"Next year, "The Warriors'" strange story will get another chapter with Tony Scott's new film version set in Los Angeles (how Scott can pull it off without subways will be interesting to see)."

The absence of subways in LA will come as a big surprise to the millions who ride the four Metro Rail lines every year, and have done so since the first contemporary line was completed fifteen years ago. With routes as long as 22 miles, hundreds of cars, and dozens of stations from Long Beach to the Valley, there's no shortage of story opportunities for the new film. The one drawback, admittedly, is that it's almost -- but not -- a 24-hour service; that will be as big a drag for the film as it is for us ex-New Yorker Angelenos who'd like to leave our cars at home every once in a while on a weekend night.

At the risk of belittling an otherwise enjoyable read (and Barra is so right about Beck and Van Valkenburgh, in particular), why does it always seem okay for everyone to get LA wrong? I'm not really complaining, though. If everyone knew what this city was really like, it would soon have enough of an influx of people to turn it into all the things I left NYC to escape.

As someone who was a 13-year-old reprobate when The Warriors came out, I've been fascinated with the anticipation regarding the DVD release. There's no doubt the movie has a much higher Q-rating now than when it was first released, so much so that the DVD and video game have acheived the status of marketing "event".

Presumably, the critics circa 1979 would be aghast at this development. Of course, film criticism (and access to media in general) was restricted to the gilded set back in those days -- little wonder they didn't get it. They (Kael, as usual, aside) missed the connection that Hill's little film made with disaffected youth of modest means and limited opportunity.

See, I think the gangs were "kicking against" something, and that something was a glass ceiling so low that most of them couldn't get enough leverage to break it (not even with a baseball bat). This point was driven home in the scene where Swan and Mercy are on the subway, and two young couples fresh from their prom sit across from them. At first, the quartet is jovial and wisecracking, but as they become aware of the stares from the kids from across the track, they fall silent, then contemplative, then almost ashamed. There's no fear of violence in the scene, just a mutual acknowledgement that the difference in their status, while likely permanent, is merely an accident of birth. It's extraordinary.

Allen Barra's article took me back to 9th grade, when I saw "The Warriors" on (I'm not making this up) a first date. We weren't old enough to drive, so my date's brother reluctantly ferried us back and forth. It was not your typical first date fare, though we did get a lot of mileage out of the chant, "Warriors, come out and plaaaaayy!" We went back to his house afterwards to find ourselves locked out. I was the only one small enough to fit through the window, so there I was in my tight pants and platform Candies trying not to look awkward while breaking into his parents' house.

I can't tell you if "The Warriors" is a good movie, but it will always play a big part in my memory.

I also saw "Scanners" on a first date, but that is a letter for another day... (Who were these boys I was dating?)

Allen Barra wrote: "The appeal of the film, I think, is that it dumps the sociopolitical baggage of the lives of street gangs and the conditions that produce them. Yurick meant for the title of his book to be taken ironically; Hill's movie takes the title literally. Hill really has no interest in the psychology of street gangs."

This isn't correct according to Waltewr Hill. In the featurettes included with the DVD, Hill says at first he wanted to make a realistic gang film and that it was the suits at Paramount who didn't want to follow the novel, where the main characters are Latino and African American. It was then that HIll made the decision to go the comic book route.

And the "The Warriors" is no guilty pleasure. Hill's "Streets Of Fire" is a guilty pleasure.

Thanks to Allen Barra for spotlighting this genuine action classic. The movie is all about one thing: Kicking ass. What I really dug about the movie was the fact that, by the end, you realize these guys from Coney Island really are the toughest hombres in the city. Even the Riffs acknowledge them.

I have no doubt that Tony Scott will brutally botch the remake, and I think his decision to use LA as the setting is grossly irresponsible considering the VERY real and persistent gang problems in that city. He could have set it in Boston, Philly, Chicago, anywhere but the street gang capitol of the nation.

Of the many memorable scenes, lines and characters in this immortal film - without question the last scene on the beach and Joe Walsh's chords and voice to "In The City," "Somewhere out on that horizon...." is what set it in stone. Damn, that movie takes you home like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz.

I've been hearing about this film since it first came out, and never seen it. Now this review has piqued my curiosity, and I'll finally be checking out the DVD to see what all the excitement's about.

But an aside to David Taylor's comment above about LA. Dude, I live here too, and let's face it - the Metro is NOT a subway. It's an aboveground rail line, nothing at all like the subways of New York. Just because they pull into enclosed stations doesn't make them the same thing. And they definitely do not have the same legendary vibe. Don't let the temptation to fall into the East-West defensiveness get away with you. LA is LA, and NY is NY. The differences are not a liability.