User reviews

In Arizona, after twenty-one years in prison, Wilson (Robert Foster) is released at the same time as Lee Marvin (Richard Roundtree) and while driving back home, they have a conversation about their future plans. Lee is absolutely regenerated while Wilson plots revenge against the despicable criminal Mackey (Robert Loggia), who framed him and was the responsible for his conviction. Wilson invites Lee and Mackey to heist a bank and raise money. Meanwhile, a group of young smalltime crooks plan the heist of the same bank to raise money for drugs, booze and women, and the clumsy Connor (Christopher Clark) becomes a serious threat for his friends with his shotgun.

The pretentious and boring "Wild Seven" has the intention to be a cult-movie or at least cool, but the work of the director completely fails. The result is a confused movie that goes nowhere, with awful screenplay and direction where the true intention of the revenge of Wilson is never clearly disclosed; the motivation of the youngsters is also obscure and the characters are terribly developed. In the end, watching this film was a complete waste of time. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Os 7 Selvagens" ("The Wild Seven")

I just picked this up on a whim at the local video rental shop, somewhat because I've had some good luck with indie flicks lately (He Was A Quiet Man, being the most recent). Wild Seven started out promising. Some nice scenery. A just released con, fresh out of prison and looking for revenge on his old partner in crime who set him up for a couple of decades. A group of wannabe bank robber kids. What could go wrong?

The first signal that something was wrong came when the newly released con (Forster) turns out to be about as menacing as a cream puff. The ex-partner (Loggia) is equally non-threatening, despite carrying and constantly displaying a gold plated Desert Eagle.

Flash forward (after some boring pointless setup, some of which made no sense whatsoever) to the (anti-)climactic bank robbery where everyone meets up by accident.

At this point, enough time had been wasted that I had to see if the movie could redeem itself even just a little bit. But no. It wasn't to be.

The movie ends abruptly, as if they ran out of money and/or ideas. In short, a pointless wasted of film. 3 out of 10 is being generous.

ya see this is what happens when you are too influenced by a director's style which is just out of your league. OK we get it, you like Tarantino, nothing wrong with that, but when you quite clearly don't have the writing skill that he has and none of your friends who you cast in the movie bother to tell you your material is sub par, well that's when stinkers like this piece of junk get made into actual movies that waste people's time and money, and when you waste people's time and money then that's when you get people feeling compelled to write and warn everyone that your work is rubbish, well shot rubbish with reasonable sound etc but content wise, annoyingly bad.

What made you rush your ability? Why'd you bite off way more than you could chew, and who green lite this stinker? truth is there is some craft in your movie, but none of it has to do with story or content, which is so overwhelmingly bad and so obviously derivative at a level well below those of the people you emulate that it kinda makes me angry.

what a waste of time. stay well clear.

Don't know who compares this movie to Tarantino, get a grip.This movie is a pile of crap.No humour, always waiting for something to happen but never happens.I like dark movies, example sin city or Tarantino style movies but this ain't nothing compared to sin city or Tarantino movies.Don't get me wrong the actor do their best and they fulfil their roles,storyline is hardly convincing and you guess what going to happen before the end of the movie.So there you are waiting for something explosive to happen in the end but it never happen, so much build up for nothing.

Movie is crap, don't bother watching and waste your time on it.1 out of 10 and thats because i feel generous.

Don't watch it. No plot , nothing... just horrible. I know this comment doesn't help ... but im very frustrated at the waste of time this movie is. The whole movie you are waiting for something to happen... but even at the end nothing does... also there are some unexplained things in the middle that come out of nowhere and have no reason to be in the film. The plot would be judged as confused if there was one , the characters have no motivation or reason to do what they do , everything in the movie is a (very) boring mystery that never gets explained or cleared or even hinted at what it was...

All in all .. the film "wants" to be different or something but doesn't accomplish anything.

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

In desperate need of a plot line to do them justice.

Art is worth nothing when you leave your customers feeling short-changed.

I thought the 3 older leads where well chosen and had the laid-back cool that in the hands of a better director could have made a cult movie. As it was there were too many scenes that made little or no sense and felt forced upon the viewer in order to get to the climax.

I can't help but feel that somewhere on the cutting room floor lies an excellent film that would leave the audience talking about it around the water-cooler, unfortunately one that is destined never to see the light of day.

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 perhaps one of the worst films I've had the misfortune to see all year. Tarantino knockoffs are a dime a dozen but this is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel. Decent performances from b-movie stalwarts Loggia and Forster are quickly overshadowed by hackneyed, clichéd dialog from a writer/director who clearly has no vision or talent. The film is paced with very pretty time lapse photography of the Arizona dessert which I imagine is supposed to invoke some kind of looming dread but instead comes off as some cloying device to extend the duration of the film. The abrupt ending is some attempt at a clever twist but ends up leaving the viewer with the bitter realization that they have wasted the past 90 minutes. I'm astonished that this film is rated so highly on this website.

Just saw this movie as the closer at the LA Film Festival. What a waste of good talent - Robert Loggia, Richard Roundtree and Robert Forster, that is.

A few funny lines, not much of a plot, and overacting on the younger generation actors. Felt very indulgent. Could have really made good use of the wonderful trio of Loggia, Roundtree and Forster. Instead, it was a bunch of clichés without much payoff.

Don't bother with this film. Instead rent "Jackie Brown", "The Cooler", "Matchstick Men' or "Diamond Men" for some wonderful character development, and have some fun.

I would give this film a 2 or a 3, but since the votes are stacked in the positive range, I figured I would give a 1 to help balance it out.

I came in with an open mind, and knew nothing of the ratings when I watched this movie. I enjoyed it, for the first third of the movie. The cinematography was good, and the cast/plot seemed to be well thought out, until...

I realized they weren't. After awhile, the vague and intriguing plot didn't pan out. It seemed like it was setting up to go somewhere, then never left the driveway. The actors and their relationships felt like they had potential, and I really wanted to enjoy them, but found I couldn't. All of the interactions between the under 30's were stale, lifeless, and forced. When was the last time you saw a group of guys who drink, hang out in bachelor apartments, and frequent topless bars (receiving a lap dance or two) say something like "hey man, when are you going to realize you can't treat women like that. Life is full circle man, that (dehumanizing women) is going to come back and bite you." Ouch. Once I realized how bad the interplay was between the characters, I couldn't stop noticing it.

Also, I was reading into the plot and analyzing it throughout the whole movie more than I realized I needed to. The plot seemed open ended, and I kept pondering where it was headed and what the connections were. I actually thought, for most of it, that the younger friends were flashbacks of the older men, or symbolic at least of how their history panned out to make the older men who they were. I would have found that more interesting than what actually occurred... which was just two mildly interesting sub-plots (to no actual plot) taking place in parallel.

Finally, the ending felt like it may have saved the movie, but it in fact killed it. I realize the writer was trying to cut it slightly short and leave it open-ended and up for the viewer to decide what happened, a "lady and the tiger" storyline... but I actually have no idea what happened at the end. It was cut so short, that I was left clueless as to what happened... and frankly, it took me about 3 minutes after the cut to black to stop caring. I'm trying to think of an analogy to the lady and the tiger here. Perhaps, if after the hero was in front of the two doors, trying to make his decision, we see him begin to quote Hamlet, and the princess pulls out a pistol and asks her father if it is loaded, then casually rests the pistol against her temple, then the story "fades to black," then we hear a pistol shot, Hamlet misquoted , and the sounds of a tiger in heat. Basically, after the story ends, you have no idea what happens. That is what I'm trying to convey with the analogy.

While I really wanted to enjoy this movie, and maybe even keep it on the back shelf of my DVD collection, I really can't. The character interactions and the plot make it a large failure. Wes Anderson's "Bottle Rocket" is one of my favorite movies because of it's off-beat characters, but "Wild Seven" feels like a failed attempt to recreate the dynamic cast from "Bottle Rocket" other "group of friends" based movies.

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!

This is a low budget heist-revenge movie that makes several clumsy nods to Tarantino and pulp fiction and comes up WAY short on style, acting quality, plot and special effects. This is very much like watching a student film in several parts, with very poor and unbelievable scenes throughout. The Tarantino associations people make about this film are only in the context that this imbecile director tries and fails miserably to be in this genre.

There are no women in this film- which makes it a tedious eye sore as well. The plot is simple, the execution mainly linear, the acting is from sub-par to painfully pathetic.

PLOT: a guy gets out of prison and damages a few friends and family's lives by trying to hatch a bank robbery/revenge plot against an old nemesis. Bad editing, poor acting and stale plot ensue- with no women to see either.

Instead of this trash go see Killing Zoe, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Employee of the Month, True Romance.

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.

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?"