RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Media Savage reviews

The Warriors received negative reviews from contemporary critics, who derided its lack of realism and found its dialogue stilted.[22] In his review for the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert gave it two out of four stars and wrote that, despite Hill's cinematic skill, the film is implausible in a mannerist style that deprives the characters of depth and spontaneity: "No matter what impression the ads give, this isn't even remotely intended as an action film. It's a set piece. It's a ballet of stylized male violence."[23]

However, Ebert later wrote during a review of Hill's film Southern Comfort that he felt he overlooked some positive qualities in The Warriors out of his dislike for Hill's general approach to broad characterizations.[24] Gene Siskel gave the film one star out of four, likening the dialogue to that of "Harvey Lembeck in those silly '60s motorcycle pictures" and concluding, "You would think after watching 'The Warriors' that gang membership was a victimless crime, save for the occasional sadist who pops up as comic relief. This entire film is a romantic lie."[25]

Linda Gross of the Los Angeles Times called the film "an insightful, stylized and shallow portrayal of gang warfare that panders to angry youthful audiences."[26]
Gary Arnold of The Washington Post wrote, "None of Hill's dynamism will save The Warriors from impressing most neutral observers as a ghastly folly."[27]
In his review for Newsweek, David Ansen wrote, "Another problem arises when the gang members open their mouths: their banal dialogue is jarringly at odds with Hill's hyperbolic visual scheme."[28]

Frank Rich of Time wrote, "unfortunately, sheer visual zip is not enough to carry the film; it drags from one scuffle to the next ... The Warriors is not lively enough to be cheap fun or thoughtful enough to be serious."[29]
[Sol] Yurick [writer of the original 1965 novel version] expressed his disappointment and speculated that it scared some people because "it appeals to the fear of a demonic uprising by lumpen youth", appealing to many teenagers because it "hits a series of collective fantasies."[15]
President Ronald Reagan was a fan of the film, even calling lead actor Michael Beck to tell him he had screened it at Camp David and enjoyed it.[18]

CULT STATUS

The Warriors has become a cult film, and some film critics have since re-examined it. As of August 2022, the film garnered an 88% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 48 reviews. The critical consensus reads: "As violent as it is stylish, The Warriors is a thrilling piece of pulp filmmaking."[30]

In 2003, The New York Times placed the film on its "Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made".[31] Entertainment Weekly named it the 16th-greatest cult film on its 2003 "Top 50 Greatest Cult Films" list,[32] and ranked it 14th in its 2008 list of the "25 Most Controversial Movies Ever".[33]

Hill reflected in 2016:
"I love the fact that people still enjoy something I did what, 37 years ago? It makes an old man happy. I'm surprised by it. But I loved working with my cameraman Andy Laszlo in shooting it, and I loved working with my cast, who were incredibly trusting of this crazy old fucker that was making the movie. They didn't get it, I don't think—costumed gangs running around New York?—but they just went with it." [21]