Joel Edgerton's character was supposed to be a mediocre MMA fighter to begin with, and suddenly he's withstanding every blow possible from top-ranked MMA fighters because, y'know, he has heart, it'll save his family, etc. Plus he's so smug. Hardy's damaged, inarticulate Tommy was so much more appealing, and realistically he should have carved Edgerton up. What a gip.
shareConsidering Hardy was going to give up all the money to his friend's family, I prefer the brother keep the money. we can hope that the brother will donate a small part to the soldier's family or maybe to his brother later on after his brother is released. Hardy can alwazys donate his 2nd place earnings to his marine friend's family.
shareThink you are missing the "winner takes all"
However i think that with the fame now on both brothers, there will be sponsorship deals and if Hardys character won't do them I can imagine him continuing to fight and support
5 million is more than enough for pay off the house, get Tommy back on his feet, and help with Tommy's marine brother's wife. Maybe even put Paddy in a good place.
[deleted]
I liked his performance more and he was more entertaining to watch IMO but still wasn't rooting for him honestly. the brother HAD to win, it was pretty predictable. not that it makes it a bad movie or anything, I really enjoyed it. The brother split the money or gave some to the soldiers wife, almost 100% sure. He even whispered something to hardy in the end I think besides the "I love you part"
I did root for Tommy. In that antagonism, he was the only one with the noble cause. And by letting Brendan win against all the odds the director simply chose a cowardly path. In all the fight movies, the winner is the one with the better cause, the one who's a real hero. And for the first time in the fight movie genre, a person is heroized for having a family and a mortgage to pay for.
My detailed position is expressed in a separate review (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1291584/reviews-501), but, in a few words, there was no alternative to Brendan's victory, it was simply prescribed as a movie's message. And from the get-go the film is trying to rub it in our eyes and force us into liking Brendan - by showing him as a good husband, a loving father and even a popular teacher. While Tommy is always messy, aggressive and abusive.
The film frees Brendan from any moral dilemma here, and the ugliest thing is that after he breaks his brother's shoulder we are given two more rounds of Brendan preaching the family values with all that "what are you doing, it's over, we don't have to do this, i love you, i'm sorry", as a means to prevent the audience to pity Tommy and reinstate Brendan as the only likeable person out there.
I understand that it's a message that the movie tries to send, and that has to be accepted. But the way how that message is sent is just low and disgusting.
I get what you mean but Brendan needed to win for the story to pull together.
Tommy resented Brenden for not taking care of him and their mom. He expected his big brother to take care of them, but he was being left with the task. And the way their mom died, Tommy probably felt he failed miserably. Brendan winning, and telling Tommy, "I love you." is to assure Tommy he is still his big brother, and he'll take care of him. That's what Tommy needs to know, that he isn't sidelined by Brenden's "girlfriend", to heal.
Brenden winning will end up with him reinstating his big brother role to take care of Tommy and Paddy, and probably also Tommy's marine brother's surviving family.
I also get what you mean, but don't you think it's kinda condescending to think that the only way the story could pull itself together is by force feeding some sort of a cloying happy end?
Tommy isn't doomed to feel like a loser who needs a good pat on the shoulder to feel like a worthwhile human being again. He may just be a person who wants to be a man of his word, a man whose actions mean something, who can actually take care of those he loves, not like his drunkard father or betraying brother. He doesn't need a brother like this. And his dad he pities later only because he's used to protecting those who are weak.
Brendan's victory is forcing the opposite idea: that without a leading hand or a father figure of sorts Tommy still is a helpless "little brother". While Tommy is a war hero in his own right, and Brendan is nothing but a typical member of society who's shown as a perfect guy to make this society feel better about itself (and, therefore, pay for the movie tickets with more enthusiasm). If endorsement of consumerism and family values is how you see the message of this film, then I'm sorry but we probably are on entirely different pages about it.
Tommy isn't doomed to feel like a loser who needs a good pat on the shoulder to feel like a worthwhile human being again.That wasn't what I said.
I sure was, and for the reasons you gave.
shareI always root for Tom Hardy, no matter what! I'm probably even going to root for him in The Revenant.
shareI was rooting for Tom Hardy, but I think in the end he 'won' in his own way. What he wanted and needed, deep down in his messed up heart, was someone to be there for him. He was so alone. Winning the fight would have meant Tommy takes off again and the family ties would not have been mended. I think at the end Tommy made the choice to trust Brendan again, and that is worth WAY more to him than yet another win in the ring.
shareI was rooting for Tommy because let's face it, Brendan, messed up on the house. He got in over his head and made a bad financial decision. Tough luck man, it's hard, but it was his fault. Tommy's friend didn't do anything bad to die. He served his country and got killed doing so, leaving his family hard up, although I am sure the wife had a job and military benefits.
Summed up; Brendan messed up. The dead friend didn't.
The dead friend's family deserved the money.
I just hope Brendan split it with Tommy if he learned the situation, or even just because they had to reconcile (hopefully).
John 3:16