The Warriors remake by Tony Scott?

the movie was running from hood to hood i think like 2 battle rest is running i've fallen asleep everytime best thing about the movie the opening credits.
 
i thought the warriors sucked they just run around the whole movie not doing enough "warrioring".... more like the cowards.

My NC nizzaynay

THE WARRIORS is such a gnarly film.

Too much fun. I love it. One of my favorite films of the era. I was one of the baseball thugs one Halloween.
 
maybe i should watch it again but the first half is good then its just running then WAHHHAARRRRIOR COME OUT AND PLAAAAAAAAAY the end.
 
RE: running

I don't want to point out the obvious here, but the movie is based on the Sol Yurick novel, which in turn, is loosely based on the Greek work Anabasis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_%28Xenophon%29

The gist of the story is that an army of Greek mercenaries are hopelessly trapped behind enemy lines fighting the Persians, and trying to get back to the shores of the Black Sea (ie. Coney Island). This info is added into the intro of the "Director's Cut", but I digress. (Hmmmmm, this plotline is also vaguely similar to a recent graphic novel-turned-film, but I digress even further....)

So yes, a lot of the movie is the Warriors getting chased, but they were outnumbered by the armies of night, not to mention the police. And the fact that it is based on a classic Greek tale adds to the magic, IMO.

RE: Warriors for Halloween. My friend bought a replica vest off eBay and wore it one year. It was awesome.
 
If you guys put it this way, there's more "warrioring" in The Warriors then there is blood on There Will Be Blood.
 
I'll be the odd man out here. I loved the original Warriors and can't wait to see the remake. I never understand all the puritan film-elitists that bang on remakes. Here's your solution, don't go see it! For the rest of us, we get to check out a new take on an contemporary cult classic.

Remakes are part of the artistic culture of filmmaking. If it sucks, it sucks. it does not change anything about the original. But if it's a fabulous new vision by Scott, then we get twice the opportunity to see a film we all love, from two different filmmakers, not to mention the lessons we get to learn as filmmakers ourselves.

As for the Scott haters, I'm not a huge fan either, but Crimson Tide and Man on Fire were both fabulous, well paced, intense films that had me squirming in my theater seat. If he can nail that type of emotion on this one, it'll be great.
 
Here's an even better solution. Stop feeding the remake machine by supporting these subpar hack jobs.

Of course there are exceptions. Although, for every "The Thing", we get five "Planet of the Apes". On that note, at least Burton isn't redoing this one.:)

Call me purist, elitist, or whatever. I just call it having taste.
 
Ok, ok, that's a fine list, John. Point taken. There are more good remakes than I gave credit. Maybe it's just that I feel strongly about someones "fresh take" on a movie that I connect with my youth.

I know that film historians will not have the original "Warriors" on their best of lists fifty years from now, but, to me, it's definitely in my all time top ten. Not because it is great art, but it reminds me of a time in my life when I first saw it. In fact, it's very similar to Star Wars in that regard. Unfortunately, after the disaster of the prequels, that magic of Star Wars has faded. It actually did take away something from the originals to me personally.

So, if the word on the street is that the new "Warriors" is a worthy remake when it comes out, I'll fork over my dough to the remake machine. I'll make sure to smuggle in that crow to eat in my jacket pocket.
 
I don't have anything against remakes...but you have to think a little bit before giving something like The Warriors to someone like Tony Scott. He'll probably try to cast Tom Cruise as Ajax, Val Kilmer as Swan and Halle Berry as the hookah...Let the guy go back to directing commercials.
 
Back
Top