Wild Bill

I was excited when this film was first announced, because I've always been fascinated with the character of Wild Bill Hickok. But the movie is a disaster. It is presented as a historical account of Hickok's life, and it is completely inaccurate. I can see embellishing the truth a bit for a movie, but it was just done totally wrong in this movie. The only good thing about it is that Jeff Bridges looked almost exactly like the real Wild Bill...

Historians may scoff, but Walter Hill's "Wild Bill" is an absorbing and intriguing western with elegiac overtures yet much of the emphasis placed on the battles. Jeff Bridges does a fine job as scruffy, mangy, weathered James Butler Hickok in the 1870s Midwest, getting into brutal fights while doing nothing more than standing at a bar (John Hurt's narration tells us, "Being 'Wild' Bill was in itself a profession."). Ellen Barkin plays Calamity Jane like a lovestruck toughie who clucks behind Hickok, waiting for a commitment; David Arquette is Jack McCall, a young man defending the honor of his mother, whom Hickok loved and left. Occasionally, director Hill hits a stumbling block (there's an inconsequential bit with Keith Carradine as Buffalo Bill Cody which disconnects the mood, and also a black-and-white flashback filmed in high-contrast where Hickok attempts to talk sensibly with a no-nonsense Indian tribe). Still, the hand and gun bouts are fully charged with adrenaline, and there's a genuine feel for these sad, meandering people that recalls strong sections from other westerns, particularly "McCabe and Mrs. Miller". A bumpy film, but not a bad one at all. **1/2 from ****

Wild Bill (1995)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

Wild Bill Hickok (Jeff Bridges) comes into Deadwood where he meets up with his old flame Calamity Jane (Ellen Barkin) and has a pesky young kid (David Arquette) threatening to kill him. While staying at Deadwood, Hickok begins to feel that his questionable past is starting to haunt him.

Walter Hill's WILD BILL pretty much took a beating when it was originally released. The critics ripped it apart and movie goers pretty much stayed away turning it into one of the year's biggest bombs. I avoided watching the film due to its reputation but I finally got around to the movie and I must admit that I found it to be incredibly entertaining on a number of levels.

I think what I enjoyed most was the style of the storytelling. The film starts off like a greatest hits package as we get several small scenes showing some of the more notorious moments from Hickok's life. I really loved how Hill made this work as we basically get to see what made the man a legend and then we get to the current story of him struggling with his past while at the same time having to deal with this young man who wants to kill him.

Not only does the story work extremely well but we're also given a terrific cast. Bridges is downright terrific in the lead role and I must say that he's a lot better here than he was in TRUE GRIT. In fact, you could make the argument that this contains some of the actor's greatest moments on the screen, which is saying a lot. Barkin is also extremely good in her role of the love interest and Arquette is also good in his part. We've also got a great supporting cast including Bruce Dern, Keith Carradine, Diane Lane, Christina Applegate, James Gammon and John Hurt.

As you'd expect from a Hill movie, WILD BILL is well-made and contains some great style and especially when it comes to the violence. The shoot outs are handled extremely well and they are so well-filmed that you can't help but get caught up with them. The personal story of Bill and his demons also work extremely well. I'm really not sure why WILD BILL was such a disaster at the box office and with critics but the film is certainly worth watching.

The Wild West grew out of myth and partially true folklore. Hollywood grew for the same reasons. Put the two together to construct a story about the last days of Wild Bill and what do you get? Well…you get something that's exciting, brutal, nasty and short – and very little of it truthful.

Walter Hill is one of Tinsel Town's better producer/directors, no question; and his experience at producing great thrillers (like the Alien series) serves him (and the viewer) well. Because this is a thrilling tale: of a man who was in fact a legend in his own time (like Buffalo Bill, Billy the Kid, Butch Cassidy and many others), and of a man who obviously didn't relate too well with people in general. Maybe Wild Bill thought that he'd been dealt a raw deal from day one? Who knows...?

And that's the upside of this narrative as well as its Achilles Heel – because if you read the history of Wild Bill, you'll find that most of this film is pure fiction. Trouble is, most of what you read about Wild Bill is pure fiction, also. And the sources I researched admit it: nobody knows the real truth about how Wild Bill died EXCEPT he did die while playing poker in a saloon. Beyond that, all else, it appears, is up for grabs – which means that any writer/producer can develop a story that provides a reasonable probability of what might have happened.

So, don't pay any heed to reality in this film, beyond the very detailed settings, props, costumes, accents, language – the general mise-en-scene. The story, some of which is told in flashback, is generally fast-paced, with the possible exception of when Bill visits the Chinese opium dens in Deadwood for some light relief, shall I say? But, those episodes also give the director/cinematography the opportunity to play around with camera angles, shimmering scenes, and such like.

What I particularly liked about this movie were the scenes of mid-nineteenth century small towns across USA. Those images compare very well with genuine photos I've seen of that time, particularly those of Deadwood. So, hats off to the production team for those flawless settings, arguably the best I've seen on film to date. In fact, this film is worth seeing for that alone.

In contrast, there's a major error that is just unforgivable, considering the overall standard of the production: in the final battle scene between Wild Bill and five tough bounty hunters, Bill shoots them all dead with his two revolvers, both of which looked like 1858 or 1861 Remingtons. Those guns are six-shooters. In the gun battle, Wild Bill shoots at least sixteen shots, and maybe eighteen, all without reloading! Don't worry – I checked it by counting those shots, again and again, while going through the battle slowly. What a shame that goof wasn't caught before the film was released...

However, the cast is great, particularly Jeff Bridges and John Hurt (as the fictional character, Charley Prince, invented for narrative purposes), both of whom are ably supported by Ellen Barkin as Calamity Jane and David Arquette as Jack McCall. Jeff Bridges must be highlighted for special mention: his costumes and general manner look stunningly true to life when compared with real photos of that long dead gunfighter.

As a piece of history, forget it. As rip-snorting entertainment, go see it, especially if you love the Western genre. Highly recommended.

Most reviews seem to look at this through the prism of "Deadwood," which seems unfair as the elongated TV format allows for far more character development. So to point out that the characters in "Wild Bill" aren't as-- well, you get the picture. Viewed alone, the movie deserves praise for performance, set design, a sense of period dialogue and historical accuracy in visual recreations. Yes, WB really did wear Navy Colts backwards, cavalry-style, in a red sash; yes, he did have greasy lanks of hair and wear a big floppy hat, a thick tie and a vest that didn't match his jacket which didn't match his pants. And for about an hour, I think the movie is pretty amusing. But when it sinks into Deadwood over its last hour, it appears to use too much of the stagey dialogue of one of its sources, a play by someone named Thomas Babe. At this point, it pretty much abandons history which is bad enough, but also cinematic fluency, of which Hill is a master: it becomes static, talky, dreary, and completely loses its momentum. And someone--Babe?--made the decision to give the McCall-Hickcock dynamic an Oedipal overtone--he's the "son" of a woman once loved , then abandoned, by Hickcock. This is an attempt at coherency, to bring the murder into some sort of classic framework. Yeah, swell, however: McCall was much older, a buffalo hunter who'd lost dough to Wild Bill the night before. He didn't stand for the abused son, he stood for the randomness of frontier violence, where booze, pride, stupidity and a culture of pointless aggression could easily spell an ambush murder like McCall's. THAT, to me, would not only have been more accurate, but more fluent and a better movie.