The Warriors Movie Site Forum

http://www.dvdcult.com/rev_Warriors.htm

has this guy got his gangs mixed up?is he mixing the shaolin monks with the savage huns?

I think that he is just not delving deep enough into who is who--as in he looks at the hats and thinks Sh.M----when we think Savage Huns. We know who he talking about, even if he doesn't, on a first name basis. And for his POV, it doesn't matter if he gets everyone exactly right. LOL

But his review does catch the feel and the way we feel about this movie very well, and I enjoyed reading it.
He tells the "overall viewpoint" as well as any reviewer I have read.
I think he says alot of things right in his write up of OUR MOVIE.

thanks Vermin76 for posting up that link so we could all read it.

Damn nation i wish it was out right now. the old "warriors" is like the teddy bear of my DVD's. i feel so right if i have it in my room. i can never loan it to anyone.

thanks ranchgal no worries.i agree that has to be one of the best critically aclaims i have ever seen about this great fab ace fantastic etc etc film

I didn't think that this warrented a thread of its own, but since this mentioned REVIEWS........

I just got a FEb. 1979 VARIETY paper, and it has THE WARRIORS as one of the number 1 box office hits in America the first 3 days it was out. Variey called it a WHAM!!

It made nearly 1 million dollars in the first release, alot of that came from the first 3 to 7 days.

NEW YORK: 68 theaters---$648,000.00 revenue in the first 3 days of release.
LA-$275,000 (101,000. of that from 2 theaters the Bruin and the Hollywood. AND it was the highest grossing new movie in L.A. for the week, the second was Superman in its 9th week of release coming in at $162,000.
Chicago---9 theaters--$305,000. YOU should be proud SHM!!! LOL
Detroit--180,000.00 in 11 theaters
Minneapolis--26,000 from one theater.
Balitmore--77,200. in 4 theaters

It was sort of interesting to read---all the info from all the different cities reporting in. IT also gave sort of a "review" too--called it exciting, but brought to bear the point that Mercy really had no reason to be in the film, except as the "love interest". No point to her role. LOL

Just thought I should put this up somewhere.

Cool find, Ranchgal.

Ranchgal wrote: IT also gave sort of a "review" too--called it exciting, but brought to bear the point that Mercy really had no reason to be in the film, except as the "love interest". No point to her role. LOL

While that may be, I can't really imagine the movie without her.

Me neither---sometimes those reviewers don't know nearly as much as they think they do!!! LOL