Uomini selvaggi

The Wild Rovers had a lot of potential, but it needed someone versed in the western genre to make it come together. That it didn't have with Blake Edwards.

Edwards certainly was eager enough in this assignment. Watching the film you can see some touches of Ford, of Peckinpah, even of guys like Lesley Selander and William Witney who directed hundreds of B westerns back in the day. But it's like a copy of a masterpiece.

William Holden and Ryan O'Neal a pair of knockabout cowboys who up and decide one day that they're tired of breaking their backs for the local Ponderosa owner, Karl Malden. They decide to rob James Olson's bank and leave the territory with a fresh stake for a new start.

Karl Malden is not just comparative to Ben Cartwright in the immense size of his property. He's a most upright individual who feels that the robbery of the bank where it's mostly his money inside is a blot on the character of his establishment. He charges his two sons Joe Don Baker and Tom Skerritt with bringing back Holden and O'Neal alive or dead.

There's a subplot going on involving a range war with Karl Malden battling some sheepherders who want to invade his domain. The two parts of the story are not well knitted together. In fact, I'm not sure it was necessary to begin with.

On the plus side Holden and O'Neal have a nice chemistry between them, in fact there's a bit of a hint of homosexuality between them. The camera work is fine, but it's more than a homage to Sam Peckinpah.

Blake Edwards should stick to comedies. In fact he directed Holden in his last film, S.O.B., and that one is more in his element and it's a classic. That's the collaboration I strongly recommend.

This is not a film about which you hear a great deal, which is a shame because it is one of the most enjoyable westerns I have seen for a long time. I think the problem lies in the fact that it tries to be too many different things and cover too many bases. It is funny, but not as funny as BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID; it is elegaic, but not as elegaic as PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID; it is violent, but not as violent as THE WILD BUNCH; and it is beautiful, but not as beautiful as JEREMIAH JOHNSON.

It may sound odd but the film it most resembles, in as much as it combines all these elements, is THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT. We have a mismatched pairing of a wise man and a headstrong youth who combine to pull off a major robbery. They are pursued relentlessly by an almost psychotic adversary. They meet a tragic end. This may sound like high praise and indeed it should because this is a fine movie and I never thought I'd say that about a Blake Edwards movie.

There are moments within this film which you rarely get in a run of the mill western. For instance I never see a western which deals so well with the equivocal relationship between a cowboy and animals. This film is full of them: sheep, cows, horses, mules, cougars, cats and dogs. And not just in passing either. All the best westerns have a snowbound sequence but not many of them combine it with a horse-breaking scene, as this movie does to breathtaking effect.

I saw WILD ROVERS when it first came out - in the early 70s. It had been butchered by the powers that be at MGM. Still there was a lot to recommend the western: William Holden at his post-WILD BUNCH grizzled best, Jerry Goldsmith's classic, Copelandesque score that somehow manages to be lyrical, evocative but not a bit cloying (learn something, James Horner and Hans Zimmer), and the stunning cinematography. I saw it again in the late 80s restored to its original length (on a double bill with the restored PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID, also butchered by MGM in the early 70s). I found more to like about the movie: the unexpected spurts of humor, the observations of the connectedness between cowboy and animal life, and Blake Edward's staging of the scenes of violence - he never does the same thing twice, and the barroom shootout is an object lesson in blocking and editing. (If there is any complaint one can level against Clint Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN was how uninterestingly the action scenes were staged.) Anyway, I just caught WILD ROVERS again on HD.Net Movies during 4th of July weekend, and its virtues have actually grown with age. And it looks gorgeous on a 16:9 Hi-Def screen. Give it a few more years and it might attain classic status.

I was very surprised when I saw that "Wild Rovers" was written and directed by Blake Edwards. Edwards is more known for his comedies and occasional dramas...not westerns. Was he up to the task? Well, considering what sort of film it is, having a non-western writer/director is actually a very good thing!

Why would I say this? Because "Wild Rovers" is a totally deconstructed view of cowboys. Instead of the usual macho theatrics you see in a western, this one is much more like the lives of REAL cowboys....their dull and somewhat pointless lives. In the film, the guys work hard, get paid little, visit prostitutes, fight because they are bored, puke, and die young...like a real cowboy of the era. There's nothing romanticized about the men in this film and, if anything, they are a bit sad and pitiful.

In the story, two of these drifting cow punchers, Ross and Frank (William Holden and Ryan O'Neal) begin to question their lives and their futures. To escape this, they consider robbing a bank. After all, better to die this way than to die on the job. But if they follow through with their plan, it's pretty certain that it won't be easy and some folks will come gunning for them.

In order to maintain the realistic style of the film, Edwards does not rush the film at all. Instead, it's slow and deliberate. Additionally, the cinematography often helps to convey a sense of loneliness--with wide screen shots of the lonely prairie. It's lovely...but stark. This could make for a dull film (like "Heaven's Gate") but the writer/director seemed to maintain the proper balance of dullness, scope and the story itself.

So is it any good? Well, it's difficult to judge based on the IMDB reviews. They run the gamut...from those hating it, the indifferent as well as those who think it's a masterpiece. As for me, I really appreciated "Wild Rovers" because I used to be an American History teacher...and know Edwards' view of the west is far more realistic than 99% of the movies in this genre. Thoroughly exciting? No...but neither was life in the old west. Overall, very well made and well worth seeing provided you have an open mind and don't demand the usual western cliches and plot twists.

Skip it – There are a lot of positives that make this a unique western that's worth a watch. There's good dialogue, a rousing musical score, beautiful cinematography, and a great acting job by William Holden. Unfortunately, this is more of a buddy movie than a good old-fashioned western. I've even heard some comparisons drawn to "Brokeback Mountain," although I personally would disagree. The story is about two ranch hands who decide on a whim to rob a bank, and the chain of events that unfold as a result. It is part "Sundowners" and part "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid." The two men are an unlikely pair, but they become close friends as a result of their desperate situation. The first half of the movie feels like a comedy. The second half gets a lot better, with a couple gunfights and some Peckinpah-esque slow motion violence. Unfortunately, this western is too long and just too sluggish to keep an action buff entertained. But I believe that it is good enough to be considered a classic. 2 action rating