Baloney! The usually entertaining Cohen brothers toss out reason and time frame history in order to add some thrill and detail to this film. In my opinion, the one and two star ratings here at IMDb contain the best reviews of this video. The acting was good.
Aside from just how implausible this whole story is - factual tidbits added often don't follow the true time line of actual history. Many elements included are too rare to have been much seen in 1978.
For example, there really wasn't much green hair or nose bones in 1978 Texas in spite of what the old boy in the film complains of. Additionally, ATM machines were few and far between in the big city let alone found in the Texas wastelands of '78. HBO in rural motels were a great amenity, but also very rare back in the 1970s as I recall.
Those 1970s vehicles in the movie were cool to look at, but I don't remember one vehicle in the film that wasn't well preserved. I remember the roads of those days as being filled with many old early 1960s clunkers (and older autos) still cruising the roads by the late 1970s. In this film, all the vehicles are pristine (unless engulfed in fire).
I won't even touch on the implausibility of the film's plot and narrative. Sorry, it's just not realistic for late 1970s Texas. Because of good acting I rate this film 3 stars.
2 out of 3 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful?
| Report this
You don't have to be under 25 nor a pothead to enjoy this movie. Maybe having familiarity with drug culture would help though.
10 May 2005
I had never heard of this movie 'Half Baked' until I was channel surfing cable this afternoon and came across it. While I had heard the name Dave Chapelle because of the television show recently airing, I was not familiar with two of the other three main characters. The guy playing the character in jail I have seen before. In other words, I am not up on who these people are/were. I am of the Chech and Chong 'Up in Smoke' generation of drug themed flicks. Saw them all back in the day. However, I found this movie much funnier than those ever were. Much funnier. The Scarface character was hilarious, but I found the Brian and Thurgood parts funnier and quite believable in an over-abundant way. I have read here many stating the cameo parts were the film's highlight. Not in my opinion. The main characters owned this one. As an aside from a 40 something, it is nice to see that this country(USA)has come along the road far enough whereby having a couple white guys, a black dude and a Cuban sharing a habitat together doesn't come across as contrived. The stoner parts all looked familiar to me. Funny movie.
32 out of 38 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful?
| Report this
The Warriors was an important right-of-passage epic for the aware urban teen in 1979. The clashes and the costumes, but especially the attitude quilt this old school over-the-top and stylized, yet nevertheless relevant survivalist urban experience into a compelling story that remains edgy today.
The film, perfectly set in late 1970's New York, at a time when New York was - for those of you who weren't around then - an almost out of control, freaked out and dangerous place where constant chaos was never far from being realized.
For me there is no better closing credits sequence in pictures. When first viewed this film filled me with a forlorn melancholy about this country's urban future, while at the same time building within me a sense of strength and determination with which to face and overcome any potential adversity or reality.
Do not fail to credit the great Joe Walsh's 'In The City' for so memorably setting the scene and sewing together the storyline. If you are young or not otherwise familiar with that song just know that back in the day it was a powerful stand-alone radio jam outside of the film.
Resigned lines delivered with an anguished voice accompanied by tortured guitar licks - In The City - Warrior reality.
The following is a review of the Director's Cut edition of The Warriors.
This is a review of The Director's Cut edition of The Warriors submitted to supplement my prior, February, 2005 review of the original release. I first saw this film in Drive-In theaters at the time of its release. I found the added 2005 filmed segments with Walter Hill, the producer, editors, actors and other motion picture collaborators very interesting and helpful in understanding the original intent of these filmmakers way back in the late 70s at the time the picture was first made.
I admit to being at least one man that never knew that this film was partly based on ancient Greek literature nor partly conceived from a 1950s era gang novel. In fact, while being highly stylized and obviously NOT based gang-for-gang or scene-to-scene on any contemporary 'reality', the original movie was - nevertheless - quite plausible as a near future realization amongst the possibilities for the 'Apple in Decay' of that particular time and place. However, the Director's Cut edition, with it's comic strip panel segues between scenes, obscures the blatant realism that every shot of the subway and streets of New York city reinforced in the original release. How can you shoot in then modern, gritty, contemporary, real, New York City and call it unreal? Hill should have shot Gotham City like in Batman if he intended such fantasy.
In fact, IMO, a late imitation of Batman is what this 'Director's Cut' edition of The Warriors wants to be, what with the added comic book illustrations. Indeed, I was there in the mid 1960s when the look of Batman took television by storm. The illustration of The Warriors gang behind Hill in his 'Director's Cut' apologia segment is drawn exactly as the Batman panels were done in the 1960s. Is it now necessary after almost 30 years to force everyone to accept that it was the Director's original intent that The Warriors had NO basis in reality?
I readily admit that this Director's Cut works fine for any young person of today viewing this film for the first time. They wouldn't have a clue of what 1979 was like anyway.
BTW, kids, the hairstyles, subways and streets of New York City looked just as this film portrays them circa 1979. The Punks gang, with the guy on skates dressed in overalls with the football and rugby shirts underneath were an exact copy of the style of dress that many white high school jocks of the middle 1970s wore every day to school. The hair was just right on them too. While I am not so sure if you could call these guys a 'gang' per se, for many high school wimps of the era those fellows sure were menacing!
IMO, since the comic strip 'Director's Cut' sensibility clearly demonstrates Hill's original intent, then why didn't he use them in 1979 to show the movie as wholly NOT REAL? Whether original or 'Director's Cut', scene after scene of the film contradict that fantasy. Swan telling Mercy he doesn't like how she lives the subway scene with the prom kids the (former) finale walk the beach under credit roll, searching for a better place, a better life! These were all very current and powerful issues and emotions confronting young people in 1979. So, while the gangs were stylized and somewhat unreal and the fighting was stylized and somewhat unreal, the picture's setting and the human situation portrayed were and still are very real indeed. I much prefer the old version to the new.
0 out of 0 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful?
| Report this