Wild Seven

I would have to say ironically Wild Seven is worthy of just that, a 7 out of 10. It is a Tarintino inspired western that pits A father, his son, his son's low-life friends, and a retired criminal against a a crazy racist crook. I thought the movie spent too much time on the younger generation when it should of focused more on the relationship between Forster, and Roundtree. And even the relationship between Forster and his son played by James Hausler. There were some stories and scenes that were truly clever and fun. The opening scene with Forster and Roundtree's initial meeting, A trip to a Arizona ghetto to purchase illegal firearms, and then a very comical scene in a gun store for the purchase of ammo and teddy bears. I thought that certain time lapse shots became overused and Loggia's performance was all over the place. Either he would play it down or go way over the top. It is nice to see a young director be so influenced by older movies and taking chances. I would recommend to this movie solely to people who are fans of old spaghetti westerns and dark comedies. Wild Seven is a solid 7

Whew, the movie started out pretty interesting but rapidly became down right brooding. Lots of holes are left in the story making you wonder just what the hell happened and why. Acting in the movie was pretty decent and shots were pretty cool, minus the director's repeated attempt at seizing the frame; i.e., always having a close-up shot of someone looking indirectly at the camera for no apparent reason... overdone.

Other than the weak story and poor execution, the lighting in the film was good, acting (for the most part) was pretty decent, and sound was so so. I'd have to align this film more with Kalifornia or Lock, Stock, and Two-Smoking Barrels than to Pulp Fiction. Pulp Fiction actually brought all stories together eventually and it made sense, this was more of a simple "bank robbery gone bad" with some dumb acting added to *flesh the story out*.

Stick with it if you can, but don't look for any answers at the end as there aren't any. The movie is quite slow during places, so this is a decent film to have on while multi-tasking other things... you won't miss anything and it'll save you the boredom of the slow, slow, slow, parts. Not a wild ride.

Had been really excited about seeing this at the LA Film Festival. Other festival films had been excellent. This one really disappointed. And the audience also thought so...

Mostly at a festival screening, the audience of movie buffs applaud at the ending, and stay through to the end of the credits. For this bomb, there was no applause, just a puzzled sigh of relief when it finished, and the audience bolted like they do in a multiplex - the theater was practically empty by the time the credits finished rolling.

It had the feeling of a high school play, written and performed by a high school drama group, with the exception of the three seasoned actors who did a valiant job to breathe some life into the narrow characters they had been saddled with, with way too many unnecessary lines.

Too many characters, that were lightweight or had non-existent back stories. The "sunrise- sunset" device was way overused and became tedious. Dialog and editing was way too loose with many pauses that served no purpose. Doubt if there was much on the cutting room floor, as there were many scenes in there that did nothing to advance the story or give more depth to the characters.

Half the dialog consisted of a group of unexplained twenty-somethings getting drunk and accusing each other of gayness. This alone could been edited to trim 20 minutes from the overly long film. Script did not reflect a great depth or breadth of life experience, and often came across as corny.

A few good moments - the father and son scene in the convenience store, the smartass getting smacked in the face, and some of the acting by the older actors, particularly Loggia, whose angry and credible racism made me genuinely uncomfortable.

But the ending did not deliver any real emotional payoff, and any chance of plot payoff was lost long before the ending finally arrived.

And the main credits - cute device, but quickly became as tedious as a child who won't stop asking the question "Why?" over and over.

Which leads me to my final question on this movie, "Why?"

Man-I would just like to say to the director of this film: DON'T LISTEN TO ALL THOSE WHINY CRITICS! I mean, "Matchstick Men" as a recommendation? Please. Listen: this is obviously a young filmmaker and an impressive feat for one of his first movies. The guy had the wherewithal to pull it off and utilize some amazing, overlooked talent. The setting is gorgeous, there are incisive bits of off-color humour, and, despite the comparisons to Tarantino, the writing is pretty original. And so what if something reflects Tarantino? He's one of the greatest and most popular directors of our time! Isn't most art derivative? Tarantino obviously contributed to the culture in which this young director was raised. Give him a break! Frankly (at the LA festival), I was captivated and refreshed by the young talents that are part of this movie.

I really enjoyed this movie! I love the old school actors that were chosen for this movie! Like Richard Roundtree aka the original shaft... can you dig it! I loved him from his 70's role as the hardcore mac daddy and he did a good job in this movie! I also liked Robert Loggia! Heis a pimp! I loved him as Tom Hanks boss in big and his role in independence day.. my favorite movie! I felt that Loggia did a good acting job as well in this movie! He played a great crazy old man! Anyhow.. I felt the director did a good job with the camera angles and his style is very unique and fresh! I would recommend this movie to all!