Is it me, or did this movie suck?
-
computermaster — 9 years ago(August 25, 2016 04:34 PM)
Agreed with the OPterrible movie. No real narrative behind it, just The Warriors running from and meeting random gang members, girls and cops. No real clever dialogue, all the main character really needed to do was try and look tough and deliver his lines in a monotone, generic way.
Had it not been for the fact that the cinematography and action was decent, this would be one of thee worst movies I have ever seen. Man, you guys from the late 70s, early 80s generation must have been experimenting a little too hard on whatever you were drugged up on if you think this movie was anything near great. -
Jeromagnus — 9 years ago(August 25, 2016 10:13 PM)
When Computermaster wrote
you guys from the late 70s, early 80s generation must have been experimenting a little too hard on whatever you were drugged up on if you think this movie was anything near great.
I really laughed.
But then, when jtrip-45023 wrote
It's better than the fast and furious crap of your generation.
I laughed even more -
computermaster — 9 years ago(August 29, 2016 06:02 PM)
Both are heavily style over substance movies (Warriors especially) but yeah, Fast and Furious at least forces the main character to act(however badly) and not just deliver generic plot stuff in a monotone voice.
-
RynoII — 9 years ago(August 30, 2016 04:00 AM)
One movie that is comparable to The Warriors I recently saw was Adventures in Babysitting (1987).
I know it's a very different movie, but the plot structure is similar, where you have a group of characters coming across a series of unfortunate, random encounters, from other groups.
But at least in Adventures in Babysitting, there were pay offs to the random encounters, and the encounters didn't just stay random, but they each had pays offs that came together in the end to tell a story.
So I feel that The Warriors maybe should have gone for that sort of approach.