Warriors vs. Wanderers


I was born in 1969 and a group of high school friends & I were amazed by The Warriors. We were too young to see it in the theaters but frequently rented it and several of us have it these days on DVD. I have seen the movie probably 12-15 times.

Not until reading some of the posts on The Warriors movie page had I ever even heard of The Wanderers. Little did I know that there was race in 1979 between two studios to release their respective "gang" movies the soonest. I read up on the Wanderers and was very skeptical but, since I keep an open mind until I view a film, I decided to take a look. I watched the movie tonight and it is not even close. I don't need to watch The Wanderers 10 more times to fully form an opinion on it. And, truthfully, the two films are so entirely different that I think it's odd how so many posts have tried to compare the two. So why am I? Because if two studious felt they had films that were similar enough to race to release them and so many movie fans find them comparable, I wanted to throw my own comparison out there.

The Wanderers scores points for superior character development but not much else. I've read that it has such a great soundtrack but completely disagree. I am not a fan of nearly any of that era's music and found the opening song so painful to listen to that I muted my TV. The song "Shout" is a classic, no argument there and the title song is decent but the rest are pure and utter garbage. I've also read frequently that the acting is far superior in The Wanderers. Uh, no, not really. I frequently felt like I was watching an SNL skit when you can see the cast trying to control its laughter. Too many times I felt like the actors were not even believing in what they were saying. The transition editing was often poor and there were way too many developments that were not believable and sometimes downright idiotic- Clinton suddenly being chummy with Richie, rival gangs throwing out derogatory phrases and fighting in class (and a teacher asking for such a situation), Nina being spotted right after Richie mistakes a different gal as her, the bigger sized gang suddenly taking off from the football field, how it suddently went from daylight to night while the guys followed Nina's car, the bald gang being tricked into joining the Marines, etc. Come on, how cheesy. I gave the film a 6 and think that's a generous grade.

The Warriors scores points for a far superior script- very cool idea to have to fight your way back to Coney; more interesting characters- the baseball furries, the Lizzy's, the Riffs and, of course, the Warriors themselves- such as Cowboy, Swan, Cleon and Cochise; a lexicon that is still often quoted today; great fight sequences; an overall eerie feeling throughout the film; great justice at the end and a much better soundtrack- title song, furries "run" song, Joe Walsh's In The City, You Better Run, etc. The idea of a gang summit going out of control (after Cyrus is shot), the Warriors being falsely accused and, therefore, having to "bop" their way back to their home turf is a brilliant storyline. And the "gang realism" is so superior compared The Wanderers' gangs that are sometimes friendly/joking with each other, play football for money, etc. All in all The Warriors wins on nearly all fronts and is a vastly superior film. I give it a solid 9.

reply


Can't believe i am responding to such ....but hehehe , here is my 2 cents.

I was born in 1966 (hehehe ) and i own and love BOTH movies.

They are BOTH classics...period.

Warriors was a heavy movie at the time ( violence broke out in some theaters it showed in Los Angeles). Those gangs reflected the New York ( or some of ) gangs of THAT time...That's why people reacted to it the way they did, not because it was going to take all the Oscars (copyright. hehehe ) that year. It's a (kind of comic book) classic to me because i grew up with it.......like the Wanderers.

The Wanderers was a COMPLETE movie experience for me because of how it made me feel while i was watching it. I was young and it didn't matter to me that it was set in 1963 ( with great period music...are you for real?). AMAZING direction! Some of these guys had never acted before, and i thought it was..and still is very believable. A lot of un-pc stuff in it too that today would get cut from some un-artistic exec(s) for sure.

Well, i guess that's about enough of my 2 cents worth on this thread, but since you ARE on Wanderers turf , ( hehehe ) I'll send ya back to Coney Island with this....I have been involved with different types of martial arts through out my life...guess what movie turned me on to it? The WONG'S were the baddest gang ever to hit the big screen...no weapons to hide lack of ability.I still want to join the Wong's ....and I'm old!

Oh yeah...Joe Walsh???? hehehe..yeahh, REAL gang music bro. hehehe

reply

I was born in 1982, and The Wanderers & The Warriors are 2 of my favorite movies of all time, right next to The Lost Boys & Goonies.

They're going to be making a newer version of The Warriors, at least they've had it up on this site for awhile: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0423512/

reply

Both the movies are good but

Wanderers is more better !!!!

reply

"The Wanderers" is a much better film, whereas "The Warriors" is more a cult film; it doesn't stand the test of time like "The Wanderers." Perry could probably take half of those skinny-ass Warriors himself, and Ajax, who got pinched by the female cop, is probably still handcuffed to a bench in Central Park. The music is better in The Wanderers as well although I do like Joe Walsh's "Somewhere in the City." The Wanderers is also a timeless tale about growing up while The Warriors is more of a let's see a bunch of costumed gangs fight all night long.

reply

Haha Ajax was one of the best characters, they took him out of the action too soon.

reply

I was born 1981 and I think we share the same brain because The Warriors and Wanders plus Goonies & Lost boys are my all time fav's

reply

Born in '63 here. I saw both of these films the year they came out, both impacted me significantly for different reasons. I owned both on VHS for several decades, have watched them both dozens of times, and still recommend both to people to this day.

Why?

Because they're both great movies, that's why. I simply refuse to get into a debate about which one is 'better' for that reason. It's all subjective at any rate. Some like one more than the other, and others like them both equally. Still others say they didn't like either one at all. Go figure.

______________________
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! THIS IS THE WAR ROOM!"

reply

You're such a boob. The Wanderers was clearly a comedy-drama,while the Warriors was clearly action-adventure. You admit you were born too young to have seen either movie in the theater,so let me explain something to you about realism (something you claim the Wanderers didn't have) the gangs in the late '50's-early '60's in NYC were more based on neighborhoods (where guys went to the same schools,played on the same teams,etc) there were no machine guns like now (which is what you're use to) there was fists and switchblades. It was the late '50's for christ's sake The Warriors was obviously a comic book version of real life and the gangs were most certainly fantasy (most of them) how or why you compared these two movies is ridiculus. They're both great movies that should be recognized for that reason.

reply

The main thing for me is the overall feel - The Warriors is horrifying. The Wanderers was kind of a joke, like "the Falcons" from tv's Happy Days - you never felt real danger for any of the characters (closest scene is when Perry gets his arm broken - which was the most "Warriors" like of any of the scenes.)

While The Wanderers took time to develop characters, it completely rushed the interaction between the gangs, trying way too hard to make it all come together in a hippie love fest - football game?! Holy cow did that come out of left field... Now thanks to sports, the races love each other?! How lame. And really - the baldies are done in by a crooked recruiting agent for the marines?!

The most interesting aspect of the movie was Nina and what she represented. But to explore that fully it would've been a different movie, which wouldn't have been a bad thing. The Wanderers simply lacked focus - it wanted to be the quintessential 60's coming of age movie with a gang subtext. Sloppy.


reply

The Warriors rule the streets of New York City. That's all anyone needs to know. Ajax would absolutely destroy anyone in the film The Wanderers.

reply

Your nuts dude the Fordham Baldies would destroy any one of those gangs in the warriors

reply

No contest.

The Wanderers is a far, far superior movie in every way imaginable. Acting, soundtrack, storyline.

It's like apples or oranges though, it's gonna be 50/50.

Hello I-I'm Harvey & I've come to give you jip

reply

yeah i love both of them very much but i gotta give it to the warriors.. swan an ajax are just the shieeeet! lol

reply

I really do think both are very good films, but The Warriors would get my vote. I'm aware it was supposedly suppose to have a comic book type feel (as backed up by Walter Hill himself in the directors cut) but I'd still have to say the film as a whole still feels a lot more realistic than The Wanderers (you cant deny that there is some serious cheese in this film) maybe it's because the Warriors has that darker, grittier tone to it. And im sorry but the acting for Aljax and Swan does top any acting in The Wanderers especially Swan, he's just believable. I prefer The Warriors' soundtrack too...

ARH!, SHarK!

(shark attack 3 MEGALODON)

reply

It's apples and ornages like somebody said.

"Warriors" wins when it comes to atmosphere. The portrayal of gang relations in NYC during that time is mostly accurate and the dark tone of whole movie is its biggest strength. The dirty subway stations, the fear and paranoia of dark streets rarely have been captured so well by any 70's movie (maybe Taxi Driver and Mean Streets do it better). On the weaker side this movie is marred by horrible acting , *beep* dialogues and cartoonish fight scenes.

"Wanderers" doesn't have that special type of atmosphere, but it's definitely lighter in tone and has far more interesting and complex characters. All actors are great in their respectable roles and the story is more true to life experiences of average guy . Actors and script win here.

reply

This is a cheesy fight scene, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7XtwFA3gcY , The warriors fight scenes were more realistic and better.

reply

I love both films but i'm a bigger fan of the Warriors, one of my fav movies of all time.

The Wanderers is a coming of age movie. The Warriors is a gritty action drama

Two very different movies with only gangs being the common ground

reply

[deleted]

Both movies are very entertaining, but The Warriors is STRICTLY entertainment (nothing wrong with that). Gotta give the nod to The Wanderers by a wide margin. Loved the book, too, great coming-of-age movie/book...and as others have noted, the scene where Richie peeks into Gerde's and sees Bob Dylan performing...stunning! Because it was right about this time (1963) when everything changed into the "Sixties". Check out the sequence when Kennedy's assassination is watched through the store window, and Richie and Despie get back together to comfort each other in this "Big, Bad World". This was the end of an era (girl groups, gangs...at least as we knew them, innocence). Vietnam was around the corner. Sad ending, but still kind of uplifting...because you know they'll never forget (as Dion's "The Wanderer" plays us out...). I loved this movie when I saw it at the age of 11, on Prism (the predecessor to Starz and Comcast Sportsnet in the Delaware Valley), a local (sort of) cable channel, in 1980, and my love for it has never diminished. I find it a powerful movie, all the more so because this was the first time many of these actors were seen in a movie. I wanted to BE a Wanderer when I was young...I wanted to go back to 1963. I was definitely born too late. In case anybody cares lol.

reply

Regarding the violence at the football match, If anything it showed a togetherness in all of the different gangs unifying against one common enemy in the Ducky Boys. After the fight, the shot of Richie concerned about one of the injured Del Bombers said more than Kaufmans book could describe. That scene alone shows that the gangs didnt really hate each other, there was no love lost of course but they'd been brought up with the rivalry instilled into them. The jovial exchange between Joey & Clinton Stitch in the school hallway also illustrates the "fun" banter type element of the gangs. The Ducky Boys were different, a no nonsense serious gang & they had murdered Turkey.

Hello I-I'm Harvey & I've come to give you jip

reply

[deleted]

Incredible that you think the warriors is a better film than the wamderers. I think you like the MOR music of the warriors. I would presume that you are also a Michael Jackson film. The wanderers is an interpretation of how things were in the 50s. I can't believe that the warriors is anywhere near a reliable interpretation of gangs in the 80s.

The acting, the fight scenes they are all appalling in the warriors, the story line is really original!

Can you "dig it" is all I can say!

reply

Though The Warriors is a good film, my vote would have to go to The Wanderers.

reply