Before I start my review I need to complain a little first. I hate it when people talk during a movie that I am really trying to watch. I also hate it when people get a phone call and answer the phone but don't leave the room. Now, with both of these little pet peeves, I was about to yell at my dad when I was watching this weeks movie, The Wild Bunch, and he was on the phone and decided to sit down and watch the movie while still on the phone. Really dad, really!? Anywho... I knew next to nothing about this film before I watched it other then previews made for movies in the 60s are very different then previews now. I did know that no matter what that this movie had to be better then The Philadelphia Story (and yes I will keep using this as the standard of bad movies until I watch a worse AFI movie) so I was excited for that.
Now this movie really helped change the landscape of film making. For its time it used revolutionary techniques such as multi-angle editing and using normal and slow motion. This was interesting to learn since for me techniques like those have always been part of the action movies I watch, so to think of how audiences must have felt when they saw these techniques must have been awesome (why doesn't awful mean to be full of awe?). Also this movie was controversial for being graphically violent. Meaning this movie let us have this:
The graphic violence in The Wild Bunch is nothing compared to movies like Kill Bill or Saving Private Ryan, but to be that movie to really push the graphic violence envelope I can see how this movie earned its way to being a big part of American cinema history. This film was nominated for two academy awards for Best Original Score and Best Screenplay.
According to the internet we can see that The Wild Bunch got the following reviews:
IMDB= 8.1 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes (Critic Rating)= 97%
Rotten Tomatoes (Audience Rating)= 89%
We can see here that this movie seems to vary in its ratings. We have one rating which gives it a vary high 97% while another rating gives it almost a 7 out of 10 (for those who don't know math that would be a score in the 70-79% range).
Now its the time you have all been waiting for, my opinion. This movie seems to have lots of characters all sort of forming different sides in this crazy Western. First we have the Mexicans, who were hard to understand, mainly cause all they did was speak Spanish. What ever happened to making everyone no matter their nationality speak English so the audience can understand? Anyways, the Mexicans were just a big pile of racial stereotypes. They sorta reminded me of drunk versions of this:
Then we have the bad guys? Okay I have been curious about this issue for a while now. When the main characters in a movie are outlaws are they still the good guys? For example in Ocean's 11 are they good guys? If they are the good guys does that make the people who are out to stop them the bad guys? If so this means its possible to have our good guys to be criminals and our bad guys to be cops. I guess we will chalk it up to perspective. So in this movie (according to our perspective) the bad guys are funny. There weren't much a point to a few of the characters other then to be obstacles for the "good guys" but I was entertained by them. The main bad guy was an interesting character but I did have a hard time telling him apart from the main good guy in some scenes. I guess I have to admit a weakness of mine... in old movies I have a hard telling main characters apart from one another because I feel that they all sort of look a like. So, now lets talk about the "good guys". Fist up we have an old crazy drunk man who is awesome, though it does seem that every Western needs an old crazy drunk guys who just looks gross and laughs the whole time. Next we have Angel the token Mexican "good guy". He isn't a walking stereotypes like the other Mexicans in this film but that's all I can say about him. I don't really like him or dislike him:
Then we have this duo of friends who seem to do everything together. They are always getting drunk, causing trouble, and just being entertaining. They were very funny to watch and just made being an outlaw to seem like it was a blast, they even sorta reminded me of pirates from Pirates of the Caribbean. Earnest Borgnine plays the main "good guys" right hand man and he is fantastic. I really liked this character. Then we have the main character of the film played by William Holden. He was a decent character but a little to unemotional for me to really get behind. I enjoyed the other "good guy" characters more then him. Overall the acting was decent and I am getting used to the idea that acting styles have changed over time so I guess I am learning that though sometimes the acing can seem cheesy doesn't mean its bad it just means that old movies are cheesy.
#1: Being a bad guy/outlaw is awesome.
#2: I don't think I would last long in the Old West (too dirty).
#3: Cowboys don't drink mixed drinks (I wonder when those became popular).
#4: Racism is funny.
#5: Chin straps are really meant to be worn on the chin.
The stunts in this movie were great but I did begin to wonder... can horses swim? If not there was a lot of animal cruelty in the making of this film. Also how do they do stunts with animals without the animals getting hurt? Also the gun fights in this movie were awesome and crazy though I couldn't help to this of this
every time there was a gun fight. The sound dubbing was horrible at points in this movie but the music I enjoyed and really helped adding to the enjoyment of the film.
In conclusion, I felt this was a good movie but could be better. The fact this movie broke new ground in both its styling and violence and gore is the reason this film made the AFI Top 100, because I do not think the story itself was good enough. I give this movie a C-.
No comments:
Post a Comment