The Bioshock Film Dilema

The Bioshock series of video games has a strong emphasis on awe-inspiring visuals, as well as three-dimensional characters and engrossing stories. For some time, the idea of the series making the transition to film has been in the works, but now it seems the project has been put on hold indefinitely. Given the series popularity, why would a film adaptation of Bioshock not be pushed through? Let's take a look at some key aspects to find out...

To begin with, there is always an inevitable groan when the thought of adapting a popular video game into a film is mentioned. With there being so many previous attempts, most of which receiving negative reviews from audiences and critics, the idea of trying to adapt Bioshock would seem like a waste of time. Where Bioshock would have an advantage, were it to be made into a film, is its strong plot and developed characters. Much of the story involves the player being confronted with a moral choice, and so adding a more cinematic touch to this could make for more emotional investment from the audience. Previous adaptations of video games received negatively, such as Super Mario Bros. (1993), were based on source material that didn't have such focus on the story on the way Bioshock does, though technology limited video games of that time to have greater focus on gameplay. With the advancement of technology, a story as complex as Bioshock's can easily be told in a video game as well as a film. However, with filmmakers such as Uwe Boll churning out films based on games so frequently, today's audience have quickly become disillusioned with the idea of yet another video game adaptation, and with the consistent negative reception, they have very little reason to invest money into going to see them at the cinema or own them on DVD.

With concerns as to whether audiences still have an appetite for films adapted from video games, any major studio would be further put off by the astronomical budget required to bring this series to life. Given that two of the three games in the series where set in the same location, Rapture, it seems most likely this would be the setting for the film. Rapture is an underwater metropolis, featuring glass tunnels leading to different parts of the city. Most of the budget would have to go towards creating Rapture, whether it be via CGI or elaborate models. However, there would have to be a significantly large spend on the inhabitants of Rapture, too. Of course, the film would have to feature the Big Daddies (pictured above) not only for being the most iconic image from the series, but also for their significance to the story, as a representation of the downfall of Rapture. Were the film to be based off the third game in the series, Bioshock Infinite, I feel similar problems would occur. The sky city of Columbia would be equally challenging to put on film, and there are also non-humanoid inhabitants as there are in Rapture. Namely, the Songbird, a massive mechanical creature that terrorises the protagonists. 

For me, the toughest thing about adapting Bioshock for the big screen would be keeping the dark themes and violence intact, and there's no way of doing that without the film having an 18 certificate. The story of Rapture is an intense tale of how a city can be corrupted by the lust for power, eventually leading to a civil war after the citizens' addiction to a substance known as ADAM (which equips the player with special powers in the game). As well as the violent story, there are plenty of horror elements, particularly in the first game. We see just how badly some of the inhabitants have been effected by ADAM, as they have mutated into creatures named Splicers, who attack the player with all manner of weapons. The look of the Little Sisters evoke the twin girls from Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980), further establishing a horror film atmosphere. The only way I could see a Bioshock film being made with a more commercial 12A certificate would be to set it in Columbia and remove the complexities of the Elizabeth character and discriminatory themes and stick to the basic premise: the characters of Booker DeWitt has to rescue Elizabeth from the city. If that many liberties have to be taken, whereby it ruins a strong story and characters, then the film shouldn't be made at all.

So, for now, it seems that Bioshock's future remains in the realm of video games. As a fan of the series, I hope one day a feature film is made with love for the story and themes established in the games. Until the above issues are addressed with a satisfactory resolution for all parties, it might be a while until the idea is touted to studios again. The least fans can hope for now is another Bioshock game, and here's hoping it's just as good as the previous instalments.  

Puppet Master (1989) Review

"I had this dream, and I came here to make sure it didn't come true" - Alex.

I'd bet that when Full Moon Features released Puppet Master back in 1989 that they had no idea that it would be followed by nothing short of 10 sequels (though 2004's Puppet Master vs. Demonic Toys is not considered official). Due to this ridiculous amount of sequels, the Puppet Master franchise has gained a cult following over the years, and looks to still be as popular as ever with their most recent film, Puppet Master X: Axis Rising, being released in 2012.  But does the one that started it all still hold up today?

The story begins in 1939 at a hotel situated on the coast, the Bodega Bay Inn. Andre Toulon (William Hickey) is staying there, where he makes puppets and brings them to life with a magic incantation. However, he is being pursued by spies, and so he locks the puppets away and takes his own life before they arrive at his room, forever protecting his secret of how he gives life to inanimate objects. Fast forward 50 years later, and a group of psychics arrive at the inn after one of their colleagues, Neil (Jimmie F. Skaggs), has supposedly discovered Toulon's secret. When the group arrives, Neil's wife Megan (Robin Frates) reveals that Neil has passed away. As night draws closer, Toulon's puppets awaken and the group must try and survive, and learn that their colleague may not be as dead as first thought...

If you decide to watch Puppet Master, then no doubt the attraction is seeing the puppets come to life and cause chaos. If that's the case, you may be disappointed with this film. With a horror film, I like there to be a good amount of tension leading up to the scares, but just enough so that the film doesn't drag. A perfect example is Ridley Scott's 1979 classic, Alien. In Alien, there aren't any scares for a long period of time, but the build up is great as we learn more and more about the environment the characters explore before the horror is unleashed. In Puppet Master, the moments before the puppets get started tend to drag, which isn't helped by the fact that the characters aren't that interesting. This is an especially weak point of the film as having characters with psychic powers creates potential for interesting personalities and set-pieces. Sadly, the groups psychic abilities are very downplayed, as are the actor's performances. Our leading man is Alex (Paul Le Mat), who is likeable enough, as he doesn't seem to be impressed with the other's more immature approach to solving the mystery. He's the only character I didn't want to be killed off, whereas the other's were either insufferable (Irene Miracle as Dana) or not memorable enough for me to care (everyone else). The real stars of the film are of course the puppets, and provide easily the best entertainment value. This is largely down to the creative choices for each puppet, with all five of them easily distinguishable. My favourite of the puppets is Tunneler, who has a deadly spinning drill attached to the top of his head. I also love Jimmie F. Skaggs' performance as the resurrected Neil. He blurs the line between acting sinister and hammy and is immensely enjoyable to watch. 

I have to commend Puppet Master for its creative special effects, easily by far the best thing about the film. Most of the effects are achieved through practical means, and they look fantastic considering the limited budget. There are a few instances where the puppets are stop-motion, but these shots aren't lingered on too long, allowing greater focus on the practical effects. As well as the effects, I was also impressed with the music and cinematography. Both are used to give the film a surreal atmosphere, especially in the dream sequences, where Alex has visions of Neil dancing with Megan, only to shoot her after taunting him. The melodic soundtrack offers a contrasting mood to Alex's horror, perfectly complimenting the surrealist style of the film. 

Had the story not dragged so much and the characters better developed, Puppet Master could have been a truly great horror film. The atmosphere is terrific and the puppets themselves are a real treat. With this potentially winning formula done right, maybe we wouldn't have had so many sequels. If you're a fan of cult horror cinema, this one's worth checking out, at least to see the puppets run wild. If you're wanting to be scared silly with a satisfactory combo of characters and atmosphere, then you may want to skip this one.

Pros:
+ Haunting musical score creates a great horror atmosphere.
+ Cinematography that compliments the film's surrealism.
+ The puppets, and the special effects that bring them to life.

Cons:
- Forgettable characters.
- Slow moving plot.

The Expendables 3 (2014) Review

"I need a job! All I know what to do is kill! Goddammit!" - Galgo.

According to the trailer, the Expendables are going on "one last ride", and so they decided to throw everything they had left at this third instalment in the series. The result is surprisingly less awesome than expected. Though there are some enjoyable moments here and there, this is probably the weakest entry in the series to date.

Sylvester Stallone is back as Barney Ross, and the film opens with him and the rest of the team on yet another mission. This time, it's to rescue Barney's old comrade Doc (Wesley Snipes), who along with Antonio Banderas' Galgo, is the most interesting of the team. Doc's calmness and slick fighting style makes you wish he was the focus of the film. Banderas, while involved more with the plot at a later point, is clearly having a blast in his role as the motor-mouthed Galgo, providing some good moments of humour along the way. Barney, however, is really uninteresting in this one, and not very likeable. Straight after Doc is rescued, he decides to break up the team after Caesar (Terry Crews) is fatally shot. It feels really forced and unnecessary, and the old team don't do anything else for the rest of the film until the final fight. Having disbanded the old team, Barney sets out to recruit a younger squad in order to take down the man who shot Caesar: ex-Expendable Conrad Stonebanks (Mel Gibson). While I think the idea of having a younger team has potential, it really isn't used well here. After seemingly completed their mission, they are captured by Stonebanks' henchman, and it's up to the old team and Barney to rescue them. Simply put, they are merely a plot device, rather than developed characters that we care about, making them as expendable as the series' title.

Like The Expendables 2, the best thing about the film is the antagonist. This time, it's Mel Gibson, who gives the best performance as the unpredictable Stonebanks. My favourite moment comes when he gets so fed up with his team being unable to kill the Expendables that he gives a demonstration on his own men, shooting two of them. It reminds me of Jack Nicholson as the Joker in Batman (1989), and is a great piece of dark humour. Arnold Schwarzenegger returns as Trench and, although he's on screen longer than his previous two appearances, is underused. It's nice to see him have a bigger role, but why leave him out of most of the action? Speaking of being left out, Jet Li shows up out of the blue for a combined total of five minutes of screen-time. A renowned martial-artist, Li is used even worse than Schwarzenegger, with him being stuck in a helicopter firing a machine gun for his only action scene. A complete waste of a great talent and potential to have some awesome hand-to-hand combat moments. Harrison Ford is also in the film, and is the only one who should have been in that helicopter, as he is obviously less capable than someone like Jet Li to pull-off more physical scenes. As previously mentioned Snipes and Banderas at least mean there is some interest on the side of the heroes, just not enough for me to be invested in their plight. 

Upon it's release, The Expendables 3 garnered some controversy from fans over the lesser age certificate. The toning down of the violence in an attempt to appeal to a broader market meant that the film received a 12 certificate (PG-13 in the United States). For me, the toning down of the violence didn't matter a great deal, especially when looking back at the first film and how bad some of the CGI blood looks. However, I don't think it was entirely necessary to appeal to a wider audience, as everyone already knows what this series is about. When you watch an Expendables film, you know exactly what you're going to get. If shoot-outs, explosions and aged action stars spouting one-liners doesn't appeal to you, you aren't going to watch them, regardless of how violent or not they are. I should point out that there is an extended cut of the film available on home media, which has the rating bumped up to 15. So, if you're really curious, you can check that version out and see if it makes any difference.

So, for now, that concludes my review of The Expendables series. For what it's worth, all three films get the job done in terms of being an entertaining ride. Though are plenty of flaws throughout, they all deliver what action fans want, and are sure to be looked at with a good amount of nostalgia in years to come. Unless, of course, they continue this franchise and squeeze what ever else they can out of it.

Pros:
+ Gibson, Banderas and Snipes are all good fun in their roles.
+ Not as many self references as the previous films, very refreshing after The Expendables 2's overuse.

Cons:
- Uninteresting new cast, not developed enough for me to care if they survive. A real shame, as their performances are all decent.
- Underusing Schwarzenegger and (especially) Li.
- There is no ending. It just stops all of a sudden. Check that part out if you're interested in how not to end a film.

The Expendables 2 (2012) Review

"Who's next, Rambo?" - Trench.

The team is back with a new mission and a new director. Simon West takes the helm from Sylvester Stallone and proves to be the right choice, as he directs. with more style and fun. The Expendables 2 is a superior sequel in almost every department, leaving a more satisfactory after-taste to its craziness.

On what seems like a routine mission to retrieve a lost safe, the Expendables encounter a team of mercenaries. This team, lead by the hilariously named Jean-Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme), take the contents of the safe for themselves after killing off the team's most expendable member, Liam Hemsworth. From there, Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) sets out on a new mission: stop Vilain from mining enough plutonium to "change the balance" of the world and avenge the death of their young comrade. As a follow-up to the original, the plot is even more simplified, and therefore doesn't waste any time in throwing us into the chaos. In between the multitude of action scenes, there is at least more focus on character development this time around. While not a lot of time is devoted to this, it is nice to get to know the team's emotional side more, as shown when new member Maggie (Nan Yu) talks to Barney about his life as a gun-for-hire. The team is together for a much longer period than the first film, meaning that we get more than what the original promised us, with them all being involved for more of the action.

One massive improvement in this film is the villains. Jean-Claude Van Damme steals this film, with his portrayal of Vilain having the right balance of menace and campiness. He's very unpredictable, at one point walking right into Stallone's line of fire, coaxing him into a one-on-one showdown. Sadly, the final encounter between Stallone and Van Damme is somewhat underwhelming. There's very little payoff to something with a good amount of tension between these characters, though it is nice to see Van Damme perform his famous "helicopter kick" twice. On the side of the heroes, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger return as Church and Trench respectively for more substantial roles: rescuing the team from a trap and joining forces to take down Vilain. Chuck Norris also makes an appearance and, of course, there is a reference to the now infamous Chuck Norris Facts. He too is involved in the the final shootout with Vilain's henchman, which also features a satisfying encounter between Jason Statham and Scott Adkins.

Sadly, the film drags itself to the lowest of the low by including some of the most cringe-worthy one-liners and in-jokes ever heard in a film. The above mentioned Chuck Norris Facts reference was inevitable and it's only mentioned once. However, the rest of the one-liners are just plain awful. Here's the two worst:

Caesar: (Handing Trench his gun) If I don't get this back, your ass is terminated.

Trench: I'll be back.
Church: You've been back enough. I'll be back.
Trench: Yippee-ki-yay.

Lastly, there's a moment where the oh so "hilarious" one-liners ruin a perfectly funny comedic moment. After an attack on a village, the Expendables realise there's only one enemy soldier left. They spot him, turn around in unison, and fire away with everything they've got. What's funny is the amount of fire-power they use just to take down just one guy when a single bullet would have been enough. Straight after, though, Stallone quips the line "rest in pieces", ruining what could have been the funniest part of the film.

Though it's tainted by some of the dialogue, The Expendables 2 is overall a better film than its predecessor. It makes better use of its all-star cast, therefore improving the action in the process. I just hope they bring Van Damme back for more, he's definitely the best reason to check this film out.

Pros:
+ Having the team together for the action throughout the film.
+ Jean-Claude Van Damme as the villain.
+ Bigger and better action sequences.

Cons:
- Disappointing final one-on-one. Van Damme only lands four or five hits!?
- Those awful, AWFUL one-liners and references. 

The Expendables (2010) Review

"Next time, I'll deflate all your balls, friend" - Lee Christmas.

Sylvester Stallone's The Expendables had a lot of hype leading up  to its release, featuring cheesy one liners, plenty of violence and a plethora of action-stars. Looking back at the film five years on, did it deliver all it promised? Let's delve into this strictly masculine world of guns and explosions to find out.

The biggest thing the film had going for it was the cast. Boasting some of the action genre's biggest names, many people were looking forward to seeing their favourite heroes all in one film. What we get is an overall mixed bag. Two of the 1980's biggest stars, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, are only in one scene. At the time, Schwarzenegger was still in his political career, and so only filmed for one day. Kind of a cheat that he gets shared billing with the other stars on the DVD cover. Willis' role is more for getting the Expendables started on their mission, and providing all the exposition. Director Sylvester Stallone leads the cast as Barney Ross, along with Jason Statham as Lee Christmas. They make a good double-act, and are involved with all the action throughout the film. The rest of the heroes don't get that much focus, that is except for rogue member Gunnar Jensen (Dolph Lundgren), who is briefly exiled from the team. The villains aren't as "all-star" as the heroes, with only wrestler "Stone Cold" Steve Austin being of any relation to previous action roles (namely his career in WWE). Because of the lack of focus, seeing all the cast together isn't as awesome as one would've hoped. They seem to get their "cool moment", then disappear for more focus on Stallone more than any other.

The big problem with the film is the lack of development of the characters. Don't get me wrong, I understand the priority of the film is to deliver a spectacle of action and violence, but it is also heavily reliant on the stars of the film to get people interested in seeing it. With such a large cast, it is difficult to give time to get to know the characters with a running time of 103 minutes. However, we need to be able to care at least a little when the heroes are placed in dangerous situations. The plot doesn't really offer much in terms of getting to know the characters, just setting up the next action sequence: The Expendables are tasked to to eliminate a corrupt general and his associate, an ex-CIA agent. Throughout the film, Ross and Christmas (yes, that name is still ridiculous after all these years) discover their location and gather the rest of the team for the big final fight. It's here that most of the fan-service is dished out: what if Stone Cold and Randy Couture had a fight, in a WWE vs. UFC moment? What if Terry Crews were to wield a ridiculously large shotgun and take everyone out? All this and more in a hectic ending after a decent enough build up.

One-liners, in traditional action film style, are used in almost every instance. Some of them are enjoyable, like Jason Statham's quip after taking out a group of guys on a basketball court (see above). Others, particularly Stallone's, tread the line between witty retorts, or just plain bad. The best example of this is his scene with Schwarzenegger, where Willis asks him what Schwarzenegger's problem is as he walks away from an offer: Stallone's response is simply: "He wants to be president". A moderately funny line at the time, but it now seems very outdated and fairly cringe-worthy. That being said, the whole film seemed out-of-place at the time of release, for better or worse. It feels like an action film straight out of the 1980's, just with an ensemble cast. A good thing, then, that it doesn't try to be anything more than that. It delivered lots of action and enough self-awareness to be an overall enjoyable experience. While it certainly offers nothing new to the genre, it is an interesting piece of work that should delivered everything you expect in a film featuring this many action stars past and present.

Pros:
+ Not too self aware, meaning that the one-liners aren't overused and so allows more time for the action to continue.
+ Never a dull moment, whether it be an action sequence or simply seeing this many stars sharing a scene.
+ Enough fan-service to satisfy regular action film viewers.

Cons:
- Undeveloped heroes and villains. No matter how good the action, we have to care about the participants.
- Other than the ensemble cast, offers nothing new to the genre.

Original vs. Remake: Friday the 13th (1980 and 2009)

Previously, I posted a comparison piece on the two cinematic portrayals of Spiderman. But there's more to a film than just the lead performance, so why not take a look at other aspects of two films, an original and remake, and see how they match up? I'll be looking at 5 aspects for both films, so that there is a clear winner by the end. Let's start with one of the most iconic horror films ever made: Friday the 13th.

Best Villain: Seeing as the slasher genre has made a star of the villain rather than hero, we'll start by looking at the two antagonists. The character Jason Voorhees has become the series' most celebrated creation, and is an easily recognised pop-culture icon. However, in the first film, Jason is not the killer. Instead, we have his mother, Pamela (Betsy Palmer). She is only revealed as the killer right at the end of the film, with us only seeing her face when she introduces herself for the first time to the last of her intended victims. Pamela acts friendly at first, but slowly becomes more enraged when explaining the story of her son Jason. She blames Jason's drowning as a child on the camp counsellors that should have been making sure he was safe, and so is out for revenge against those who came to renovate the camp. My main problem with the character is that when she starts to go crazy whilst trying to kill her last victim (talking to herself in Jason's voice etc.), it isn't very believable. Throughout the film, she has shown to be a calm, unsuspecting person, so for her to suddenly lose control when stalking the last victim has never sat well with me. 

In the remake, Jason is the killer, as was the case in all the sequels (bar one). Some changes were made to the character for the remake, the most notable being that he now runs after his victims rather than slowly stalks. His brute strength remains, however, and proves to be a much more efficient killer when compared to his mother in the original. Despite him being defeated thanks to his emotions when thinking one of the female characters resembles his mother, Jason puts up a good fight throughout the film, with it taking two people to ultimately take him down. There is also no over-the-top moments with his character like Pamela in the original, making for a much more intimidating villain, and the clear standout in this comparison of Crystal Lake killers.

Winner: Remake.

Best Hero: Like with the villain, the original film has similar problems when it comes to the protagonist. The closest we get to a lead character is Alice (Adrienne King), one of the teenagers that comes to help renovate Camp Crystal Lake for the summer. She is a quiet member of the group, and so doesn't partake in many of the genre clichés that lead to character's deaths (sex, excessive drinking, drugs etc.). With that said, she doesn't put up that much of a fight against Pamela Voorhees in the film's climax, and her character isn't developed enough for me to believe that she is capable of rising to the challenge of defeating the killer. Because of her quiet nature, there's never a moment where I don't want her to survive, but she's hardly the embodiment of an interesting lead, either.  

Clay (Jared Padalecki) is the remakes' hero. He arrives at Camp Crystal Lake to find his lost sister, who was attacked by Jason at the beginning of the film. He's a far more interesting character than Alice, as his attempts to find his sister never wanes, even when he grows close to girl at the camp. He is shown to be resourceful and determined individual, and therefore a character that is more interesting than any in the original. Usually, the nice characters in slasher films are guaranteed to be killed off, so it's a testament to the character's strength that he's able to survive the ordeal and still remain likeable.

Winner: Remake. 

Best Supporting Characters: This is easily the weakest aspect of both the original and remake. The supporting cast in the original is mainly remembered for featuring a young Kevin Bacon in one of his first acting roles. Bacon's character, like the other camp counsellors, is pretty bland. While not unlikeable, they don't have much personality, and so there ins't a great deal of sorrow felt when they are each killed off. That being said, their working hard to renovate the camp gives them a lot more of a likeability factor compared to the remake.

It's one thing to be unmemorable, but to be unlikeable makes the supporting characters in the Friday the 13th remake the film's weak point. Rather than good-natured teens, we get a group of college students out to party. Their poor attitude towards Clay (apart from the girl who at least tries to help him) makes me feel no remorse towards them when Jason starts hacking them to pieces. If these are the people he wants to kill, then Jason is the hero. You have your typical bully of the group in Trent (Travis Van Winkle), but despite being a more prominent side character, isn't memorable enough for me to even slightly be invested in his character. So who wins? The original's overall less memorable characters, or the remake's unlikebale ones? The original just about takes this one, as there is one side character that is memorable: Crazy Ralph (Walt Gorney). He doesn't do much, but his constant strangeness and saying the line "you're all doomed" is both unsettling and fairly hilarious at the same time. 

Winner: Original.

Best Kills: If there's one thing the slasher genre is known for, it's the body count. The Friday the 13th series has racked up one of the largest body counts in cinema history. But how does where it all began hold up against a more contemporary approach? The original's kills were considered extremely violent at the time of release, and some of them are still pretty gruesome by today's standards. The most notable is the infamous arrow kill, where Kevin Bacon's character is stabbed through the neck from underneath the bed. We see the arrow pierce through his skin, and blood gushes from the wound. An image not soon forgotten. The other kills aren't as horrific, it's the prolonged shots of the character's dying that sticks in the memory, and makes the film very unsettling.

The remake, released at the time when horror films had gotten more and more violent with the Saw series, is actually more tame than it's 1980 counterpart. Where the remake really lets itself down is that it follows on from a long string of sequels, and so you'd think that this latest instalment would try to out-do all the other films. The kills here are all pretty standard stuff, and there is very little build-up to them. They happen suddenly, and aren't even that bloody. The only one that stands out is Trent's death, where he is impaled on the back of a truck. Other than that, it's nothing we haven't seen in the other films. The original takes this one due to the build-up and for the being the more gruesome.

Winner: Original.

Best Story: So it all comes down to the story. Both film's have simple plots, and they are more focused on establishing the killer so that they can get down to business. However, both films approach the set up to the kills slightly differently. The story is all about revenge: Pamela blames the camp counsellors for Jason's death, and the remake is more a sequel following on from those events, with Jason out to kill anyone who comes to the camp after his mother's death. The eerie atmosphere evoked in the original is still just as effective as it was back in 1980. The way the local residents talk about the "curse" of Camp Crystal Lake, and the story of Jason's drowning casting a powerful shadow over it, makes for the perfect tone for a horror film. With the characters not looking for trouble when visiting the camp, it makes the events of the film more horrific, and the ending shot of Jason suddenly appearing from beneath the lake is a disturbing, haunting moment.

The remake lacks the folkloric aspect of the original. Jason is only mentioned briefly by one character, referred to as simply "he". This makes for a less intimidating atmosphere when compared to the original's approach of keeping Jason more a mystery. The story of Clay looking for his sister is decent enough, but the other characters are more a hindrance to the film's pacing than anything else. Because of this, there is less focus on plot development, and more on how many ways the supporting characters can conform to genre clichés.

Winner: Original. 

Overall Winner: Original - Friday the 13th (1980).

The Warriors (1979) Review

"Can you dig it?" - Cyrus.

How does one gang in New York City survive the threat of thousands of enemies? In The Warriors, the titular gang are falsely accused of assassinating the leader of the biggest gang in the city, who was planning to unite every gang as one unstoppable force. From there, the Warriors must make it back to their home turf of Coney Island whilst avoiding the other gangs and police. Walter Hill directs the film, and 1979 would prove to be a year of great success for him, with him producing the science-fiction classic Alien before releasing The Warriors, which has a strong cult following. Some critics who viewed the film unfavourably upon its initial release have since changed their minds, and have praised it for the reasons that I have enjoyed since my first time seeing it: memorable characters, quotable dialogue and superb visuals.

The film's plot is mainly geared towards having an abundance of set-pieces. The Warriors encounter one gang after another which results in all manner of action. Thankfully, Hill allows the audience to connect with each member of the Warriors by establishing their personalities and role within the gang. Leading the perilous journey back home is Swan (Michael Beck). Although quiet by nature, Swan quickly proves himself to be a worthy leader when facing competition for the position from the hot-headed Ajax (James Remar). Despite Ajax having a greater physical presence, Swan's intellect makes him the clear stand-out. With each set-piece, we learn more about the other members, particularly when they are separated after a police chase. With the intense situations the Warriors are put through, I almost end up forgetting that they are a gang, and so I sympathise with them more as we learn more about them. One of the best examples of this is after Rembrandt (Marcelino Sanchez), Cochise (David Harris) and Vermin (Terry Michos) narrowly avoiding being assassinated by female gang the Lizzies. Rembrandt is injured during the escape, despite him being the more sensible of the three. Cochise and Vermin were more interested in flirting with the women rather than considering the threat they may pose. This scene demonstrates the harshness of the lives of the gang, and further stacks the odds against them in their pursuit of safety.

But it's not just the character's personalities that makes them so memorable, The Warriors has very quotable dialogue. Two lines in particular have gone on to be recognised: "Can you dig it?" as spoken by Cyrus (Roger Hill), the leader of the biggest gang in New York, the Gramercy Riffs. The line is used many times during Cyrus' speech to the other gangs, and the gangs respond with rapturous applause. A clear demonstration of Cyrus' influence. The other most popular line is said by primary antagonist Luther (David Patrick Kelly), leader of a gang known as the Rogues. Luther is responsible for killing Cyrus and is the one that frames the Warriors for the act. In an attempt to bait the Warriors out, Luther confirms just how unhinged he is: clicking glass bottles together with his fingers whilst mockingly chanting "Warriors, come out to play!" in an increasingly high-pitched voice. One of my favourite moments of dialogue comes when Swan is talking to Mercy (Deborah Van Valkenburgh), the film's love interest, about her life as a prostitute. We get a sense of how depressing their lives are through their attempts to antagonise one another: "Why don't you just tie a mattress to your back?". Mercy's response to Swan's cold suggestion is simply telling him that some nights are better than others, confirming Swan's assumption that she doesn't really care for who she sleeps with.  A great scene that explores the emotional struggles of the characters.

The atmosphere is terrific, and that's largely down to the visuals and soundtrack. The opening shot of the Wonder Wheel with the eerie keyboard music accompaniment makes for an unsettling mood, perfectly setting the tone for the rest of the film. With so many gangs featured, The Warriors has a tough task in making each one look different so as not to confuse the audience. They get around that by having each gang's clothing feature their name and logo. I'm not sure if any real gangs would sport some of the wacky attire we see here, but it makes for a cool visual. My personal favourites are the Baseball Furies, which draw inspiration from the rock band Kiss. They are involved in a great chase scene, which culminates in one of the best lines ever spoken, as said by Ajax: "I'll shove that bat up your ass and turn you into a popsicle". 

With so many positives, all of which executed with slick direction from Walter Hill, it isn't hard to see why The Warriors has become one of the biggest cult hits ever made, and its popularity has sustained since its release. There's been a video game adaptation (which is fantastic) and even a proposed remake set in Los Angeles. All of this is testament to the power this film has, and it's a film that I never tire of watching.

Pros:
+ Memorable dialogue, with a good mix of cheesy and brilliant (see the above examples).
+ Solid character development despite thin plot.
+ Atmospheric visuals and soundtrack.
+ The fight vs. the Punks. It's so good it deserves its own spot on the list of pros.

Cons:
- One unexplained plot point involving a gang member who saw who shot Cyrus. It makes little sense considering the person who sees Luther commit the act gets killed off part way through the film.