communication breakdown

Movie Review: The Warriors (1979)

[ 3 / 10 ] "The Warriors" is a classic cult film from the late 70's, but as that endearing description suggests, you kinda have to be a member of the cult to get it. Unfortunately, I am not. But that won't stop me from trying my best to provide an objective review, followed by a subjective analysis for why you shouldn't bother with this movie...

The premise of the film is about as simple, yet bizarre, as they come. The story takes place amidst the gang activity and violence of New York in the late-seventies, yet here it is taken to an artistic extreme. In the film, the city is practically owned by gangs - not several powerful ones, but countless bands of misfits confined to their own areas of the city. However, the gangs look as though they were ruled by make-up and costume artists rather than fierce authoritarians - each has a distinct look and "trademark". There are the Gramercy Riffs (the Black Panther-style militants), the Turnbull A.C.s (skinheads), and the Lizzies (the tough grrls), to name a few. Then there are the Warriors, the tough, shirtless, vested band of miscreants that we follow throughout the film.

There is the backstory; here is the plot. The biggest problem the gangs face are one another; it seems that none of them are on friendly terms. However, Cyrus, the leader of the Riffs (the most powerful gang) has devised a plan - one predicated on peace and solidarity against a common enemy, the police. He has invited each gang to send a delegation to the Bronx for a large meeting and (hopefully) the start of a new era of collaboration. However, when tragedy strikes at the meeting and the Warriors are implicated, they frantically try to find their way home - unarmed, in unfamiliar territory, and surrounded by rivals bent on their destruction.

Sounds exciting, right? Well, it would be, if it wasn't paper-thin in its execution. The first problem is that there is absolutely no character development. With the exception of Cyrus, who really is a very minor player, I can't name a single character - especially any of the Warriors, who we follow for 90 minutes! There is no attempt to give them any purpose, individuality, or meaning - they are united by the single purpose of returning home, and that's all we ever learn about them. The next problem are the gangs themselves - not only are they laughable in their ridiculous getups, but they never seem to pose a real threat to the Warriors' return. One group lets them run right by because they are supposedly stunned by a molotov cocktail that one of the Warriors throws their way. What kind of a hardcore gang member is stopped in his tracks by a little fire???

Then there are the plot holes, which I'm trying my best to overlook. First, you won't convince me that a New York City gang does not know how the subway works. There is an early scene where they're trying to decipher the maps, but it just seems ridiculous. Speaking of the subway, it always seems to show up at the exact time they need it to. The policeman are your typical dumb, slow, bad-guy-bullet firing incompetents, who pose less of a threat than the other gangs. All of it was conveniently written to allow the plot to flow smoothly.

There just wasn't much to appreciate about this film. I never cared one bit about any of the characters - not to mention their acting performances, which were wooden at best. The plot is cheesy, and the gangs are even cheesier. The music is decent, and sadly this movie will probably best be remembered as the debut of "In the City" by Joe Walsh, which runs over the closing credits. Cult films are love-them-or-hate-them affairs, and with this particular movie, I'm in the latter category. I think this is a movie that has aged poorly; while it might have had a lot of appeal to the late-70s crowd, against any standards of film quality it falls far short.