Definitely not on par with "The Fighter"

Rating: 6/10 (5 February 2012)

"Warrior" is an alright film, let's get this straight right from the get-go, but it is no "The Fighter." Last year's multi-nominated film about boxing was good enough to make even those who hated the sport get sucked into the film.
"Warrior" is not even close to being able to claim the same thing.
Set in the barbaric world of mixed martial arts, "Warrior" is yet another film about estranged brothers fighting, literally and figuratively, while dealing with having grown up with an alcoholic father. I will admit, there were moments in this film that did almost bring me to tears and had me rooting for the underdog, but for the most part, at two hours and twenty minutes, I was looking at the clock. The story is simple enough to have not needed nearly as long a running time, and thus this film's editor failed big time. The performances are strong enough, and I will admit, I think I even agree with Nick Nolte's Oscar nomination for his role of the alcoholic father, especially in light of Nolte's own personal trials and tribulations, but where this film fails miserably is making a cohesive story that grabs its viewers and sucks them in, truly feeling empathy for their situation and truly supporting their idiotic decision to get involved with a sport that is so horrifying while being inexplicably popular.
Tom Hardy, as the idiotic brother Tommy, a hard-drinking guy whom never once makes you feel sorry for him, gives another strong performance on the heels of "Inception" and "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," but never taps into the side of his character that would make the viewer feel for him. Joel Edgerton's Brendan is far more convincing as a man who is financially desperate and thus, taking clocks to the head seems to be his only alternative.
But again, despite somewhat strong performances, the lack of character development over the incredibly-too-long runtime of two hours and twenty minutes led this film to be somewhat of a chore.