The Warrior

2005 "When his conscience awakens, his journey begins."
The Warrior
6.7| 1h26m| R| en| More Info
Released: 15 July 2005 Released
Producted By: Miramax
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website: https://film4productions.com/productions/2002/warrior
Synopsis

In feudal India, a warrior who renounces his role as the longtime enforcer to a local lord becomes the prey in a murderous hunt through the Himalayan mountains.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Miramax

Trailers & Images

Reviews

wozwazere I watched this last night and it is so entrenched in my mind that I'm going to watch it again today.Quite simply stunning from start to finish with well-rounded characters in their silence and simplicity.The younger members of the cast more than keep up with those older and everyone is so utterly believable that it is more like having a glimpse into a life that once was ~ and may be yet in a far-off land ~ rather than a film.A film that says so much without really verbalising much at all. Have oxygen at hand because it really will take your breath away!
kapadiaahmadfan Kapadia (Welles) vs Ahmad (Kubrick) - Battle of the Asian Welles & Kubrick of UK Cinema Both magnificent film directors Kapadia older in age has 3 feature films beneath his belt. The Warrior, The Return and recently Far North.As their careers grew, the two directors could hardly be more different in film-making style, yet encompass dissimilar personalities. Both of these young prodigies turned to film-making in their early 20s. Kapadia studied graphic design before his interest in film-making led him to Newport Film School, the University of Westminster and then the Royal College of Art, where his graduate short The Sheep Thief won awards around the world, including at Cannes. He began at the very top of the pyramid with his first feature, The Warrior, won two Baftas with its huge technical crews and was offered great support.Whereas Ahmad the otherwise little-known self taught film-maker, who was brought up on a poor and often violent estate in Manchester directed his first short film on a tiny budget of 2,500 pounds Waiting For Sunrise (won Unicef award 2005, nominated for a Grierson 2006).Ahmad's power draws from his understanding that if the film-maker is not in charge of every module of his creation -- from the original screenplay down to the promotional campaign years work may go for nothing. While Kapdia as a feature filmmaker has gone strength to strength being hailed as one of the best young film directors in the UK.Ahmad become visible on the film scene 7 years after Kapadia, and in that decade beginning in the late 1990's considerable transformations took place, which he, unlike Kapadia, was able to turn to his advantage. The changes in technology and Internet marked the shift of the hierarchical, all-powerful influences by major UK studios.The increasing popularity of the Internet, coupled with the movement of younger talents bursting with new ideas. Unlike Kapadia, Ahmed took advantage creating a huge independent worldwide database of media professionals and the public to gain entry to his work. He now has a huge worldwide fan base. After 10 years of struggling to even create an indentation within the business Ahmad made 3 diverse short films A Man's World, Waiting For Sunrise & Boot Polish and is an independent who learned the whole thing on the spot, originally with whatever means that were available.While Kapadia the more professional of the two, premiered his new film Far North at the Venice Film Festival. It stars Michelle Yeoh, Sean Bean and Michelle Krusiec and was shot on the archipelago of Svalbard, one of the most northern settlements in the world, two hours south of the North Pole. Ahmed the more outspoken and naturally gifted of the two yet still has to prove himself on feature film level, while Kapadia is now an experienced veteran with international acclaim.Quotes Kapadia "I love being on the set, shooting. It's very nerve-wracking and very tense and very tiring, but for me it's the best part.There's one other moment that I think is really special: when you're finishing a film off and you put the first bit of music to it. It's a really beautiful moment because you know what the film is" Ahmad "The great thing about being a filmmaker is in that it's visual as compared to say a novelist who tries to get the readers imagination to comprehend the story, whereas the visual in the cinema is more easier to digest and as a director you can use that power to do amazing things."
Godzman22 The title might be misleading for action movie fans such as I. However, I really liked this movie , but be warned, it is a drama not an action movie.This story is all about character choices and karma, not sword fights.(spoiler)... here are a few examples of karma... the warrior gives his son a knife, which was given to him by his grandfather or father ( not sure) when he started working for his lord, on the same day that he stops working for his lord. Also (spoiler)... his son is also killed with said knife...he who lives by the sword might die by his ancestors sword or knife. The film locations are beautiful.I did not know who the actors were since I am not knowledgeable about Indian cinema, but I found the actors to be very good. My favorite character was probably the blind woman...she was just creepy.
Mohinish At least Bollywood has this: it is pure, joyous trash. It's something you grow up with, and cannot possibly enjoy unless you've had an early Parameter Setting (a la Chomsky) for Bollywood films. Bollywood is SO trash, it comes out on the other side into previously uncharted highlands of Mt. Trash.. it's almost GOOD!This film, unfortunately, is a pretentious piece of nonsense, which you'd be pardoned for believing was made by a film student with good contacts on a bad day. Probably the only thing good about the film are the actors, specially Irfan Khan. For the rest, it's a bad trip after watching a bunch of Kurosawa's and some Sergio Leone's, and probably some sappy romanticizing about the director's Indian Roots or some such pulpy bile.OK, I guess I'm just mad about having my hopes shattered, and am venting it out here. So just to summarize: 1) The accents are all over the place 2) The story? It's the kind of mindless tale you would tell a child to put it to sleep 3) Camera-work is so-so 4) Editing is plain flakyAll in all, its right down there at the bottom of the barrel with loads of other junk.. only, you're much less likely to actually SEE any of the other junk unless (a) you were mad or (b) the film was winning awards by juries that seemed to like pretentious "art" films.