This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Overrated

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Western films were very popular in early American cinema because of actors like John Wayne. But as the decades came and passed, the popularity of the western began to decline. One of the last memorable westerns from the olden days was this film, 1969's The Wild Bunch. It has received ecstatic reviews and it has been praised for its realism and its themes. The violence portrayed in the film was, and remains controversial. From this era, it's my understanding this is one of the most violent films you'll see. As for myself, I respect the film very much especially when it comes to the realism aspects and the gritty performances. I actually disliked the film on my first viewing, but my second viewing changed my mind rather drastically. Still far from a perfect film, but I understand why people called this film a classic and I found myself really warming up to it after my second viewing.The themes are very interesting and I believe these themes that affects everyone, old and young. It's about a clash of old versus the new. The setting of the film is right after the turn of the 20th century in the years leading up to the first World War. The wild bunch aka the main outlaw gang are old, worn out, and ready for retirement. Times are changing and it's not all about the horses and the guns anymore. Technology is beginning to be pivotal at this point in America. One of the bunch remarks after seeing a car, "they're gonna use them in the war, they say." Because of changing times, new generations come into play. In the very opening scene, we see the bunch passing a group of children playing with scorpions and eye contact is made between the leader, Pike and one of the children. I think that is important because it sets up the last few scenes of the movie. In a sense, the passing of the torch from the older to newer generation. I thought these are very powerful scenes and the film uses them very well.One of the controversial things about the film is the use of the violence. The violence gives the movie its sense of realism. Director Sam Peckinpah meant to use the violence as an allegory to the Vietnam War, in which Americans were seeing on their television sets every night. Peckinpah wanted to show that violence was awful, and not a pleasant thing to witness. Most western films glorified the violence and made it bloodless. But Peckinpah's vision was different. Such gun battles were common on the American frontier, and they were extremely bloody. The last act of the film makes a fine example of that statement when Pike's gang decides to take on a Mexican village whom kidnapped one of their members. So be forewarned, the film does not shy away from it's violence.This outlaw gang led by Pike (William Holden) is on the brink of retirement. They know their time is up and its up to a new generation to take over. They plan on doing one last score before they settle down. However one of their own is kidnapped by the Mexicans and although the group knows it is a suicide attempt, they decide to possibly do their last hurrah by staging a rescue mission. I think the plot was pretty good, and once again the themes are prevalent throughout this story. They ain't young men anymore.The performances are very effective from everyone, but its the three leads who steal the thunder. William Holden is an amazing actor and I felt he was perfectly cast as Pike. He brought good leadership qualities to his character. He is a man who knows when it is time to move on. His first mate, in a sense, was played by Ernest Borgnine. He also delivers a quality performance as Butch. I also loved the performance of Robert Ryan, the former gang member turned bounty hunter who is charged with bringing Pike to justice. I loved seeing the dynamics of Ryan's character who was a former friend of Pike and is now going after him.There are two giant violent action set pieces-once in the beginning and once at the end. While I think the action itself was done well, I didn't like the treatment of civilians, especially during the first one during a failed bank robbery. There was a mighty gun battle with Ryan's character, Deke on a rooftop shooting down at Pike's gang in the bank, but with no regard to the civilians. I mean the man is on the side of the law, so I was bewildered by that. But it's not really a major issue. The second part is pretty much a "blaze of glory" act. I won't give what happens here away, but rest assured there are many, many bullets used in this sequence.The Wild Bunch is a good western and it was mostly a fun if somewhat grueling watch. The violence can be hard to watch sometimes, especially during that final gun battle. Peckinpah wanted realism, and well he got it. He said his mission was to show people the feeling of being gunned down, and I did get that feeling a few times. The film is not a light movie. It's about betrayal, violence, and the realization that your time is up. The movie does not shy away from its messages and it will hit you hard. I loved the realism of the movie, which many older Westerns are devoid of. Peckinpah's screenplay does serve the film justice and so does the look of it. I often got the feeling I was out there amongst the sand with the people in the movie. The movie is not for the light-hearted, so consider yourself warned.My Grade: B

Oh boy. I've read about how great this movie is since I was a kid. In books, in magazines' lists for the best westerns, or the best movies of all time. I've never ever read something remotely bad about it. And I've never imagined that when I got to watch it, I would be the one to say something bad about it (actually, it's "some things" !).First off, what a trivial script. I read that this was the ultimate elegy about the old west's end. OK, that itself is an elegy about the honesty of whoever wrote it ! The movie's plot summary on IMDb says : "An aging group of outlaws look for a last big score as the traditional American West is disappearing around them". Now that meaning is embodied in that line more than it is in the movie ! We have no character development, or characters. What we have is : a Mexican revolutionary wannabe, a man who had a fling with a married woman someday, a fat man who is called the Dutchman, and a Mexican general with inexplicably sad eyes. They don't talk much, and when they do, no valuable thing is uttered. Plus, every time the leads laugh, I don't get it. And they laugh a lot throughout the movie. These moments could have been classic, touching, or just funny. Though it ended up as incomprehensible ! Speaking of which, I didn't get why the whole Mexican village went to bid farewell to the American thieves ? How a gang member complains continually about its leadership, then forgets that utterly later ?! Why nobody moved when the Mexican general is killed ? Why William Holden character killed the German leader ? And how the gang's oldest member survived while he was left alone, seriously injured, in the middle of the desert ?? The odd moments are many. At one, 2 of the gang members follow a girl in a Mexican village, while their leader jokes about the child's part in the man. Clearly the 2 men were sexually frenetic over the girl ! At another, a gang member tries to detonate his fellow while the latter is about to excrete. What's the meaning of that ?! Is that they're crazy ?? We know that since the start. Was is a relief moment ?? It wasn't played that way !! And then, a recruited Mexican child looks extremely respectful to the Mexican general. Is it about false gods ?, the infancy of whoever believes in a dictator ?? What was the meaning of it ??!! Robert Ryan's character is the worst conflict's part I've seen. He doesn't make a thing for all the time, being more of a laughingstock, and – worse – presented in a massively serious way !And I got enough when the leads had THE WALK to save their Mexican fellow. Well, 4 men against 2 hundreds isn't heroism inasmuch as stupidity. And if it was made like they have a death wish, since their world was falling apart, then it wasn't built well, or at all. Btw, they were about to kill that same guy themselves after the first robbery gone sour (they did kill one of them already while the escape of that robbery !). So when some critics babble about the movie's so-called "strong thematic standpoint about friendship, betrayal, and self-destruction", you have to ask "Where is that ?". Nevertheless, I have to admit that the movie's drama "destructed itself" indeed ! I recall another critic saying "It has legendary actors in legendary roles". OK, where are those roles for god's sake ?! Nobody can evaluate acting in a movie that didn't care of making any characters ! This movie cared of 3 things only. Firstly, smashing the legend of the decent west, which was established in all the previous westerns done while The Motion Picture Production Code (1930 – 1968). Simply the past's bank robbers were super violent, whore-loving, and foul-mouthed; meaning a lot of on-screen violence, nudity, and swearing. However, ask yourself what was director Sam Peckinpah's true goal when he showed us bare breasts and an orgy ? If it's realism, then why didn't he – with greater reason – showed us CHARACTERS ?! So when violence, nudity, and swearing are all the realism you have, with the absence of drama too, then it's degenerated commercialism masquerading as art. And it's what gradually ate up Hollywood movies, of all genres, since 1968, till they became cheap exploitation, and pornography with a story !Secondly, the editing. It's a wild, rather crazy, insurrection towards the old school of Hollywood, assuring a new age, with new generation, that has new snappy pace. And thirdly, the visuals, which were beautiful and grand. Though Peckinpah had a zoom-in fetish, immersing the movie with hundreds of it. So with all of these aspects, 143 minutes running time, and huge bloody sequence as a climax—the movie looks epic, but the thing is it doesn't feel epic.I admired the moment of Holden character while he couldn't ride his horse, and then did it with pain and pride. It represents, single-handedly, the movie's doleful heart. Plus moments like when Ryan couldn't kill Holden, and Holden greeted Ryan sarcastically; they seem like splinters of a potential drama which was exploded by the movie's devoted frenzy. And the train robbery sequence, it's the only perfect thing here.The Wild Bunch is a cool western but not meaningful, being a good example for style over substance. It can be a pioneer among the mindless violent movies, not one of the best movies ever. And the worst thing about it is that how critics inflated it from a bit stylistic commercial movie about a gang, to artsy thought-provoking film about the end of an age !

"You've got 30 days to get Pike or 30 days back to Yuma, you're my judas goat Mr. Thornton."Sam Peckinpah's classic 1969 Revisionist-Western "The Wild Bunch" is a true masterpiece of film-making and has long ranked as one of the all-time best films of the genre (and I don't even like Westerns, much) and nearly 50 years since it's release, it has aged remarkably well. I find this movie to be beautiful in many ways and I'll tell you why..... part of me is actually hoping that you'll disagree with me.Peckinpah assembled the perfect cast for this picture, a partial list being: William Holden, Ernest Borgnine, Robert Ryan, Warren Oates, Edmund O'Brien, Ben Johnson, Albert Dekker and Bo Hopkins all of which (with the exception of Hopkins) were seasoned actors and terrifically effective in their respective roles. Filmed almost entirely on location in the deserts of Mexico, the movie comes across as a very gritty one, "earthy" you might say. Sam Peckinpah, ever the colorful one, reportedly (and quite backhandedly I'm sure) cast actual Mexican whores to be in his movie and it's just those types of touches that lends a certain authenticity to this marvelously well-realized film; an authenticity that many Westerns often tend to lack. Set in the year 1913 or so, the so-called Wild West was soon to be at an end and The Wild Bunch depicts all of that on a grand and epic scale. In addition to that, it's plot also happens to be intertwined with the Mexican Revolution - with extremely colorful results. And on that note my fellow gringo's - beware the dastardly Mapache! Beware the general's wrath and deceit.Epic in every sense and clocking in at well over two hours, this film boasts several spectacularly-staged action sequences (that were truly pioneering in their day) of which most, if not all, involve "guys on horses" all taking turns shooting at each other. Nothing remotely inventive or original about that, but in terms of the filming and editing of the action, it was cutting-edge for it's time and has proved to be highly influential for many film-makers thereafter. In short The Wild Bunch is a beautifully filmed and intricately edited piece of cinema that artfully depicts a gritty, violent world filled with desperado's on horseback, out raisin' hell, drinking whiskey, "bedding down with whores" and all other sinfully salacious clichés of the Wild West. Throughout the course of the film you'll witness many betwixt events, always rife with violence and/or treachery, continuously unfolding, seamlessly forming together to create a unique and striking film.Of particular note is the movie's beginning and ending, as it opens and closes with some amazingly vivid action set pieces, that again for their time where "something new" and pioneering in their day. "The Battle of the Bloody Porch" is what you're treated to as the films blood-drenched finale and it's ultimate climax: The Bunch, surrounded in the general's fortress, with the odd's being: 5 vs 200. The level of blood-soaked mayhem that "Bloody Sam" and company achieved in this exceptionally lurid sequence - simply set it apart from anything that had come before it. Shot by no fewer than six camera's, all moving at different frame-rate's, the battle of the bloody porch strikes it's viewers with a hellish fury of hot lead, geysers of blood, explosions and bombast, splintering wood and hot shrapnel and very much in the heat combat - a lot of YELLING..... which eventually grows deathly silent. Indeed, Sam Peckinpah and his crew brought this climatic scene to life with a superlative level excellence and excitement, though that pretty much sums up the movie as a whole. Special mention of the performances of William Holden and Ernest Borgnine must be made, they are the leaders of The Bunch and it's largely because of their great acting that the movie, as violent and as turbulent as it is, always seems to keep on an even keel, this is chiefly due to their unfailing leadership and level-headedness no matter how heated the situation may get. And I'm pretty comfortable in assuming that The Wild Bunch is easily the best film either Holden or Borgenine were ever involved with. Western's simply don't get any more colorful (that word is ever apt when describing The Wild Bunch) and entertaining than this and despite being nearly two and half hours long, that doesn't seem to hinder it's replay value in the least.Met with highly mixed reviews upon it's initial release in the summer of 1969, apparently to a very gentile crowd, back when viewers weren't yet calloused and desensitized to rampant on-screen violence. One gets the sense that The Wild Bunch has still, as of yet, to reach the level of universal praise and appreciation it definitely deserves. That being said this remarkable film has been a part of the Nation Film Registry since 1999, so evidently more than a few of us dig it. Plaudit's must be lauded to the The Bunch!In conclusion: A brilliant western and almost as good as Serio Leone's Man With No Name series, almost; ultimately I think the key reason WHY it's only "almost as good" is simply this film lacks that Eastwoodian bad-ass-ness. It's scary to think how awesome Eastwood and Peckinpah could have been together, but it never happened.

Yawn... It was a struggle to sit through this film - two and a half hours of nothing. The shootout is about as exciting as it gets, and even then it is incredibly dull and uninteresting.I honestly can't understand the 'classic' label that this Western has seemingly earned. I confess that I'm not a great fan of Westerns, but the others I've seen have at least been somewhat engaging - this one was just plain boring.Some people may love this sort of film, but it just wasn't my cup of tea. I could have watched paint dry for two and a half hours and found it just as interesting.