"Warrior"
Negative review from Time Magazine:
http://entertainment.time.com/2011/09/09/warrior-movie-review/
The review from Time Magazine is a harsh review with very good points. The review gives a good plot summary of the movie and then it gets in to saying that its just, too much. Warrior is a fighter movie with, in my opinion, great background stories with the main characters. The dads a drunk, one brother is a war veteran, and the other is a physics teacher. Some how they all end up at a ultimate fighting tournament called "Sparta." The writer says that is a little cliche and that you know they are going to end up in the championship together.
Now that the element of surprise is gone with Warrior's plot, the writer goes into attacking little details about the characters and directors. Gavin O'Connor (director) is trying to do to much and she says that some scenes are "too playful a gimmick to match the film’s sobriety." Again she has a vision that the film should be plane and really organized that changes her thoughts on little actions like a six screen montage or over acting by Hardy in a role that really doesn't have that many lines. She doesn't reference very many things and when se does she is not comparing two styles or movies. She is referencing past roles and jobs by the creators of this film.
Positive review from New York Magazine:
http://www.vulture.com/2011/09/movie_review_warrior.html
This review is organized a lot like the Time Magazine review. It starts out with giving a plot summary of the movie and then it goes right in to talk about the actors. He explains the actors and the roles they had in the movie. Over and over again he kept using the word cliche. The plot's a cliche. HAving situations like two brothers fighting in a championship while they are both angry at their drunk father. But, "But it has a rich, classical Hibernian gloom, and the brutality is an extension of the brothers’ inner turmoil."
His main focus is all about the actors and the plot. In all fairness I feel like the actors made the film. Perfectly placed, stelar performances, and great chemistry. But, again not very many references in the review. The writer was more about explaining the facts about the film and then give a quick opinion of how it was. It was very cliche but very well made and well acted. I totally agree with this critic.
