RSS

16. The Warriors (1979)

15 Jan

Roger’s Rating :

Should be :

In his review Roger says that “Paramount chooses to advertise the movie as a violent action picture — and action audiences, I suspect, will find it either incomprehensible or laughable.” Roger only gave the movie 2 stars.
I think Roger was wrong in his prediction. The movie has a 7.6 rating on IMDB and a 93% Fresh rating on RottenTomatoes. It was also named the 16th greatest cult film of all time by Entertainment Weekly.
I don’t think that was fair of Roger to criticize the movie because he feels it was marketed as an action picture and he doesn’t feel it was effective in that genre. You have to judge the movie on its own merits. The director may have had a different view of the material then the publicity department.
I think the movie is entertaining and exciting. I don’t think it was ever meant to be a realistic portrayal of urban gangs. It was stylized and had more of a live action comic book approach to reality, and I think it did that very well. In the Director’s Cut the transitions between scenes often have the live action sequence fade into a still-frame illustration.
What I like best about The Warriors is that it is presented in a comic book style, but the characters always take themselves seriously. There are no winks to the camera to tell you that it is all a joke. I think the movie took itself seriously and it works on that level.
I think that if Roger took another look at this one today, he would add on a couple of stars.
Advertisements
 
Comments Off on 16. The Warriors (1979)

Posted by on January 15, 2010 in Roger Ebert's worst reviews

 

Comments are closed.

 
%d bloggers like this: