New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Brett Beach: Having never seen a televised wrestling match of any kind, let alone MMA tournament, cage match, what have you, I won't try to hazard guesses as to whether this fell far short of its earning potential. It has already grossed twice as much as David Mamet's Redbelt did in toto, but that hardly seems a fair comparison even if both are films about MMA.

Lionsgate seems to have done everything right by this film, via early screenings for select audiences, an advance screening last weekend, and playing up the nothing short of rapturous reviews from some critics. Perhaps the generic title and lack of big name stars - Tom Hardy isn't quite there yet - were enough to overcome all the praise it has received. (The last film I can recall receiving a similar sort of treatment is BOP's beloved Serenity.) If Warrior does receive end-of-the-year nods, perhaps that could help give it a second life in 2012.

Shalimar Sahota: I think it's because people already saw this film recently when it was called The Fighter. To be fair, we've already had our Rockys and Wrestlers and the outcome is generally very predictable. At least the difference with Warrior is that it's MMA, and one of the things it has going for it is that you're rooting for two characters. It was a bit surprised when I saw the trailer, for even the tone of it (with the same style font) looks incredibly similar to the trailer for The Fighter. It also gives away which two characters will make it to the final, though to be honest it doesn't take a lot of effort to work out. I've a feeling it might end up making more money on DVD/Blu-Ray than at the box office.

Max Braden: I think much more than Contagion, Warrior needed stars to sell. The Fighter and The Wrestler had names that Warrior couldn't throw up on the screen.

Tim Briody: As Max and the others pointed out, it didn't have any names to sell it, and I don't think it appealed as much to MMA fans as perhaps the studio thought it would since the focus isn't actually on fighting, which is kind of the selling point to those who like MMA. They hedged their bet a bit by having it on less than 2,000 screens but this still isn't a very good performance.

Reagen Sulewski: I think it's funny that MMA could still be viewed as to barbaric to see a movie about when wrestling and boxing are really just as or more violent in their own ways. There's probably a large element of the fact that MMA is still viewed as the upstart sport, and then there's the fact that while The Fighter was based on a true story, Warrior ... wasn't. The story gets a bit hard to swallow in Warrior by comparison.

Edwin Davies: It's a combination of a lack of star power - if we compare it to The Fighter, there's no contest in terms of star wattage between Christian Bale/Mark Wahlberg and Joel Edgerton/Tom Hardy - and a general lack of awareness of the sport amongst most moviegoers. Furthermore, those who are aware of MMA are either pro it or completely indifferent, with little leeway between the two. It also might have been a miscalculation releasing it so wide, when maybe a smaller release to generate buzz might have benefitted it more. If it had opened to a lower figure but from fewer screens, things would look a lot rosier than they do at the moment.

Continued:       1       2       3       4