Saturday, July 26, 2008

1990: Bronx Warriors (1982)

In 1990, the New York government has given up on the Bronx. What order there is, is kept by the gangs now controlling the area. The prime force among them are the "Tigers", led by The Ogre (Fred Williamson), properly identifiable through their fashionable way of wearing classic pimp style clothing while driving around in hot rods. Below them on the ladder of success are the "Riders", clad in classic post-apocalyptic biker style, which would be much more convincing if their leader wasn't Trash (Mark Gregory) he of the Hairy Metal mop, the model looks and the negative acting chops. Of course, Trash is our designated hero.

Other pillars of the Bronx community are the "Zombies", name-defyingly sporting a combined roller-skater/hockey theme and the "Scavengers", a bunch of mad people best described as sociopathic and hebephrenic mimes.

The not always harmonious co-existence of these slightly improbable groups ends when Trash saves Ann (Stefania Girolami; daughter of the director and only slightly more talented than Gregory) from the dubious attentions of the Zombies' leader Golan (George Eastman in a very minor role). Little does he know that "his girl" is the heiress of the biggest weapon producing company in the world, whose owners will pay the sadistic cop Hammer (Vic Morrow) a lot of money if he brings them back their living property.

The man goes about it in a unique way - he has a dream you know. A dream of letting the Bronx burn so that he will never be forgotten.

Another post-apocalyptic nonsense-action piece by the great Enzo G. Castellari, The Bronx Warriors (which steals in equal measures from Escape from New York and The Warriors) lacks some of the charms of Warriors of the Wasteland aka The New Barbarians. Dardano Sachetti's script delivers his usual mixture of boredom, weird ideas and disinterest in the basics of time and space, while director of photography Salvati has not as many interesting sights to show as in his work with Lucio Fulci.

This doesn't mean there is nothing of interest to see here: Some of the action scenes are suitably outrageous (although nothing comes even close to Warriors), the gangs of New York are strange enough to be entertaining and the friend of ruined buildings will find many an interesting sight.

It's just a little disappointing that the plot never gets enough traction to make one forget the silliness of the proceedings. The remarkably bad performances our male and female leads deliver do not help the movie at all - whenever Trash opens his mouth one cannot help but wish for his slow and painful death. Or at least for the hitting and bleeding to start again.

But seeing a pimp-tastic Fred Williamson fighting with a cane sword is something I'm glad I didn't miss.

 

4 comments:

Todd said...

To say that something lacks the "charms" of Warriors of the Wasteland is a stroke of cold-hearted brilliance.

I'm afraid I'll have to check this one out eventually. I've been on a bit of a Fred Williamson kick lately. Last week I discovered that watching Hell Up In Harlem with Larry Cohen's commentary track is just about the most enjoyable viewing experiences ever, including lots of instances of him going "Boy, I really wish I'd cut this part out".

houseinrlyeh aka Denis said...

Oh, it's not that bad. You have definitely seen worse (and less entertaining) with Williamson (whose scenery-chewing distracts nicely from hated Mark Gregory. There's just not enough of him.

I love Warriors of the Wasteland. Williamson's Disco Robin Hood outfit symbolizes Italian post-apocalypse films perfectly. ;)

And here I always thought Hell up in Harlem was the perfect movie...

Todd said...

Oh, I didn't say that I don't enjoy Warriors of the Wasteland. I treasure the $1 DVD I bought of it and will never part with it. It's just that, in our shared lexicon, the word "charm" seems to have undergone a mutation as radical as -- judging by an earlier post of yours -- the term "mature" has in the gaming community. ;)

houseinrlyeh aka Denis said...

You're probably right. I suppose that's what linguists mean when they're talking about "living, breathing language". ;)