The scenes cutting back and forth with the wife, principal, and students really went over well with people.

 

If you're an MMA fan, I recommend to shrug off the bland marketing and give this a shot. If you're someone who barely even knows what MMA stands for (mixed martial arts), I still say go see it. You will find something for everyone, whether it be the tension/drama in the fights or a really heartfelt story intertwined with a lot of strong elements. Many may not agree with me, but I enjoyed this more than The Fighter (though there's no real need to compare the two), finding that it did a bit better of a job balancing out both the fighting and family story elments.

post #2 of 108

I've seen nothing but good reviews for this film which is making me curious. The posters of Tom and Joel with glistening abs and chiseled biceps don't hurt either.

 

I agree about the poor marketing. I rolled my eyes at the trailer when the announcer says " TWO BROTHERS HAVE MADE IT TO THE FINALS!". It's like, yeah okay we couldn't see that....

post #3 of 108

This movie has

-great lead characters, played by great actors.

-a superb villain - KOBA!

-GREAT fight scenes, and awesome training montages.

-Momentum - it moves like a SHARK. Not a single wasted moment.

-A stand-up-and-cheer tearjerker ending.

 

I think you need to consider genre - this is out and out a "sports film." But if you can ignore that it's not subverting or re-inventing the genre, you can appreciate the tight storytelling and acting. I would honestly rank this alongside "Rocky," if you're looking for a frame of reference. And superior to the thematically similar "The Fighter."

post #4 of 108

I'm gonna say that I liked this A LOT, but with a lot of reservations.  Great characters, amazing performances, and thrilling fight scenes, but it's one of those movies you can't really think about too hard.  If you want to read my full thoughts, feel free to check out my lady's blog which you can find rightchere!

post #5 of 108

Nice to hear peeps are digging this film.

 

And anyone who hasn't seen Joel Edgerton in anything but Star Wars might want to do yourselves a huge favour and check out last year's Animal Kingdom. He's in a significnant supporting role and he's really good in that too.

post #6 of 108

Loved this flaws and all. Such an emotionally moving, well crafted piece of sports genre filmmaking. Both leads are fantastic - and most importantly sympathetic - so when that climactic bout comes around you`re going through the ringer with them. Frankly, this movie boasts a final act so intense it puts most Hollywood films to shame. And Nick Nolte deserves to be remembered when this year`s Oscar noms come down. Two of his scenes had me genuinely tearing up - and usually that only happens to me when animals or extraterrestrial visitors are involved.

 

For me, the only real weaknesses with the film were Kevin Dunn and his Hooray For Teach crew and the two ring  announcers, who received far more screentime than necessary. 

post #7 of 108

Nolte broke my heart.  And considering the effect that this man has had on the two main characters, he wasn't even all that prominent in the film.  

 

I loved this.  I'm a sucker for sports movies (though I don't enjoy sports at all) and despite it overstuffing the characters with so much backstory that none of it feels particularly well-developed, the three lead actors SELL THE SHIT OUT OF IT.  

 

Goosebumps all over my face.  My hands got all sweaty during the final fight scenes and I was actively DREADING the possibility that Brendan would have to fight Koba to get to the final fight spoiled in the trailer.  Of course, the very fact that I was dreading it meant that it HAD to happen.  And that fight was a crowd-pleaser.  A good thing too, since the final fight between brothers would be operating on another level. 

 

Hardy kinda scared the shit out of me with his performance.  It definitely made me root for Edgerton.  Hahahaha

 

Though I might criticize the film for setting up a whole bunch of story it never really pays off on, I have to admire the film for ending exactly where it does.  No fuss, no muss.

 

Also... Edgerton's trainer looked like a fusion of John Stamos and Jeremy Irons.

post #8 of 108

I'm definitely going to see this as soon as I finish playing catch-up on two other films (Apes & Dark).

post #9 of 108

posted some thoughts in the b-movie action thread but in short...this is a true modern day companion piece/successor to ROCKY.

 

The three leads were amazing...nolte should get oscar buzz.

 

Edgerton was fantastic, but seriously this is Tom Hardy's movie.  The guy was so fucking intense, and vulnerable at times that it made him feel like a real character.  The drama was high, the tension was tight, I teared up, I got goosebumps, I clapped and cheered.  Basically ran the gambit of emotions.

 

Devin at Badass called it somewhat cheap and playing off of old cliches and I don't necessarily disagree with him, but damn if they didn't do it really really well.

 

Top 5 of 2011 in my book.

post #10 of 108

I dragged my sister to see this and we both ended up loving what I thought was going to be a run of the mill dick flick.

 

I hope come awards season this movie and its cast doesn't get lost in the shuffle. Tom Hardy in particular stood out for being convincingly scary and vunerable. When I say scary I mean that literally. There was one scene during the final fight where Frank-- Brendan's trainer-- is coaching him in the corner. Over Frank's shoulder you can see a very unhinged Tommy coming in an out of focus.I felt like he was really capable of killing his own brother in the cage. That was scarier to me than a lot of horror films.

 

The cast was great top to bottom. The movie didn't feel as long as it was because it was well-paced. I'm normally squeamish about fight scenes but was able to watch most of the scenes in Warrior without issue because they were so riveting. I still don't know how someone can recover from being slammed on their back repeatedly.

 

Small gripes include Joel Edgerton's Aussie accent slipping a few times -- it didn't detract from his overall performace though. I also didn't like the decision to villianize Tommy in the middle of the final fight with that cheap shot after the bell.

 

Tommy's fight with Brendan  wasn't consistent with his prior fights. Tommy dipsensed his other more experienced appointed in under 10 seconds with knockouts but struggled with his physics teacher brother for several rounds? Were they implying that Brendan was just able to take more punishment than the other men?

 

On an added note I'd love to see a follow-up movie with Mad Dog detailing how he overcomes the humiliation of being owned by Tommy twice.

post #11 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anorexic Starlet View Post

Tommy's fight with Brendan  wasn't consistent with his prior fights. Tommy dipsensed his other more experienced appointed in under 10 seconds with knockouts but struggled with his physics teacher brother for several rounds? Were they implying that Brendan was just able to take more punishment than the other men?

 

On an added note I'd love to see a follow-up movie with Mad Dog detailing how he overcomes the humiliation of being owned by Tommy twice.


Hahahahaha, poor Mad Dog...

 

I thought the same thing about Tommy's longer fight against Brendan as well.  I rationalized it in a few ways...

 

-Tommy has some issues to work through that he doesn't want to end with one good punch.

-These guys are still brothers, regardless of the wide chasm between them.

-Brendan already survived a fight against Koba.

 

But yeah... if this wasn't a movie, I would be afraid for ANYONE going up against TommyRage.

 

Also... I wanted to mention how much I dug the use of Ode to Joy in the score.  Yippie-kai-yay!

 

 

post #12 of 108

I actually walked out of this movie thinking, "Poor Batman. Tom Hardy is going to MURDER THAT FOOL."

post #13 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

I actually walked out of this movie thinking, "Poor Batman. Tom Hardy is going to MURDER THAT FOOL."


 

Exactly what I was thinking.  I can just imagine Tom Hardy just destroying Batman.

post #14 of 108

I hope Nolan has seen this movie and does some reshoots to make TDKR a true "triumphant end" to his trilogy.

 

HAVE TOM HARDY KILL BATMAN FOR REAL.

 

One punch. 

 

Hardy exists screen right. 
 

Credits.

post #15 of 108

Saw this earlier today and was very pleasantly surprised. The film is pretty cliche-ridden, but the extremely strong performances from Hardy and Edgerton (as well as a good return to form for Nolte--where has he been since Affliction?) definitely allow one to overlook the fact that a lot seems really familiar. One thing that struck me, and I may be very off base, is that Hardy really reminded me of a young Marlon Brando. Specifically Brando in Streetcar and On the Waterfront. Masculine and strong, certainly, but projecting a real sense of vulnerability beneath that surface. Did anyone else think this? Anyway, being reminiscent of Brando is his prime is no small feat, and hopefully this is Hardy's breakout role. Also, I fully agree with Gabe and Ska above--Hardy is going to make Bane extremely  physically threatening. Oldman's seeming terror and Bale/Batman's retreating in the new Batman trailer are given a lot more weight.

post #16 of 108

I certainly thought, "Brando" while watching Hardy in this.

post #17 of 108

I adored watching this movie.  I cried about three times, I laughed.  I "OOOOHHHHHH'D!" with my buddies when Tom Hardy would clothsline a fools head off, and I jumped out of my seat when Brendan over came the odds and tapped out the unbeatable Russian from those Rocky flicks and I fucking cheered.  The only other movie lately I've had nearly as much fun with as this movie was Attack The Block. 

post #18 of 108

Fuck this movie. Seriously, it's the worst piece of shit to get a standing ovation around these parts since Fast Five. The two brothers, with a longstanding history of resentment, abandonment issues, and a father who is alluded to have emotionally and physically abused them from a young age, are able to reconcile their significant issues with each other and their deep-seated personal hang-ups with anger, jealousy, and rejection purely by fucking fighting it out? It says a lot about this movie's mentality that, when Edgerton and Hardy meet and have a face-to-face discussion about their problems, they end up achieving nothing -- but when they just punch each other into submission everything is solved and the history of mutual torment they've experienced is easily expunged as a teary-eyed Nolte watches from the crowd. Not to mention the wife who abandons her moral objections to MMA immediately when her husband starts winning. What treacly, moronic, covertly corruptive bullshit.

 

I can imagine a bunch of moronic UFC fans who think fights are "emotionally cleansing" or something really responding to this crap, but beyond that I don't know why any self-respecting critic would ever encourage a fellow film fan to see this. Not just a cliched, maudlin, disingenuous, poorly written film that is shot entirely without craft, but a film with a truly misguided moral center that surrounds its lead characters with a cliche familial conflict in order to generate sympathy while also espousing the kind of values that lead families to fall apart in the first place. CHUD should have warned me about this one.

 

But yeah -- Hardy embodies a thug who struggles to grasp his changing emotions in a way really reminiscent of Brando. He's a great young actor, and I'm sure he'll come to be a big player in the next generation of Hollywood stars now that guys like Damon, DiCaprio, and Pitt are reaching middle-age. It's a shame that the movie surrounding him is such utter shit.

post #19 of 108

I don't think they've reconciled anything by the end.  What all the physical fighting did was allow them to get a lot of that rage out of their system so that the real healing could now only start to take place.

 

Ugh.  I can't believe I typed that.

post #20 of 108

But that's the thing -- fighting doesn't reduce rage. Fighting makes you more angry and more prone to violence, which is actually a "clinical" fact if I want to bust out that term. By situating the resolution of the characters' arcs in a fight, it's implying obvious emotional closure when in actuality their fight would just foster the exact same sentiments which lead to their rivalry and "broken" lives or whatever in the first place. We're meant to assume that the resentful, openly hostile Hardy, who is basically a bottled-up volcano of aggression, will just accept the subservient position that has been literally forced upon him just because his brother has proven himself to be his physical superior? Because fighting is inherently a win-lose situation, it's inherently something that has to be seen through the prism of dominance and submission. So basically, the movie is implying that the brothers can begin the real healing now that the masculine hierarchy is clearly established. It's as false a victory as they come.

post #21 of 108

I dunno.  I feel like Hardy would've kept on fighting until one of them died if not for the fact that his brother whispered, "I love you!"  I certainly didn't take it as a sign that he was accepting a subservient position in a masculine hierarchy. 

But still, that's an interesting read on it.

post #22 of 108

Okay, but what if his brother whispered "I love you!" when they had their confrontation on the beach earlier in the film? Hardy would have said fuck off, no you don't. But now that they've fought, Edgerton's love is evident to him and he's ready to accept it? Come on. The emotional payoff is explicitly tied up in the violence, and one whispered "I love you" is definitely not enough to mitigate that fact.

 

Aggression and violence are specifically intended to breed pain, harm, and above all humiliation -- those are the unavoidable consequences of "fighting" and they're all inextricably linked. You can try to have a positive take on the whole affair, but if you tried to rationally justify it -- particularly if you try to impose any kind of psychology on it -- the conclusions that can be made are definitely not heart-warming in nature.

post #23 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMulder View Post

Fuck this movie. Seriously, it's the worst piece of shit to get a standing ovation around these parts since Fast Five. The two brothers, with a longstanding history of resentment, abandonment issues, and a father who is alluded to have emotionally and physically abused them from a young age, are able to reconcile their significant issues with each other and their deep-seated personal hang-ups with anger, jealousy, and rejection purely by fucking fighting it out? It says a lot about this movie's mentality that, when Edgerton and Hardy meet and have a face-to-face discussion about their problems, they end up achieving nothing -- but when they just punch each other into submission everything is solved and the history of mutual torment they've experienced is easily expunged as a teary-eyed Nolte watches from the crowd. Not to mention the wife who abandons her moral objections to MMA immediately when her husband starts winning. What treacly, moronic, covertly corruptive bullshit.

 

I can imagine a bunch of moronic UFC fans who think fights are "emotionally cleansing" or something really responding to this crap, but beyond that I don't know why any self-respecting critic would ever encourage a fellow film fan to see this. Not just a cliched, maudlin, disingenuous, poorly written film that is shot entirely without craft, but a film with a truly misguided moral center that surrounds its lead characters with a cliche familial conflict in order to generate sympathy while also espousing the kind of values that lead families to fall apart in the first place. CHUD should have warned me about this one.

 

But yeah -- Hardy embodies a thug who struggles to grasp his changing emotions in a way really reminiscent of Brando. He's a great young actor, and I'm sure he'll come to be a big player in the next generation of Hollywood stars now that guys like Damon, DiCaprio, and Pitt are reaching middle-age. It's a shame that the movie surrounding him is such utter shit.


I think you're taking into account an emotional catharsis that would be uncharacteristic of this movie. Hell, this is a movie that begins with a son tempting his recovering alcoholic father with a drink, then chastising him for abusing his mother. You're imagining a completely different movie if you think they exit the ring and suddenly make amends.

 

And I think it's a mistake to consider Hardy's character a "thug." Here's a guy who watched his family get cut in half as a kid. He latched onto his mother, but she left him, she died. He was orphaned, essentially. And so he seeks community in the armed forces, and it becomes his surrogate family. It's when things aren't as cut and dry as "we'll protect you, we are the armed forces" that he feels betrayed, and his only alliegiance remains with his dead friend. He's spent his whole life looking for a family, for somewhere he can belong, and has found no one. He's like a wounded animal. The moment at the end, when his brother professes his love in the midst of defeat, is the first time he's ever been unconditionally accepted, that anyone has expressed their love without some invisible standard to meet. It's primal, and its affecting.

 

I think you're also neglecting the pretty-clear middle class situation that Edgerton's character and his wife is dealing with. Yes, I agree, they could have done more with her. But she's not exactly gung-ho about her husband the fighter. Was she going to stand by her principles and leave him, or stand by the man that loves him? I think that's a decision based on class-rooted issues moreso than "Fighting is bad, hugging is good!"

 

I don't think there's an issue with this film's morals at all. In no way is it advocating violence as a solution to these characters' problems, and I think you're letting your dislike of MMA (of which I had no affection towards before the film) cloud your judgment of the picture.

post #24 of 108

Yeah, I don't watch any sport, but I do love the cinematic drama of 'gladiators' bringing everything and leaving it all in the ring.  I believe that there is a mutual respect between them beyond the aggression that goes into the sport.  The movie pays lip service to this when Edgerton's character goes to check if the guy he just defeated is ok.  Once the fight is over, they stand as equals (unless the guy's a dick, hahaha).

 

That's the wavelength on which I watched the film. 

post #25 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post


I think you're taking into account an emotional catharsis that would be uncharacteristic of this movie. Hell, this is a movie that begins with a son tempting his recovering alcoholic father with a drink, then chastising him for abusing his mother. You're imagining a completely different movie if you think they exit the ring and suddenly make amends.

 

And I think it's a mistake to consider Hardy's character a "thug." Here's a guy who watched his family get cut in half as a kid. He latched onto his mother, but she left him, she died. He was orphaned, essentially. And so he seeks community in the armed forces, and it becomes his surrogate family. It's when things aren't as cut and dry as "we'll protect you, we are the armed forces" that he feels betrayed, and his only alliegiance remains with his dead friend. He's spent his whole life looking for a family, for somewhere he can belong, and has found no one. He's like a wounded animal. The moment at the end, when his brother professes his love in the midst of defeat, is the first time he's ever been unconditionally accepted, that anyone has expressed their love without some invisible standard to meet. It's primal, and its affecting.

 

I think you're also neglecting the pretty-clear middle class situation that Edgerton's character and his wife is dealing with. Yes, I agree, they could have done more with her. But she's not exactly gung-ho about her husband the fighter. Was she going to stand by her principles and leave him, or stand by the man that loves him? I think that's a decision based on class-rooted issues moreso than "Fighting is bad, hugging is good!"

 

I don't think there's an issue with this film's morals at all. In no way is it advocating violence as a solution to these characters' problems, and I think you're letting your dislike of MMA (of which I had no affection towards before the film) cloud your judgment of the picture.


Your comment about my dislike about MMA is a fair statement, but I think it's also pretty obvious and completely rational that someone who hates MMA would also hate Warrior. The movie's basically a celebration of that phenomenon and is incredibly supportive of the values that drive it -- it's as pro-UFC as I could imagine a film being without literally becoming an advertisement. It's like saying someone who hates green apples and red apples is letting their hatred of green apples cloud their judgment of the red apples. Well no -- they just hate apples.

 

Also, I didn't mean to devalue Hardy's character by saying he was a thug. He's a thug in the same way Brando is a thug in On the Waterfront -- an extremely physical guy sorely lacking in intelligence who can't comprehend his emotional shifts, and ends up dealing with them by lashing out. I don't mean "thug" as in he was not likable or sympathetic. I found both of those qualities in the character. But your analysis of him is very superficial. This isn't just a guy looking for somewhere to belong -- he's a guy looking to beat the shit out of the world for wronging him. And instead of showing Hardy how his aggression is violent, the movie gives him an outlet for that rage and portrays its expression as entirely productive.

 

And the wife is extremely gung-ho about Edgerton as a fighter once he starts winning. There is literally no character shift, no slow realization or any kind of epiphany. He starts winning, she is happy -- that's how it goes. Compare this to something like Rocky, where he couldn't care less about winning at the end, or The Wrestler where Tomei can't bear to watch him fight, or even The Fighter, which is smart enough to know that putting two brothers in a ring together is only going to breed more hatred and jealousy between them. I would not have been happy if Edgerton's wife abandoned him -- but what's in the movie is actually worse than that because the implication is "fuck my morals, winning is awesome." It's so shallow it's ridiculous.

 

So no -- I'm not imagining a different movie. I'm looking at the film for what it portrays and what it portrays is emotional resolution through violence. There's no way out of that.

 

post #26 of 108

I think the issue is whether some people think "fighting = MMA." One is a sport, the other is not.

post #27 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMulder View Post
Also, I didn't mean to devalue Hardy's character by saying he was a thug. He's a thug in the same way Brando is a thug in On the Waterfront -- an extremely physical guy sorely lacking in intelligence who can't comprehend his emotional shifts, and ends up dealing with them by lashing out. I don't mean "thug" as in he was not likable or sympathetic. I found both of those qualities in the character. But your analysis of him is very superficial. This isn't just a guy looking for somewhere to belong -- he's a guy looking to beat the shit out of the world for wronging him. And instead of showing Hardy how his aggression is violent, the movie gives him an outlet for that rage and portrays its expression as entirely productive.
 

Does he lash out? Or does he participate in the sport? Does he beat anyone up outside of the ring? Or is it all sanctioned? Is he a fighter? Or an athlete?

post #28 of 108

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Yeah, I don't watch any sport, but I do love the cinematic drama of 'gladiators' bringing everything and leaving it all in the ring.  I believe that there is a mutual respect between them beyond the aggression that goes into the sport.  The movie pays lip service to this when Edgerton's character goes to check if the guy he just defeated is ok.  Once the fight is over, they stand as equals (unless the guy's a dick, hahaha).

 

That's the wavelength on which I watched the film. 


But they don't stand as equals. The entire point of a fight is to prove who is superior. There is a winner and a loser -- obviously it is not something that celebrates equal footing for both participants. You're deluding yourself if you really think the huge ego-boost a fighter gets when he wins is rooted in anything other than the fact that he beat someone else, or the unavoidable anger/sadness the loser experiences is based on something other than being proven to be physically deficient. The definition of respect here is being brutally twisted to the point where it's just a piece of rhetoric used to make the whole thing seem more civilized.

 

post #29 of 108

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

Does he lash out? Or does he participate in the sport? Does he beat anyone up outside of the ring? Or is it all sanctioned? Is he a fighter? Or an athlete?


This is apples and apples again. Unless it's being used exclusively in self-defense, or carries various psychological therapies attached to it like more traditional martial arts (which is a whole other thing entirely), fighting is fighting and UFC is sanctioned fighting, and an athlete who fights might still be an athlete but is also a fighter by definition. You can throw up the smokescreen that the term "sports" might provide, but you're forgetting that the entire driving idea behind sports is the competitive instinct -- the promise that you can be better than someone else. More "civilized" sports like basketball or baseball obscure that impulse under numbers and jargon and rules, but it's all about the same thing. Warrior glorifies it while the best sports movies are aware of it and serve as an analysis of it -- i.e., Raging Bull.

 

post #30 of 108

I don't deny any of the satisfaction one gets from winning in anything (not just fighting). 

 

I like to take the optimistic view of competition.  Both sides bring their all.  One will win and the loser takes satisfaction in the fact that they gave it their all and will try better next time.  Or not.  They may be fighting to see whose skills are superior, but they stand as equals in that they both each other when it comes to why they're in that arena (whatever arena that may be).

 

Sure, civilized society mostly disappears when the bell rings.  It comes back when the bell rings again and the two competitors shake hands.  I don't think the definition of respect is being twisted in any major way at all. 

 

I think an "I love you" given between two mentally and physically exhausted brothers in an arena promoting violence and aggression is a hell of a lot more meaningful (in the film, at least) than one merely spoken face-to-face.  The way I see it, that line had to be said in that ring for those brothers.

 

But then, I'm a cheesy guy.

post #31 of 108

Mulder. Dude. Why did you see this movie? It sounds like you HATE sports.

post #32 of 108

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

Mulder. Dude. Why did you see this movie? It sounds like you HATE sports.


Well sports are kind of a weird thing, no? For them to be so universally obsessed over, for them to hold all the cultural weight that they do... there are psychological reasons for that, just like there are psychological reasons why people on these boards love film. Sports are a great metaphor for society in general I guess, but they've always struck me as one massive prolonged Freudian slip for all of humanity and I have a hard time getting behind the impulses they tend to endorse. Like 'nooj just said, sports (he was referring specifically to fighting, but I've conflated them now) are a chance to dispose of civilized society for a few minutes at a time, which implies of course that there is a desire to rid oneself of those rules in order to allow access to something they usually prevent. I think you would agree that it's interesting to ask why we're interested in doing that.

 

post #33 of 108

I think you could say the same for film. Or religion. Or sex. It's all cultural structures, with their own "rules" and belief systems and ideas. I don't see how you've managed to isolate sports from all these systems.

 

I'm not a religious person. But I've always been fascinated, and at times moved, about films that have a theological viewpoint, and that present a nuanced, reverent take on faith. I think religion, when wielded righteously, can be a very harmful, ugly, hateful thing, unless its harnessed by the very pure. I feel the same way about what I feel is the aesthetically ugly world of MMA, or most competitive fighting in that ruthless, barbaric style. But there's meaning in those rules, in collecting that strength on display and funneling it into the ring, into a clean*, competitive spirit.

 

It sounds frou-frou, but I'm very basic about it - sports has a cultural foothold because it provides order to the lives of some. It's a safe haven for those who may struggle with control in the outside world, as well as the control specialists with a zen-like concentration on their craft, their lives, their attitudes. I think other institutions provide the same thing.

 

*I realize Hardy's character does land one illegal blow after the bell against his brother. You could argue this is a sign that he may be a dangerous force, and not simply an athlete. But, considering the rush of close-quarters physical combat, I would chalk this up to momentary adrenaline as opposed to actual malice.

post #34 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMulder View Post

But that's the thing -- fighting doesn't reduce rage. Fighting makes you more angry and more prone to violence, which is actually a "clinical" fact if I want to bust out that term.


 

I respect your passion over this J and I haven't seen the movie yet myself so I'm not about to tell you you're wrong about how well made it is but I am about to tell you you're at least partially wrong about fighting.

 

I've experienced first hand that fighting can result in the reduction of rage. When I was younger and stupider I let my smart mouth and my unwieldy temper get myself into fights a bunch of times and the outcomes of several of them were either friendships or respectful understandings with guys I'd fought. One of these former opponents has been one of my closest friends for what's now over 20 years. I also experienced the calming effect that martial arts can have because while I had at least a dozen fights before my mother sent me to a kung fu school in my early teens I've never had a street fight since. That's a story that's true of countless other formerly directionless young men. Combat sports have literally saved lives.

 

So I don't know if you're right about the film. I do know sport isn't for everybody. I know combat sports certainly aren't. I know fighting doesn't solve everything and I agree whole-heartedly that, outside of sport at least, verbal resolutions are certainly the preferable first option. But if you want to speak any kind of truth in blanket generalisations then steer clear of that old hippy mantra that fighting solves nothing because it's manifest bullshit.

post #35 of 108

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post

I respect your passion over this J and I haven't seen the movie yet myself so I'm not about to tell you you're wrong about how well made it is but I am about to tell you you're at least partially wrong about fighting.

 

I've experienced first hand that fighting can result in the reduction of rage. When I was younger and stupider I let my smart mouth and my unwieldy temper get myself into fights a bunch of times and the outcomes of several of them were either friendships or respectful understandings with guys I'd fought. One of these former opponents has been one of my closest friends for what's now over 20 years. I also experienced the calming effect that martial arts can have because while I had at least a dozen fights before my mother sent me to a kung fu school in my early teens I've never had a street fight since. That's a story that's true of countless other formerly directionless young men. Combat sports have literally saved lives.

 

So I don't know if you're right about the film. I do know sport isn't for everybody. I know combat sports certainly aren't. I know fighting doesn't solve everything and I agree whole-heartedly that, outside of sport at least, verbal resolutions are certainly the preferable first option. But if you want to speak any kind of truth in blanket generalisations then steer clear of that old hippy mantra that fighting solves nothing because it's manifest bullshit.


Well, the thing is that even though you might have thought martial arts turned your life around, it could have been a whole host of other factors you're unable to identify. Nobody can tell you how your life went obviously (and I do respect your experiences and believe you extracted real meaning from them), but it's not really valid in the face of "real psychological studies" (it makes me sound like a bitch to say that, but I dunno how else to word it) to bring up personal experience, because people are of course not really attuned to their own psychologies that closely. It's kind of like the born-again Christian who says God turned his life around, but in actuality he just stopped being an alcoholic. In your case, are you sure these respectful understandings were based on anything other than a heightened awareness of each others' machismo, which in some ways translates to mutual fear at a subconscious level? Are you sure it's combat sports that save lives, or the sense of community and comradeship one achieves from being inducted into that world and simultaneously receiving a validation of your self-worth -- which could be achieved from joining a book club if book clubs gratified and even "enhanced" a person's sense of their own power and masculinity?

 

I realize I should at least provide a link or two to support the "violence increases violence" idea since it is something that has to be actually proven, so I'll try to hunt them down later.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

I think you could say the same for film. Or religion. Or sex. It's all cultural structures, with their own "rules" and belief systems and ideas. I don't see how you've managed to isolate sports from all these systems.

 

I'm not a religious person. But I've always been fascinated, and at times moved, about films that have a theological viewpoint, and that present a nuanced, reverent take on faith. I think religion, when wielded righteously, can be a very harmful, ugly, hateful thing, unless its harnessed by the very pure. I feel the same way about what I feel is the aesthetically ugly world of MMA, or most competitive fighting in that ruthless, barbaric style. But there's meaning in those rules, in collecting that strength on display and funneling it into the ring, into a clean*, competitive spirit.

 

It sounds frou-frou, but I'm very basic about it - sports has a cultural foothold because it provides order to the lives of some. It's a safe haven for those who may struggle with control in the outside world, as well as the control specialists with a zen-like concentration on their craft, their lives, their attitudes. I think other institutions provide the same thing.

 

*I realize Hardy's character does land one illegal blow after the bell against his brother. You could argue this is a sign that he may be a dangerous force, and not simply an athlete. But, considering the rush of close-quarters physical combat, I would chalk this up to momentary adrenaline as opposed to actual malice.


But it's different, because film and religion are capable of celebrating actual values (unavoidably even since they're rooted in storytelling, which is inherently a meaningful thing) and have origins in something essentially non-violent, which is ideas. Of course we have violent film, which is a whole other can of worms which could be opened in trying to examine why we're entertained by violence in general. While I agree that all three things are a chance to distort the rules of society, the reasons for that distortion in each case are very different at what is even a biological level. You would have a hard time saying that religion is about indulging man's innate desire to compete and dominate, but sports is pretty implicitly about that proclivity -- and while you could find aspects of religion that indulge "darker" impulses, I do believe that most religions genuinely do support some kind of peace at their core, and it is our tendency to conveniently distort their principles in order to justify violence that leads them to be used improperly.

 

Of course that violence is really quite unavoidable, and is kind of hidden in everything we do -- for example, you mentioned sex. There's a lot of violence and dominance issues and misogyny wrapped up in our idea of what sex is, but that doesn't mean anybody should stop having it. But an awareness of those issues is still important, I think. Anyway, you can say that sports celebrates values, but I think anybody would be contradicting themselves left and right in any attempt to really examine how they do that.

 

post #36 of 108
Thread Starter 

I've been an avid watcher of MMA for quite a number of years now, and personally know people who participate in it. I'm a pretty huge fan.

 

So it goes without saying that some of your views, JMulder, are wildly misguided. The amount of respect, class and care I've seen take place far exceeds that of the opposite. I've seen participants hug and shake hands in the middle of punching one another in the face. I've seen participants withhold blows because they know it would be in poor taste. I've seen friends and training partners face-off against one another and still remain so afterwards. And I've seen them congratulate one another after brutalizing one another for anywhere between 15-25 minutes.

 

Street fighting and what takes place in MMA are not synonymous. I'll leave it at that.

post #37 of 108

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun H View Post

I've been an avid watcher of MMA for quite a number of years now, and personally know people who participate in it. I'm a pretty huge fan.

 

So it goes without saying that some of your views, JMulder, are wildly misguided. The amount of respect, class and care I've seen take place far exceeds that of the opposite. I've seen participants hug and shake hands in the middle of punching one another in the face. I've seen participants withhold blows because they know it would be in poor taste. I've seen friends and training partners face-off against one another and still remain so afterwards. And I've seen them congratulate one another after brutalizing one another for anywhere between 15-25 minutes.

 

Street fighting and what takes place in MMA are not synonymous. I'll leave it at that.


I'm not saying that those who participate in MMA are devoid of respect, class, and care -- I'm sure these qualities are present in them no more or less than they are in the average person. But the fact still remains that these people choose to participate in a violent sport, and they do so for a reason. I don't necessarily think that reason is specific to them and can't be found in the general population, but nevertheless they are a group of people who choose to act on it and that's something worthy of scrutiny. The fact remains that these are men who want to fight other men, and they want a decisive decision to be made on who is better at it. No matter how much dignity or taste is imposed on that practice, it's still what it is.

 

And it all takes place on a spectrum, you know. Street fighting is at one end, UFC is a little further over, and something like hockey is closer to the other end. But the driving motivation for both things, the underlying reasons for them happening, are very similar if not the same.

 

post #38 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMulder View Post

And it all takes place on a spectrum, you know. Street fighting is at one end, UFC is a little further over, and something like hockey is closer to the other end. But the driving motivation for both things, the underlying reasons for them happening, are very similar if not the same.

I think you're speaking for a whooooole lotta people there, by the way. I do not agree with your viewpoints at all, Mulder.

 

post #39 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMulder View Post

Well, the thing is that even though you might have thought martial arts turned your life around, it could have been a whole host of other factors you're unable to identify. Nobody can tell you how your life went obviously (and I do respect your experiences and believe you extracted real meaning from them), but it's not really valid in the face of "real psychological studies" (it makes me sound like a bitch to say that, but I dunno how else to word it) to bring up personal experience, because people are of course not really attuned to their own psychologies that closely. It's kind of like the born-again Christian who says God turned his life around, but in actuality he just stopped being an alcoholic. In your case, are you sure these respectful understandings were based on anything other than a heightened awareness of each others' machismo, which in some ways translates to mutual fear at a subconscious level? Are you sure it's combat sports that save lives, or the sense of community and comradeship one achieves from being inducted into that world and simultaneously receiving a validation of your self-worth -- which could be achieved from joining a book club if book clubs gratified and even "enhanced" a person's sense of their own power and masculinity?

 

 

I think that where you see the humility that is taught by sports as something negative I see it as something positive. I see it as something which has given countless confused, lost, damaged, fearful people - especially young people - the necessary perspective to tackle life outside of sport in a more emotionally peaceful and productive way. The humiliation caused by a situation in which the power dynamic is severely out of balance, as it is in bullying, is entirely negative, but in sport, where the power dynamic is managed, I see that learning to be humble because of what you learn about yourself from a sporting opponent is extremely beneficial to many people.

 

There's definitely something in the way you relate it to respect based on fear, but you say that as if fear is inherently unhealthy. In fact it's an unavoidable part of life and one of the things sport can teach is how to manage fear and how to focus on the positive side of it - how to turn despair into hope and how to turn the recognition that you have something to lose into the recognition that you have something which means a lot to you. Many naturally aggresive people are that way not because they're bad souls, but because they're scared and they've never learned how to control that natural human emotion. Book clubs may be able to teach that, but not everyone is affected by the gentle arts enough to find peace that way.

 

As for the way martial arts influenced me, it really was as almost as simple as being told on the first day I entered that kung fu school that street fighting would lead to expulsion. Suddenly I had something I loved and I saw that if I didn't fly straight I would lose it. That, coupled with kung fu teaching me to control everything from my own breathing to my attitude to people who attack me, lead to changes in my way of thinking outside of the training hall that meant I never fought on the street or in the playground again.

post #40 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post

 

 

I think that where you see the humility that is taught by sports as something negative I see it as something positive. I see it as something which has given countless confused, lost, damaged, fearful people - especially young people - the necessary perspective to tackle life outside of sport in a more emotionally peaceful and productive way. The humiliation caused by a situation in which the power dynamic is severely out of balance, as it is in bullying, is entirely negative, but in sport, where the power dynamic is managed, I see that learning to be humble because of what you learn about yourself from a sporting opponent is extremely beneficial to many people.

 

There's definitely something in the way you relate it to respect based on fear, but you say that as if fear is inherently unhealthy. In fact it's an unavoidable part of life and one of the things sport can teach is how to manage fear and how to focus on the positive side of it - how to turn despair into hope and how to turn the recognition that you have something to lose into the recognition that you have something which means a lot to you. Many naturally aggresive people are that way not because they're bad souls, but because they're scared and they've never learned how to control that natural human emotion. Book clubs may be able to teach that, but not everyone is affected by the gentle arts enough to find peace that way.


Well said, sir.

 

post #41 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun H View Post

 

So it goes without saying that some of your views, JMulder, are wildly misguided. The amount of respect, class and care I've seen take place far exceeds that of the opposite. I've seen participants hug and shake hands in the middle of punching one another in the face. I've seen participants withhold blows because they know it would be in poor taste. I've seen friends and training partners face-off against one another and still remain so afterwards. And I've seen them congratulate one another after brutalizing one another for anywhere between 15-25 minutes.

 

 


I think the movie did a good job showing the range of personality types from the more humble fighters like Brendan to the trash talkers like Mad Dog. I particularly liked the classy reaction of Midnight after his surprise loss to Brendan. 

 

 

 

post #42 of 108

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

I think you're speaking for a whooooole lotta people there, by the way. I do not agree with your viewpoints at all, Mulder.

 


Fair enough -- we don't agree often but I respect what you have to say and normally I like reading your posts, even if their content is something I usually can't concur with.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post

I think that where you see the humility that is taught by sports as something negative I see it as something positive. I see it as something which has given countless confused, lost, damaged, fearful people - especially young people - the necessary perspective to tackle life outside of sport in a more emotionally peaceful and productive way. The humiliation caused by a situation in which the power dynamic is severely out of balance, as it is in bullying, is entirely negative, but in sport, where the power dynamic is managed, I see that learning to be humble because of what you learn about yourself from a sporting opponent is extremely beneficial to many people... (etc)


I dig this post Bucho, but I still don't agree. I think I'll start repeating myself if I continue -- and I think I've said my peace anyway -- but this is a far better, more rational justification for combat sports than any I've heard in the past and is probably true for many people. Again, it's just not something I can personally get behind.

post #43 of 108

Just saw this today in a very sparsely crowded theater and it was much better than I thought it would be.   Tom Hardy especially comes across as one actor to keep an eye on.   He reminds me alot of one of the method actors from the 70's like Pacino, DeNiro, and Hoffman.   Don't know what to think of Brendan first defeating the unstoppable Russian and then going 4 rounds with Tommy who pretty much decimated everyone in 10 seconds or less.   I get that his character has heart and tenacity and the movie dictates he has to win but I thought it would have been a more interesting direction for Brendan to get injured by the Russian and then Tommy fights him and gives half the money to Brendan.   Maybe that's a worse ending but maybe a bit more realistic?

 

Really decent formula movie that goes through the motions of every underdog story but like a really good version of the Star Spangled Banner, it still works with the right execution.

post #44 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post  Don't know what to think of Brendan first defeating the unstoppable Russian and then going 4 rounds with Tommy who pretty much decimated everyone in 10 seconds or less.   I get that his character has heart and tenacity and the movie dictates he has to win but I thought it would have been a more interesting direction for Brendan to get injured by the Russian and then Tommy fights him and gives half the money to Brendan.   Maybe that's a worse ending but maybe a bit more realistic?


That was one of my small gripes. I thought it would have played more believably to have Tommy defeat the Russian then go several rounds with the tenacious Brendan.

 

post #45 of 108

Yeah I would have bought Brendan lasting that long with Tommy if Tommy was injured or worn down by the Russian first.   It just felt like there had to be some reason Tommy couldn't knock Brendan out brother or no brother.    Brendan just wasn't built up enough as a credible fighter the way the Russian was.   Again, I know this is Movie Law that your protagonist has to be an underdog but to defeat TWO machines in the same tournament is like writing the ending first and figuring out how to get to that point.   Tommy needed to be handicapped in some way or Brendan needed to be built up more.   The way it is now, it doesn't make sense for the two brothers to make it to the final 2.

post #46 of 108

Saw it tonight and it floored me. An instant classic. Can't recommend it highly enough. Its rare to see any sports film executed so well as this was.

 

Its a must see.

post #47 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker View Post

Saw it tonight and it floored me. An instant classic. Can't recommend it highly enough. Its rare to see any sports film executed so well as this was.

 

Its a must see.


Caught it this past weekend.  Instead of just rambling on about how much I loved it, I'll just reiterate what Johnny said above.  He's 100% correct in every way.

 

post #48 of 108

Went and saw this again. Its just such a great film.

 

Its only made 13 million. C'mon Our Idiot Brother and Colombiana combined have over 50 million.

 

Thank god Drive has made close to 30 million.

post #49 of 108

I wonder if the early preview screenings cut into the first week box off office of this film? I still don't understand how the great reviews and word of mouth have not translated into a bigger box office. Did the prospect of violence scare people off? The guy being slammed on his back in the trailer almost made me not see this so I could see how the squeamish would avoid it like the plague. At this point it's not playing in too many theaters so unless there is a re-release to coincide with awards season any box office hopes may be a lost cause. I hope it recoups some costs overseas and I really hope Lionsgate at least puts some effort into getting some award nominations for the cast.

post #50 of 108

It's just a massive risk to make a movie with a subject matter that people aren't indifferent to, but actively dislike. And people actively dislike MMA, outweighing whatever the fanbase thinks. I would say the fault lies with Lionsgate, who marketed this as "Look, a sports movie!"

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › WARRIOR Post-Release Thread