Wild Seven

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 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.

This is a good independent movie. It has an ensemble cast of young actors paired with some actors who have a combined acting experience of 100 years. I love seeing Rober Forster, and Richard Roundtree is a really good actor he just gets a lot of crappy work. He is real good in this movie playing a reformed criminal. The music is good and it is a interesting story.I might have given this movie a higher rating but one of the younger actors bothered me and I had some question still at the end. Thatbeing said I enjoyed the film and would recommend it to people. If the director needs an idea for his next movie he should make one about how the Boston Red Sox mopped up the Yankees then went on to win the world series in 04, I will bet that that movie would win an Oscar. Derek Jeter, A-Rod, Stupid Jason Giambi suck. Go Sox's and we will be bringing home another championship!

This was a cool film. It is guerrilla indy film making and I just love those movies. I was wondering how much it cost for the CG scorpion and some other effects in the movie such as the time lapse shots in the desert. It is really well done with how they stretched the budget their is a lot of locations and effects and a lot of actors. Did the older actors take a pay cut for the movie? The movie does not go in chronological order so I wasn't sure if some key scenes were cut out or not, but there are still some holes that were never filled. Was the movie really filmed in Arizona? This movie is a good time and it seems a little slow in the beginning, but once it picks up it is pretty good. And for a movie with a low budget it has great special effects.