i like both of the movies but im from L.A. so ill have to choose boulevard nights plus no gang wheres paint on their faces but the furies were cool but they coulnt take v-g-v.
share[deleted]
thats probably cause it takes place in L.A and everybody loves new york but only west coast people wou pick boulevard nights not anybody else, why? cause we are more gangsta.
share[deleted]
new york is full of fags we can *beep* all of new york up in ten seconds and i dont know who you are thinking l.a is filled with a buch of gays if l.a won the battle between east and west and we shoot but we *beep* people up with bare knukles and new york is filled with pussys not l.a get your damn facts striaght punk this is west side
shareSo It's come down to this eh? I'm willing to bet both of you pansies never been in a fight.
shareGangs don't act/talk like the actors in "Warriors". Its pure fantasy, but still a very etertaining story of a gang surviving outside their turf. Almost has a cowboy western feel to it like "Tombstone". Decent movie, but still a fantasy.
On the other hand, "Boulevard Nights" is closer to real street life, with the right look and music. The problem here is that the acting and direction is lousy. I bet the budget was a pretty small compared to Warriors. At any rate, they're really two different movies.
One is a fantasy/action flick, with some decent acting and lots of good action stunts. The other is more of a low-budget 70's drama about social issues, such as education (or lack of), gangs, and unemployment. Both movies have their merits, but they shouldn't be compared with each other.
[deleted]