Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: cigar joe on July 12, 2004, 05:02:37 AM



Title: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on July 12, 2004, 05:02:37 AM
I've been very flush lately so continuing my binge buying I picked up the directors cut  DVD of "The Wild Bunch" it was contemporary to Leone's films. Upon viewing it again I found it a very good western and would recomend it to the board its probably Peckinpah's masterpiece. It doesn't lack in any department except maybe for the score which is forgetable. It reminded me of "A Bullet for the General" and I wonder if this had any influence on Peckinpah.

Peckinpah did a great job and it was a good story, its probably one of the greatest Hollywood westerns made that borrowed Leone's anti-hero theme. It doesn't have Leone's surrealistic style but it used slow motion cuts in the action which were innovated in this movie. It was a big budget western with some great set pieces, got it all trains, bridges blowing up, machineguns, pick it up if you can.

If I remember at the time it was said that Leone's violent westerns opened the door for Peckinpah to make this, anybody remember this.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Frank on July 12, 2004, 10:56:56 AM
I saw the Wild Bunch when it came out, one of my favorite movies.  When the movie premiered, the level of violence in this film caused a great stir, especially the spurtting blood.   In contrast the contemporary Hollywood Western (1970?) still had gun fights where the bad guy falls in the street with no real blood.   Even Spagetti Westerns including OUATW were light on bloodshed.

The critical reaction though seemed to condem the bloodshed, even if hailing its greater realism.

Although Bonnie and Clyde was the first in my memory to use slo mo death scenes, there was a difference between its use as the peak of the movie and the almost immediate "ballet of death" present in Wild Bunch.  

At the film's 20th or 25th anniversary (I'm thinking 20th so 1990) the film was re-released in limited markets.   Atlantic Monthly had a great article on the film and its impact when it was made.   They particularily commented on the opening robbery shoot out, and how as the credits played out , William Holden tells his low level robbers:  "If anybody moves:  Shoot 'em."   The frame freezes and Directed by Sam Peckingpaugh rolls by. ( The article called this the strongest opening film statement ever.)

I think this movie is under appreciated on this forum, thanks for bringing it up.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: DJIMBO on July 12, 2004, 01:07:49 PM
i think the wild bunch is a very good film and peckinpah is great but i resent the american idea that Peckinpah reinvented the Western, which is clearly not true. Leone reinvented the Western from some developments made by Ford and a few others, Peckinpah just built on Leone's films. Typical of some americans' attitude to ignore leone's massive influence, ive read a peckinpah book where there is no mention of leone at all.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Frank on July 12, 2004, 05:42:00 PM
Djimbo,

At the time of Wild Bunch and for many years following I would say that most Americans did not know of Leone - the spagetti westerns were known as Eastwood vehicles.

But in Peck's defense, Wild Bunch is very much its own film.  The slo-mo wholesale blood shed you have to give to Peckinpaugh, I don't know that Leone really had that.  As to the heros being outcasts, and the so called good guys being compromised characters, Wild Bunch was a late 60s film building on the developement of these characters in American films such as Bonnie and Clyde (as much an influence for Peck as Leone) or even the Graduate.

I think it is clear Peck took the whole Mexican Revolution theme from Spagetti Westerns, but I would argue the rest was his own film.

Now don't get me wrong, I think Leone was among if not the best director of all time, but I am not sure that Peck has been more influential on following American cinema  than has Leone.   Peck's violence is still with us, where as Leone's pacing is pretty much lost and I don't see his innovative camera work showing up, mainly because no one seems to be as talented as he.   On the otherhand, I would say Leone was more groundbreaking than Peckinpaugh when viewing cinema before each director.

You are right that a discussion of the Widl Bunch should involve Lenone and Spagetti Westerns,  it is a shame that it didn't.  But give Americans a break, with the long history that is Hollywood and the high technical quality of its best films, international cinema never gets its proper due -- it is viewed as a niche product at best and most of it doesn't get seen outside of critics.   A lot of Leone's audience in the US came from the US actors he employed.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on July 12, 2004, 10:00:01 PM
I agree with what you say Frank, I know also where Djimbo is comming from. I was flipping throught my copy of "The Life and Times of the Western Movie" 1983 by Jay Hyams and he has exactly the the attitude that Djimbo is talking about.

Here is a little of Hyams on GBU....

The dense iconography and fetishism of Leone's previous two films reach their peak in this film..... the anarchy of war means freedom, but it also means that moral judgements - even such simple ones as "good," "bad," "ugly" - become meaningless.

Before the arival of Leone, romanticism was on its way out of westerns and graphic violence was on its way in, but Leone managed to rearrange the essential ingredients of the western film in a way that, perhaps unfortunately, made sense. Westerns were already headed in the direction of that place "where life had no value"; Leone and the music and soundeffects of Morricone helped make that wasteland seem like a reasonable substitute for the real West.

Now Hyams on the Wild Bunch:

The Wild Bunch, one of the most inportant westerns ever made and one of the most important American Films ever made, provides a connection with The Great Train Robbery, another film told from the point of view of the robbers. In that first western, the wounded villans dramatically clutch their bodies and fall to the ground dead; in the Wild Bunch, they remain standing long past all reasonable belief, and the screen is doused with blood. It took a long time to kill the last bad guys-it took even longer to chase them down. The chase that began in the New Jersy woods in 1903 ended across the Mexican border in 1969, where it wasn't the good guys who finally "got 'em." It was the future well armed with modern weapons and a helpful disinterest in individual men. The westerns of the 70's inherited no bad guys to chase and no good guys to do the chasing. The violence of The Wild Bunch became, in the hands of other men, anger, the filmakers anger at the audience for believing in (or putting up with) the western myth. Many filmakers during the seventies seemed to be saying, "Maybe there never were any heros, neither good guys nor bad guys. Maybe we should look again at all those stories and see how evil everyone really was."


And now the test of time twenty years later after those words were written, Leone's GBU is standing tall, on not the violence which by todays standards is hardly worth a mention but on the story, the style, the Morricone music, and the unforgetable acting of Eli Wallach.

The interaction between Tuco and everyone else in GBU is more believable than the friendship portrayed among Pikes outlaw gang who seem to just drink, laugh and whore about, though Peckinpah does include flashbacks to explain some of the backstory (these scenes were cut in the theatrical release).



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Leonardo on August 02, 2004, 01:22:23 PM
Apart from Leone's movies, which are of course on top of my all time favourites (OUTITW being THE movie!), I also like "The wild bunch" a lot.
Does anyone know whether there is a Special or Collector DVD of this movie for sale (for Europe)? If so, what are the extras? Quality?
Thanks guys. :)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: UNKNOWN GRAVE on August 02, 2004, 03:18:51 PM
Here is the release info:

While not special editions they were cleaned up, PQ is amazing for a 1960's movie. And the sound is 5.1
It was remastered as part of the 25th anniversary Director's Cut.
It is a flipper and does flip at a weird time but it is a rather long movie.  There is also a r4 release but R1 and 2 seem to be the same. I have the R1 release and it was one of the best remasters of an older movie until OUATITW which was amazingly done.
ENJOY!!!

 R1 America - (Warner Bros Home Entertainment) Extras:Production notes
Theatrical trailer
Documentary Wild Bunch: An Album in Montage, The (1996)
Cast & crew filmographies and biographies
Subtitles:English, Spanish, and FrenchPicture format:2.35:1 Non-Anamorphic NTSC Soundtrack(s):English Dolby Digital 5.1
Case type:Snapper CaseNotes:This disc is a old flipper disc!

 R2 United Kingdom - (Warner Bros Home Entertainment) Extras:Theatrical trailer
Documentary: An Album in Montage
Cast & crew filmographies and biographiesSubtitles:English, French and SpanishPicture format:2.35:1 Anamorphic PAL Soundtrack(s):English Dolby Digital 5.1Case type:Snapper CaseNotes:This is a old flipper disc release!


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Thosefalsenotes on August 02, 2004, 11:43:53 PM
I bought the R1 version you described not two days ago... The flip disc suprised me, as I got a DVD player quite late in the game and I've been spoiled up till now with dual layer discs. Wild Bunch didn't quite live up to my expectations, but the apocalyptic ending was stunning.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Leonardo on August 05, 2004, 03:49:20 AM
Thanks guys, particularly thanks to UKNOWN GRAVE for his detailed reply.
 :) :) :)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: UNKNOWN GRAVE on August 05, 2004, 02:52:01 PM
No problemo...


http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/

This site compares the versions of movies from different regions, just enter the name u are looking for and go through the lists. Lists Easter eggs too.

Here is the link for Once Upon A Time In The West for you to check out to see how detailed the site is...
http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=4219
At the end of the list is a verdict on the best versions and a list of cuts from each release


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Leonardo on August 06, 2004, 05:34:31 AM
Thanks Uknown Grave for the interesting link.
Just ordered the DVD from Amazon UK.
Will see...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Two Kinds of ... on October 27, 2004, 07:17:28 PM
The Wild Bunch is good, but overrated.   The story is a lot like a number of Zapata weterns, and when Borgnine is your second lead, you're in for some rough sledding.  The second act of this movie is endless.  The coolest character in the flick is Robert Ryan's and you barely see him.    Give me all the Leone's over this one.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Film-Junkie Zach on November 16, 2004, 11:51:38 PM
The Wild Bunch is not overrated. Way before The Wild Bunch, When People got shot on film, They clutching their chests.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on November 17, 2004, 04:47:43 AM
I think Shane was the first movie to show what really happens when someone gets shot, Leone took that and ran with it.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: DJIMBO on November 17, 2004, 05:14:31 AM
stylistically theres no doubt that the wild bunch is great, and im not knocking the film and peckinpah as a director, who is obviously great. i just think the themes and cynicism involved owes so much to leone, and people writing about the films dont seem to realise that.

I was sat next to a guy at my uni writing an essay on the use of violence in film and he stated that peckinpah revolutionised the way in which it was used - to me thats bollocks and i had to say to the guy (though obviously not in such language), have you ever seen leone? he hadnt, and that kinda proves my point.  :-\

Students, eh, what do they know?  ;D


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: grandpa_chum on November 17, 2004, 11:00:43 AM
gotta agree with two kinds... decent... but horribly overrated... i wouldn't have it in my top 10 of 60's westerns.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Film-Junkie Zach on November 17, 2004, 12:04:28 PM
The Wild Bunch is the first western to push the envelope.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Two Kinds of ... on November 18, 2004, 01:08:34 PM
The Wild Bunch is the first western to push the envelope.
No, it really wasn't.  And its violence was old hat for the fans of spaghetti westerns when it came out.   It has some cool parts, but it is really overrated and compared to Leone, Sam's got a boring camera.  

As I mentioned above there are two `60's "classics" that are partly screwed by Ernest Borgnine and his ham fisted acting: The Wild Bunch and The Dirty Dozen.    He's a caricture in both.

Further, the diaolg is a big "who cares?" in The Wild Bunch.   It's fine and fun, but a zapata derivitive and I don't like zapata westerns too much.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on November 18, 2004, 05:21:03 PM
I agree with you on Borgnine, I've never really liked him in most films, he does play a good bad guy that you love to hate but not a likeable simpathetic character in the least. Ernest had a bit part in Johnny Guitar too by the way.

I've mentioned before also in a thread that the only way that Sam showed any kind of gang cohesion was by their drinking and their incessant insane laughing, you'd think you were watching a staple Spaghetti Western scene but it goes on and on and on way to long. It was as if he were trying to make the gang likeable I guess. The dialog definitely doesn't do it.



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: grandpa_chum on November 18, 2004, 10:16:08 PM
The Wild Bunch is the first western to push the envelope.

That is possibly the silliest thing i've ever heard uttered on these boards... what envelope did it push? Is that the envelope that spaghetti's and Peckinpah prior to The Wild Bunch had been pushing up and down the western genre... absolute donkey turd is what that statement is... funny thing is i hear it all the time.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Christopher on November 19, 2004, 07:43:56 AM
I consider The Wild Bunch to be my favorite non-Eastwood western. I have the DVD but haven't watched it in some time. Perhaps it's time to do so again.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Belkin on November 19, 2004, 12:20:19 PM
That is possibly the silliest thing i've ever heard uttered on these boards... what envelope did it push? Is that the envelope that spaghetti's and Peckinpah prior to The Wild Bunch had been pushing up and down the western genre... absolute donkey turd is what that statement is... funny thing is i hear it all the time.
With you 100%, granpa chum! IMhumbleO, westerns that "pushed the envelope" include WILLIAM WYLER'S THE WESTERNER (1940); HENRY KING'S THE GUNFIGHTER (1950); GEORGE STEVENS SHANE (1953); JOHN FORD'S WORK and of course LEONE'S! And not forgetting WILLIAM WELLMAN'S unforgetable classic THE OX-BOW INCIDENT (1943). And maybe 50 more! ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Film-Junkie Zach on November 19, 2004, 01:49:09 PM
This is Crap. I'm going to have sex with my girlfriend and Watch Scarface.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: DJIMBO on November 19, 2004, 04:34:57 PM
dont sound bad 2 me, film junkie zach, got scarface, just need a girlfriend lol  :-\


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Two Kinds of ... on November 19, 2004, 07:08:36 PM
Zach, sorry about Grandpa, he's crotchety.  I hope you felt my disagreement was respectful.   If not f**k you and the F**kin' Diaz Brothers!


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Film-Junkie Zach on November 19, 2004, 09:06:26 PM
It's Cool Two Kinds of... I'm not worried about Grandpa, He's fine. I'm just getting tired of Belkin. He's been in my shit ever since I got here


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Two Kinds of ... on November 19, 2004, 10:04:06 PM
I don't know belkin or why he bothers screwing around with font and text colors.  


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: grandpa_chum on November 19, 2004, 10:56:26 PM
It's Cool Two Kinds of... I'm not worried about Grandpa, He's fine. I'm just getting tired of Belkin. He's been in my **** ever since I got here

I'm glad you take my rantings as disrespectful... they aren't meant to be that way... and belkin is on everybodies ass... you get used it... and even learn to enjoy it... haha... just kidding around... actually belkin is one of the few who agree with me once in a while...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: grandpa_chum on November 19, 2004, 10:58:58 PM
I consider The Wild Bunch to be my favorite non-Eastwood western. I have the DVD but haven't watched it in some time. Perhaps it's time to do so again.

I pray to god you've never seen Once Upon A Time In The West...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: KERMIT on November 20, 2004, 01:23:06 AM
That is possibly the silliest thing i've ever heard uttered on these boards... what envelope did it push? Is that the envelope that spaghetti's and Peckinpah prior to The Wild Bunch had been pushing up and down the western genre... absolute donkey turd is what that statement is... funny thing is i hear it all the time.
gramps, could you share your thoughts on early sam ? i.e. his riffle man series, ect.  
 
oh yeah, our back threads have a multitude of sins.  lol, is there no end to our blasphemy ?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Belkin on November 20, 2004, 01:55:03 AM
It's Cool Two Kinds of... I'm not worried about Grandpa, He's fine. I'm just getting tired of Belkin. He's been in my **** ever since I got here
Careful kid, your back teeth are showing! This love affair/fixation/father figure relationship with Mr. Leone is, on the one hand admirable, but on the other, slightly disturbing.
You cannot invite people to comment on the thread you post then jump down their throats because they don’t agree with your point of view. Why, one could almost call that cultural fascism.
People join the LEONE site for different reasons. Some to critique, some to discuss, some to learn, some just for the fun of it…..
Don’t forget, some people on this site have an involvement with SERGIO LEONE that goes beyond his movies and just because you are passionate about the man doesn’t mean you are the only one to appreciate/understand/respect his body of work. And as much as I enjoy your second year film student lists, you would be doing yourself a great service by watching movies that you discover for yourself. There are a lot of em’ out there!
Maybe your angry manner is due to far too many hours in front of a TV screen. Try to get out more. A little fresh air might do you all the good in the world. Don’t worry, the movies won’t disappear…..nor will people’s opinions!



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Belkin on November 20, 2004, 01:58:03 AM
I don't know belkin or why he bothers screwing around with font and text colors.  
 
Because I ain't got no wood to whittle on!
AND BECAUSE.....
I can. Chill  out, sister! ;) :D ;D 8)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Belkin on November 20, 2004, 02:39:21 AM
This is Crap. I'm going to have sex with my girlfriend and Watch Scarface.
Try having sex with Scarface and watching your girlfriend! ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: General Sibley on November 20, 2004, 05:11:35 AM
Such violence - gentlemen, control your killing instincts! (bonus points if you identify which Stooges episode that's from)

Maybe we should do a top 10 list of most annoying posts?  ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Belkin on November 20, 2004, 10:08:05 AM
Such violence - gentlemen, control your killing instincts! (bonus points if you identify which Stooges episode that's from)

Maybe we should do a top 10 list of most annoying posts?  ;)
General, I bow to your temperance.  ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Belkin on November 20, 2004, 10:10:46 AM
PS; Glad to meet a fellow 3 Stooges follower! Wish I could answer the question.....couple of cans of Guinness swallowed and hopefully it will pop into me head! ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on November 20, 2004, 10:53:35 AM
Nuck, Nuck, Nuck!


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Two Kinds of ... on November 20, 2004, 12:48:54 PM
 
Because I ain't got no wood to whittle on!
AND BECAUSE.....
I can. Chill  out, sister! ;) :D ;D 8)
Knock it off, numbskull or you'll get a poke in the map.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Belkin on November 20, 2004, 02:10:08 PM
Knock it off, numbskull or you'll get a poke in the map.
Laughter

I Laugh at Life: its antics make for me a giddy game,
Where only foolish fellows take themselves with solemn aim.
I laugh at pomp and vanity, at riches, rank and pride;
At social inanity, at swagger, swank and side.
At poets, pastry-cooks and kings, at folk sublime and small,
Who fuss about a thousand things that matter not at all;
At those who dream of name and fame, at those who scheme for pelf. . . .
But best of all the laughing game - is laughing at myself.

Some poet chap had labelled man the noblest work of God:
I see myself a charlatan, a humbug and a fraud.
Yea, 'spite of show and shallow wit, and sentimental drool,
I know myself a hypocrite, a coward and a fool.
And though I kick myself with glee profoundly on the pants,
I'm little worse, it seems to me, than other human ants.
For if you probe your private mind, impervious to shame,
Oh, Gentle Reader, you may find you're much about the same.

Then let us mock with ancient mirth this comic, cosmic plan;
The stars are laughing at the earth; God's greatest joke is man.
For laughter is a buckler bright, and scorn a shining spear;
So let us laugh with all our might at folly, fraud and fear.
Yet on our sorry selves be spent our most sardonic glee.
Oh don't pay life a compliment to take is seriously.
For he who can himself despise, be surgeon to the bone,
May win to worth in others' eyes, to wisdom in his own.
 
--- Robert Service
 
A poke in the map? Bring it on, baby! :-*


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Film-Junkie Zach on November 20, 2004, 02:40:50 PM
Try having sex with Scarface and watching your girlfriend! ;)

I already f**king watched Scarface and had sex with my girlfriend. Don't Ever F**king call me Kid. You don't even f**king know me.

and Grandpa Chum, I didn't take offense to your rantings.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Belkin on November 20, 2004, 02:43:24 PM
I already f**king watched Scarface and had sex with my girlfriend. Don't Ever F**king call me Kid. You don't even f**king know me.

and Grandpa Chum, I didn't take offense to your rantings.
Such gutter language, KID! ;D


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: DJIMBO on November 20, 2004, 04:53:56 PM
lol, i go away for a couple of days and it all turns very ugly  ;D


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: grandpa_chum on November 20, 2004, 05:15:21 PM
I've actually never seen the rifleman series... i was talking more about major dundee and ride the high country and what i've heard about his tv show stuff... the two movies are good and i like ride the high country more than the wild bunch... i just don't see anything special in the wild bunch... nothing that pushes any envelopes anyhow... not even for peckinpah as a director... except the fact that he had complete freedom...

oh boy... belkin if this were the west you'd be either full of lead or looking at a dead kid who couldn't cool down


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Belkin on November 20, 2004, 05:44:39 PM
I've actually never seen the rifleman series... i was talking more about major dundee and ride the high country and what i've heard about his tv show stuff... the two movies are good and i like ride the high country more than the wild bunch... i just don't see anything special in the wild bunch... nothing that pushes any envelopes anyhow... not even for peckinpah as a director... except the fact that he had complete freedom...

oh boy... belkin if this were the west you'd be either full of lead or looking at a dead kid who couldn't cool down
Again I have to agree with you Granpa. Major Dundee I love, but to my way of thinking RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY is Pechinpah's masterpiece!
As for.....full of lead or looking at a dead kid who couldn't cool down..... I'm starting to feel like Peck in THE GUNFIGHTER! Time I think, to hang up the guns on that one.....it's getting boring at this stage! ;) Anyhow, tomorrow is another day and THE SCALPHUNTERS is showing in the afternoon. Am gonna kick off ma' boots and ride the untamed west with Burt Lancaster.....that and a plate of beans.....heaven! ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Christopher on November 20, 2004, 08:55:10 PM
I pray to god you've never seen Once Upon A Time In The West...
Yeah, I've seen it. Liked it a lot too.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: grandpa_chum on November 21, 2004, 12:09:53 PM
Just saw "bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia" last night, and i have to say that brings the count to 4 peckinpah films i think are better than the wild bunch... It's just as good as ride the high country as peckinpah's best.

those 4-

The ballad of cable hogue
Major Dundee
Ride the high country
bring me the head of alfredo garcia


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: DJIMBO on November 21, 2004, 03:08:23 PM
another film that i feel similarly to along with the wild bunch is unforgiven. OK, its good, very well put together, but really is it a masterpiece? unforgiven is great in the context of 90s and 00s westerns, which are either quasi-spaghetti rip-offs of leone (eg. rodriguez, tarantino) or downright rubbish, but up there with Leone and Ford?? I dont think so.
 :-X


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Two Kinds of ... on November 21, 2004, 09:50:48 PM
I don't like Unforgiven much, either.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: grandpa_chum on November 21, 2004, 10:07:46 PM
i feel the same way about unforgiven... it's good, and probably deserved best picture... but it's not up there with the great westerns... not even close... is it the best western since 1980... probably... but it's not even the best non-leone directed clint eastwood western, there are even a couple of those that are better.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Belkin on November 22, 2004, 01:31:05 AM
Just saw "bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia" last night, and i have to say that brings the count to 4 peckinpah films i think are better than the wild bunch... It's just as good as ride the high country as peckinpah's best.

those 4-

The ballad of cable hogue
Major Dundee
Ride the high country
bring me the head of alfredo garcia
".....ALFREDO GARCIA", is a movie for some strange reason I always forget about when it comes to PECKINPAH. But anytime I see it again, and have seen it quite a few times, I think of it as an underrated masterpiece!


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: KERMIT on November 22, 2004, 01:52:03 AM



warren oats (to the head of alfredo garcia, rolling around in the car seat) : "al. it wasn't your fault.  i'm sorry."


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: General Sibley on November 23, 2004, 08:39:02 AM
warren oats (to the head of alfredo garcia, rolling around in the car seat) : "al. it wasn't your fault.  i'm sorry."

I think not long after that scene he stops at some roadside cantina for more tequila, and the little girl sees the flies swarming in the car.  "Senor, la moscas - la moscas"  " Yeah, yeah, la moscas - shaddup"

btw Belkin - that Stooges episode is "Disorder in the Court", which ranks up there with "Sing a Song of Six Pants".


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Le Bon on April 30, 2006, 02:02:50 PM
Just thought i would post this in case anyone in UK missed it in the TV listings.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: boardwalk_angel on April 30, 2006, 05:36:54 PM
Just thought i would post this in case anyone in UK missed it in the TV listings.

Does the BBC present films in their proper form?
In the US the Encore Western Channel, for example, was showing "The Wild Bunch" one night. "Hey..great way to spend an evening"..thought I.
As I settled down to watch...the opening & the credits were in Cinemascope...but as soon as 'Directed by Sam Peckinpah' faded...what I was fearing... happened..the picture blew up to  fullscreen and ruined the film.
They do this to most of the movies they show...w/ a few exceptions, now & then.
Just wondering how it is across the pond.



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Leone Admirer on April 30, 2006, 05:40:54 PM
BBC 2 and most network channels over here sadly tend to have a habit of changing scope films to 1.85:1 which is incredibly annoying. But I suppose the UK audience can't live with those black bars  ::) But those who have yet to see this film please check it out. Infact BBC 2 was the first place I saw this fantastic film, I got a rep around my college for constantly talking about this film along with Leone, Ford, Noir etc.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Le Bon on April 30, 2006, 06:55:03 PM
Well looks like the damn snooker overruning has put paid to the WB screening. >:( Its now 12.45 and it was supposed to start at 11.25.

Okay...snookers just finished and they have announced the film is cancelled :'(


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Beebs on July 13, 2006, 09:25:58 PM
I'm sure this has been posted about but I just watched this for the first time so I though I'd tell my views off it.

Great movie. It has now moved itself up on my favorites list. The two brothers are a great pair, Ernest Borgnine has a great performance, and William Holden lives up to his name again. There's no mistake that this is a Peckinpah movie. Everything is very Peckinpahish. The angles and the.. I dont know if there's a name for this... the way he uses slow motion and cuts to different angles and the back to slowmotion of someone falling or dying. Reminded me a lot of his The Getaway with McQueen.



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: The Firecracker on July 13, 2006, 09:36:18 PM
There's no mistake that this is a Peckinpah movie



besides "The Getaway" what other Peckinpah film have you seen that made you think "oh! this is very Peckinpah!" when watching TWB?

also...have you seen the remake of "The Getaway"?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on July 14, 2006, 05:38:17 AM
the name for it is "ballets de mort", I believe.  8)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: grandpa_chum on July 14, 2006, 06:20:46 AM
I love the film, I just wish it would be tanked by critics more... I'm so sick of hearing how revolutionary it was and the claim that it was the first(and most extreme) violent movie simply because it was the first violent mainstream american film, critics don't see anything else so...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Beebs on July 14, 2006, 08:03:25 AM
the name for it is "ballets de mort", I believe.  8)

You mean the name for that slow moving fall and cuts to other angles?

Grandpa, you're right about the violence, a lot of realitstic looking shots, though I've never scene anyone shot, I would guess that's what it would look like: blood and matter spewing out of the exit wound just as the bullet leaves the body.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: The Firecracker on July 14, 2006, 10:25:20 AM
the name for it is "ballets de mort", I believe.  8)

actually I was thinking about the decent 1995 remake with Alec Baldwin (horribly mis-cast in the role of Doc) and Kim Basinger.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 14, 2006, 10:26:21 AM
I love the film, I just wish it would be tanked by critics more... I'm so sick of hearing how revolutionary it was and the claim that it was the first(and most extreme) violent movie simply because it was the first violent mainstream american film, critics don't see anything else so...

I hate the way the critics ALWAYS overlook Leone and say that Peckinpah was the first director to make revolutionary westerns. I like Peckinpah but they give him credit for something Leone did first just because Bloody Sam is American!


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on July 14, 2006, 04:06:21 PM
Yea Beebs "ballets de mort" (ballet of death) for the slomo death shots.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on July 15, 2006, 08:24:03 AM
There isn't a whole lot I can say about TWB. . . amazing cast, stellar direction by Peckinpah, a wonderful screenplay, and some of the best action scenes in any movie ever.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Tim on July 15, 2006, 10:57:57 AM
  Name a western or an action movie made after TWB and you can find influences from Peckinpah's masterpiece.  Speaking of, for those who haven't seen it, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is on TCM this week, Tuesday I think but check their website.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 15, 2006, 11:26:12 AM
There isn't a whole lot I can say about TWB. . .
Your many posts on the film puts the lie to this assertion  ;D


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 15, 2006, 12:27:24 PM
The Wild Bunch has some of the coolest action sequences in any film.

By the way, has anyone noticed that the flashback of Robert Ryan and William Holden in the bordello is very very similar to the flashback in The Great Silence of how Luigi Pistilli lost his thumbs?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on July 15, 2006, 04:32:36 PM
  Name a western or an action movie made after TWB and you can find influences from Peckinpah's masterpiece.  Speaking of, for those who haven't seen it, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is on TCM this week, Tuesday I think but check their website.

What time??  :o I'll have to see that, if it's on when I can watch it.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Beebs on July 15, 2006, 04:38:55 PM
Definitly seeing that one! I hear it's great!

As for our movie, we need a cast.

If you guys really want to carry this out, I'll start a new topic.



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on July 15, 2006, 04:43:39 PM
I checked the TCM website and it's not even listed in their archives. . .  :-\


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 15, 2006, 04:46:34 PM
I checked the TCM website and it's not even listed in their archives. . .  :-\

I tried going on TCM once and I got very little information. I love the channel but don't even bother going to their website.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on July 15, 2006, 04:49:05 PM
Agreed, every time I've tried to post a comment or review of a film there was an "error" that caused its deletion.  I spent about two hours writing a very in-depth review of "Major Dundee", and with one click, it was all gone!  >:(


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: The Peacemaker on July 15, 2006, 04:52:37 PM
Agreed, every time I've tried to post a comment or review of a film there was an "error" that caused its deletion.  I spent about two hours writing a very in-depth review of "Major Dundee", and with one click, it was all gone!  >:(

Major Dundee is a cool movie. I was lucky to see the restored version of it before it came out on DVD at the theater. It's the Film Forum in Manhattan. That's the place where I saw GBU restored edition back in 2003 ( Cigar Joe saw it there too ).


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Leone Admirer on July 15, 2006, 06:19:27 PM
I got to see it as part of the London Film Fest. Enjoyed it but it is a (IMO) flawed movie. I can't defend Wild Bunch enough, wonderful, wonderful film.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Beebs on July 16, 2006, 07:52:30 PM
What's with the begining with the kids and the scorpions and fire ants. Symbolism of something?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: The Firecracker on July 16, 2006, 07:58:22 PM
Agreed, every time I've tried to post a comment or review of a film there was an "error" that caused its deletion.  I spent about two hours writing a very in-depth review of "Major Dundee", and with one click, it was all gone!  >:(

I have tried to do the same. I believe you have to be a member of some sort to write a review on the site.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Tim on July 17, 2006, 12:57:43 AM
  PGABTK is on TCM on Wednesday at 1 AM, that's central time so adjust accordingly for wherever you live. 

 
Quote
What's with the begining with the kids and the scorpions and fire ants. Symbolism of something?

  There's an interesting account of this scene on the DVD commentary.  Emilio Fernandez, Mapache, was telling Peckinpah during filming about this game he used to play while growing up in Mexico.  Put scorpions and ants in a pit and let them go at it.  Naturally, Peckinpah instantly called the studio wanting ants and scorpions.

  On a symbolism level, it's a preview of what's to come for the Wild Bunch, both in the town and at Mapache's villa at the movie's end.  They're the scorpions and the changing world, the ants, are all over them.  Of course, there are other interpretations on how you ask.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on July 17, 2006, 06:07:01 AM
The kids are sadistic monsters?  That seems like a possible explanation.  ;D

Seriously, some have argued the meaning of that scene to be that the old generation of Old West gunfighters kill for professional reasons only, or at least by a code of sorts, whereas the new generation, who will turn into the Prohibition-era gangsters and soldiers of WWII, kills largely as a game, or for fun.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Beebs on July 17, 2006, 08:00:04 AM
The scorpions being the hired guns and the ants being the mobsters?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 17, 2006, 08:47:53 AM
That reading is too schematic for my taste. I prefer to see it the way Groggy does (and, by extention, the "sadistic monsters" tag applies to all of us: we, after all, enjoy watching a movie about creatures killing other creatures).


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Tim on July 17, 2006, 11:27:10 AM
  The thing with the kids is a repeated theme in many Peckinpah movies.  The restored Major Dundee DVD has a shot of two little kids watching Dundee and his patrol returning to Fort Benlin.  PGABTK has kids nearby in the early scene where the chickens are being shot at.  Knowing Peckinpah, there's probably more but I'm drawing a blank.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: grandpa_chum on July 17, 2006, 02:18:28 PM
I hate the way the critics ALWAYS overlook Leone and say that Peckinpah was the first director to make revolutionary westerns. I like Peckinpah but they give him credit for something Leone did first just because Bloody Sam is American!

well I don't know what leone did that peckinpah get's credit for, the only thing I really see peckinpah get credit for that he doesn't deserve is for making the first ultra-violent western... watch django and tell me that the wild bunch blew you away with so much violence... as far as being outright revolutionary with the western, I'd say they are about equal... for instance watch the final showdown of ride the high country and you'll see a lot of what leone became famous for, and you could say the same for peckinpah about leone.

as for the kids thing, there is always the scene in pat garrett and billy the kid(which i think is a better movie than twb) where they are in the town square playing on the noose with the american flag swaying in the wind and ollinger looking on with pride, one of my favorite scenes in cinema, that whole gunning down ollinger scene has a lot of kids in it... there's the kid at the end of pg+btk... there's a violent scene with kids in it in the getaway as well but i don't remember the specifics... they are all over the place... the only movie i think it gets a bit redundant in is a surprise... the wild bunch.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: noodles_leone on July 19, 2006, 10:34:27 AM
Agreed, every time I've tried to post a comment or review of a film there was an "error" that caused its deletion.  I spent about two hours writing a very in-depth review of "Major Dundee", and with one click, it was all gone!  >:(

First Rule of the "review club": you DO use Microsoft Word (or the like) to write your reviews
 ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: noodles_leone on July 19, 2006, 10:39:47 AM
well I don't know what leone did that peckinpah get's credit for, the only thing I really see peckinpah get credit for that he doesn't deserve is for making the first ultra-violent western... watch django and tell me that the wild bunch blew you away with so much violence... as far as being outright revolutionary with the western, I'd say they are about equal... for instance watch the final showdown of ride the high country and you'll see a lot of what leone became famous for, and you could say the same for peckinpah about leone.

as for the kids thing, there is always the scene in pat garrett and billy the kid(which i think is a better movie than twb) where they are in the town square playing on the noose with the american flag swaying in the wind and ollinger looking on with pride, one of my favorite scenes in cinema, that whole gunning down ollinger scene has a lot of kids in it... there's the kid at the end of pg+btk... there's a violent scene with kids in it in the getaway as well but i don't remember the specifics... they are all over the place... the only movie i think it gets a bit redundant in is a surprise... the wild bunch.

Actualy, I think the Wild Bunch is much more violent than Django... Just think  to the briliant opening sequence of TWB (just watched it on my very new DVD ;D)... The use of the editing, the camerawork, the acting ("if they move, kill 'em"), the characters (the bounty hunters are... well... inhuman) and the rythm of the sequence is just.... 8) 8) 8)
 But once again, it may be because of my bad jugment of Django:) The killing in the saloon at the end of The Great Silence is also IMO more violent than anything in Django...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on July 19, 2006, 04:52:07 PM
First Rule of the "review club": you DO use Microsoft Word (or the like) to write your reviews
 ;)

I do have it saved on my computer somewhere, but I tried to submit it at least three times and it failed each time.  So, why bother?  :P


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Leonardo on August 29, 2006, 11:10:57 AM
I own the old Wild Bunch DVD (actually the only movie I own that is split into two discs). Has any of you guys purchased the relatively new two disc SE? If so, are the extras any good? I'm toying with the idea of buying it anyway, just because at last the movie is on one disc only. Just wanted to know about the extras.
Thanks beforehand for your info and/or comments.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Sanjuro on August 29, 2006, 11:22:28 AM
I own the old Wild Bunch DVD (actually the only movie I own that is split into two discs). Has any of you guys purchased the relatively new two disc SE? If so, are the extras any good? I'm toying with the idea of buying it anyway, just because at last the movie is on one disc only. Just wanted to know about the extras.
Thanks beforehand for your info and/or comments.

O yeah, extras are good. Never-before-seen additional scenes and more documentaries. It's a gem. Quality of the feature is better too. So, what are you waiting for?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 29, 2006, 11:37:05 AM
Get the whole Peckinpah box set. It isn't that much more and you get a LOT more for the price. Think of the other movies as the best package of "extras" ever.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: boardwalk_angel on August 29, 2006, 12:23:38 PM
The 2 Disc Special Edition of The Wild Bunch is an absolute corker for special features.

A very entertaining commentary track ...by Peckinpah biographers/experts Nick Redman, Paul Seydor, Garner Simmons, and David Weddle; a Peckinpah trailer gallery...

....a 1996 documentary, "The Wild Bunch: An Album in Montage," thirty-three minutes on location with the cast and crew, that wowed me.

... a two-hour documentary, "Sam Peckinpah's West: Legacy of a Hollywood Renegade," made as a Starz/Encore Channel original special. It covers Peckinpah's life and work through movie clips and comments from fellow filmmakers, critics, authors, relatives, and friends.

...a twenty-three-minute excerpt from the documentary "A Simple Adventure Story: Sam Peckinpah, Mexico, and The Wild Bunch" by Nick Redman, followed by an eight-minute montage of never-before-seen, widescreen outtakes from the "River," "Desert," "Train Robbery," and "Bridge" sequences. ..set to the film’s score.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Leone Admirer on August 29, 2006, 01:31:54 PM
What did you guys think of the two cuts of Par Garret, I still prefer the longer re-release (closest to a directors cut that we have) version then the new version.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: franksgrandson on August 29, 2006, 03:42:42 PM
just got my 2 disc and have penned in the weekend to feast on it.
This is a movie that gives Leone a run for his money


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 29, 2006, 06:07:06 PM
This is a movie that gives Leone a run for his money


 :-\

I dont know...

The Bunch has it's draggy parts...

That Mexican village seista was pretty dern boring.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: boardwalk_angel on August 29, 2006, 07:12:33 PM

That Mexican village seista was pretty dern boring.

The entire scene in the village...Angel's village...culminating in the ride out while being serenaded by the villagers...is a very important part of the film.
I wasn't bored by 1 second in the entire film...this was 1 film..perhaps his only film..where Peckinpah got everything right.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Jill on May 30, 2007, 09:45:17 AM
When they are leaving Angel's village, and the people are giving them flowers, that was stolen by that fat son of a bitch Peter Jackson. When in RotK Faramir and his men are riding out of Minas Tirith to battle, that's the same. But Sam did it much, much better...

I love that guys. They're dirty and cold-blood killers, but they have honour and they know how to die like a Spartan. (300 is a big Peckinpah-stealing with "killing in slow-motion"  ;D)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Man with no dame on May 30, 2007, 05:14:17 PM
The entire scene in the village...Angel's village...culminating in the ride out while being serenaded by the villagers...is a very important part of the film.
I wasn't bored by 1 second in the entire film...this was 1 film..perhaps his only film..where Peckinpah got everything right.
Peckinpah had to get everything right. He had made so many enemies in the studio system, that one more failure would have erased him from Hollywood. After the success of the film, he returned to his lacadaisical style. Unpressured, he was not the auteur!


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 30, 2007, 05:21:57 PM
When they are leaving Angel's village, and the people are giving them flowers, that was stolen by that fat son of a bitch Peter Jackson. When in RotK Faramir and his men are riding out of Minas Tirith to battle, that's the same. But Sam did it much, much better...
Well spotted. Yeah, I wonder if there are enough years left in his life for Jackson to do proper penance for his crimes against Tolkien (to say nothing of Kong)......


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Man with no dame on May 30, 2007, 06:07:51 PM

 :-\

I dont know...

The Bunch has it's draggy parts...

That Mexican village seista was pretty dern boring.
This movie will grow on you, the more you watch it, FC!


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 26, 2007, 11:11:35 PM
HD and Blu-ray just got more attractive: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=65354


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: The Firecracker on July 26, 2007, 11:53:26 PM
HD and Blu-ray just got more attractive: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=65354


GOTHIKA?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 26, 2007, 11:56:16 PM
Uh, no.....


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: The Firecracker on July 26, 2007, 11:57:50 PM
Uh, no.....


Just making sure. I thought you were suffering from a head cold.
You proved me wrong.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 18, 2007, 10:42:00 PM
Beaver's take on the Blu-ray disc: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews32/wild_bunch_blu-ray.htm


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on November 08, 2008, 04:24:13 PM
Watched the dvd. I never liked this very much, could never understand what all the fuss was about. I saw it first time in early '70's, then again on tv: but only now I realized this is just an updated version of M7. With more violence, a less effective cast (I save only Oates: Ryan and Holden are too old for the part) and a barely decent score: and basically all the defects of the older movie. As a Zapata western it can't hold a candle not only to DYS but even to Il mercenario and, maybe, Companeros. And that only because  of the molasses: the idealization of the mexican folk is trying, even worse than in M7. Why this movie is so overrated remains a mystery to me. The 7\10 I give it it's only for the action scenes (but the train heist is better than the one in 5 Men Army?).


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on November 08, 2008, 05:35:35 PM
Watched the dvd. I never liked this very much, could never understand what all the fuss was about. I saw it first time in early '70's, then again on tv: but only now I realized this is just an updated version of M7. With more violence, a less effective cast (I save only Oates: Ryan and Holden are too old for the part) and a barely decent score: and basically all the defects of the older movie. As a Zapata western it can't hold a candle not only to DYS but even to Il mercenario and, maybe, Companeros. And that only because  of the molasses: the idealization of the mexican folk is trying, even worse than in M7. Why this movie is so overrated remains a mystery to me. The 7\10 I give it it's only for the action scenes (but the train heist is better than the one in 5 Men Army?).

Well, let it remain a mystery to you. There's a reason why it's praised so much and that's because it's fantastic. This film arguably contains the greatest ending of all-time. An ending shot so magnificently in detail and edited as perfect as you can get. The film was ahead of it's time. Till this day do you rarely see action sequences shot as great as the sequences in "The Wild Bunch." Also, what makes this film as great as it is, isn't just the action sequences. It's the interaction between the characters in the quietest of moments throughout the film. The dialogue is at times in the film is terrific. I love all these characters. They were developed properly. Peckinpah took his time letting everything come full circle before he gave us the ending of a lifetime. Sam Peckinpah was a master filmmaker, that's for sure. In short, I praise this as a masterpiece. It's easily one of the best films America has to offer.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on November 08, 2008, 08:50:50 PM
Titoli stinks. :P to you, sir.

Here's my IMDB comment from awhile back:

Quote
Pike Bishop (William Holden) is the aging leader of a motley collection of outlaws (Ernest Borgnine, Warren Oates, Ben Johnson, Edmond O'Brien, Jaime Sanchez, Bo Hopkins) who try to pull off one last score in 1913 Texas. But a robbery goes horribly wrong when bounty hunters led by railroad detective Harrigan (Albert Dekker) ambush them, leading to a bloody massacre. The Bunch flees into Mexico, pursued by a posse led by Deke Thornton (Robert Ryan), Pike's ex-partner. The Bunch finds themselves working for bloodthirsty Federale Mapache (Emilio Fernandez), who is trying to suppress Pancho Villa's revolutionaries - but their loyalty is conflicted when Angel (Sanchez) turns out to be a member of an Indian tribe oppressed by Mapache. After robbing a US Army arms shipment, the Bunch allows Angel to take some guns for his tribe - but Angel is captured by Mapache and brutally tortured. Finally, Pike, "tired of being hunted" and sick of himself, leads the gang in a desperate last stand.

"The Wild Bunch" is an American masterpiece. Best-known for revolutionizing big-screen violence, Sam Peckinpah's magnum opus is far more than just a blood-soaked splatter-fest. It's the distillation of Peckinpah's world-view - corruption, moral ambiguity, changing times and men, the horror and glamor of violence, and the complex nature of honor and loyalty. Any misguided critic who views Westerns as outdated popular entertainment needs to watch this film; it has enough character, narrative and thematic depth to put many novels to shame.

Indeed, The Wild Bunch is a cinematic novel. It portrays the theme of doomed men struggling to outlive their time, and the inherent impossibility of doing so. Men like Pike, Dutch, the Gorch Brothers, and Deke Thornton are products of their time - men who are clever and cunning but not particularly intelligent, who live by a Code, and who see violence as a way of life. In this new era, honor and loyalty are irrelevant; Harrigan and his scruffy bounty hunters are concerned only with personal profit, which, as Pike himself admits, "cuts an awful lot of family ties". Even the Bunch's unity is questionable: the surly Gorch Brothers dispute Pike's every move; grouchy old Sykes is a grumbling, cackling liability; and the idealistic Angel traps the Bunch into an unwitting death. Only Dutch remains unremittingly loyal to Pike, but ultimately, they HAVE to stick together in order to stay alive - they simply have no other choice.

Pike Bishop is a fascinating creation, a tragic hero of Shakespearean proportions. He is a man trapped by his own sense of loyalty and honor - "When you side with a man, you stick with him" - but he repeatedly fails to live up to it. He leaves Crazy Lee to die, similarly betrays Sykes, lets Angel be captured by Mapache, and, we later learn, is responsible for Thornton's arrest. In spite of his bluster, he's really a selfish, petty man who's only happy when he's in control (see the train robbery, where Pike is able, albeit briefly, to recapture his youth). He has too many scars, too many betrayals and failures to simply move on; he's a haunted man who knows his time is up, and his attempts to "modernize" his gang are laughable. Ultimately, sick of himself, Pike makes a stand - and ultimately, by sacrificing his gang for Angel, he finally lives up to his code.

Deke Thornton is Pike's mirror image. Thornton was Pike's partner whom he left to be captured. Offered a choice between continued imprisonment and hunting down his old gang ("30 Days to get Pike, or 30 Days back to Yuma"), Thornton chooses the latter; he knows the old days are over, and unlike Pike is willing to change. He, too, is trapped by his own sense of honor; he loathes the greedy, incompetent bounty hunters and longs to join his gang, but he gave Harrigan his word, and cannot break it. This is an agonizing compromise, often explored by Peckinpah; it's interesting to compare Thornton to Tyreen from "Major Dundee", or more pertinently "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" which plays as The Wild Bunch told by Deke Thornton.

One would be remiss if they discussed the film without mentioning the violence. The movie features three scenes of horrifically graphic violence, with squibs and fake blood, rapid parallel editing, and slow motion. The violence isn't nearly as graphic as the spate of action and horror films since, and yet is infinitely more effective; if not actually realistic, its sheer visceral impact makes up for artificiality. Accused by ignorants of glamorizing violence, Peckinpah simply shows violence as it is; repulsive and horrific, but perversely thrilling. If this weren't the case, then why would violent Westerns and action movies be so popular? It's not exactly a subtle statement, but one of immense power; the violence is not gratuitous, but necessary to show a world where violence has become not only commonplace, but impersonal, cold, and acceptable.

The movie features arguably the finest cast assembled for a Western. William Holden gives one of his best performances, using his own persona as a fading star to accentuate Pike's character. Ernest Borgnine's endlessly loyal Dutch and Robert Ryan's compromised Thornton complement Holden perfectly. Albert Dekker and Emilio Fernandez are both hiss-able villains who make it easier to sympathize with our protagonists. The supporting cast includes Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones as bounty hunters, Dub Taylor as a Bible-thumping preacher (was R.G. Armstrong unavailable?), and Bo Hopkins in a memorable bit as Crazy Lee. Only Edmond O'Brien's scenery-chewing as Sykes and Jaime Sanchez's theatrically "mannered" Angel are weak points, but neither is actively bad.

This isn't to mention Lucien Ballard's gorgeous cinematography, or Jerry Fielding's beautiful, poignant score, or the subtle symbolism and supporting characters. The Wild Bunch is, simply put, an American masterpiece, and one of the great films of all time.

10/10


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: The Firecracker on November 08, 2008, 10:00:19 PM
America has to suffer.


Why? because Obama won?


I'm with Titoli on this one (rating and all).
Overrated.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on November 08, 2008, 10:11:57 PM
It's so clever to slightly edit a statement TB made. ::)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on November 09, 2008, 12:55:17 AM

Why? because Obama won?


I'm with Titoli on this one (rating and all).
Overrated.

I think it's about time to grow up FC. Instead of continuing to take shots at me, just resort to acknowledging me all together man. Thanks.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on November 09, 2008, 04:03:27 AM
Among the things that do not work with this, is the characters logic. They (well, mainly Holden) apparently are ruthless bandits who do not have a moment's hesitation to get rid of an impaired comrade, killed like a lame horse. During the bath scene they let us know repeatedly that they couldn't care less about the mexican pard's intentions (BTW, what was he doing among them?). Still they suddenly feel they have to save their suddenly turned revolutionary comrade: why?  But even more inexplicable is the about turn they make after he is killed and revenged and the soldiers offer him a non belligerance treaty. Holden decides instead to continue. In M7 there was at least some kind of justification for this: the 7 had been among the peasants, had started to know them and sympatized and didn't want to let Wallach get the better of them. But here? It seems that Peckinpah had some kind of doubts about the denouément when he lets Holden be shot by one of the girls he is supposed to be saving. But this renders his former decision even more incomprehensible. And what about Ryan? He accepts to turn a traitor not to go back to prison and first thing he does after having solved his problems is to get into troubles again. So why didn't he do this before? I could go on and on with things that do not work but these are the more irksome.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on November 09, 2008, 04:53:34 AM
Well Titoli,
your questions show that you don't understand The Wild Bunch. And if you don't understand it, the film can't work for you.

Holden's decision to help Angel (after he had left Sykes behind not long before), and his decision to go on (which means to die) after he has killed Mapache, that's what the film is all about.

These are not logical decisions, but these are decisions you can feel, but only if you understand the film (and of course only in an uncut version, in the cut versions the film fails to work).
And the tremendeous impact of the whole end (the brothel, the walk, the bloodbath, the aftermath), when all the loose ends flow together, this end can only work for you if you are able to understand. If you don't understand it's only an technically perfect but somehow strange adventure film.

This long end is one of the most powerful emotional experiences you can make in a film.



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on November 09, 2008, 05:51:36 AM
These are not logical decisions, but these are decisions you can feel, but only if you understand the film

So you depend on logic when it suits you and on guts when it doesn't.
But thank you anyway for confirming what I said: that's enough for me.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on November 09, 2008, 06:04:16 AM
I was talking about Pike's decisions, not mine.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on November 09, 2008, 09:29:51 AM
But you talked about the movie too.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on November 09, 2008, 11:53:46 AM
So you depend on logic when it suits you and on guts when it doesn't.


Then I don't exactly understand your answer.

At least, it's no problem not to understand a film. I also have seen many films I don't understand for several reasons, it's not a matter of intellect I'm talking about. In some films we get, in others we don't. And if I don't get in a film, which is the same as saying I don't like a film, then I'm also not much trying to understand this particular film.



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on November 09, 2008, 12:15:57 PM
To understand a movie is different from liking it. Actually, it is because I understand WB that I don't like it (excessively), while apparently, it is because you do not care about understanding it that you like it. To understand is a matter of reason, it can't be otherwise, unless we use two different dictionaries. 


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on November 09, 2008, 12:31:14 PM
Oh, believe me I understand TWB very well, with reason and with feeling.
And I care very much about understanding, but I don't have to understand everything.

And of course, understanding a film does not mean to like a film.

And no, understanding is not always a matter of reason, it's possible to "understand" films without being able to explain them. That's what I meant with feeling a film.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on November 09, 2008, 12:52:02 PM
If you are not able to explain why you like a movie, then you can persuade nobody about having understood it except you. I have no doubt you are profoundly convinced you have WB in the palm of your hand. Only that argument has no value when discussing with others.
And you might even not have "understood" everything (nobody can), but you should be able to reply with solid arguments to whatever opposite view another person may have. You cannot simply say it's a matter of guts. Discussion is based on arguments, rational ones. Otherwise we would just give a vote and end it there. 


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on November 09, 2008, 12:54:22 PM
Among the things that do not work with this, is the characters logic. They (well, mainly Holden) apparently are ruthless bandits who do not have a moment's hesitation to get rid of an impaired comrade, killed like a lame horse. During the bath scene they let us know repeatedly that they couldn't care less about the mexican pard's intentions (BTW, what was he doing among them?). Still they suddenly feel they have to save their suddenly turned revolutionary comrade: why?  But even more inexplicable is the about turn they make after he is killed and revenged and the soldiers offer him a non belligerance treaty. Holden decides instead to continue. In M7 there was at least some kind of justification for this: the 7 had been among the peasants, had started to know them and sympatized and didn't want to let Wallach get the better of them. But here? It seems that Peckinpah had some kind of doubts about the denouément when he lets Holden be shot by one of the girls he is supposed to be saving. But this renders his former decision even more incomprehensible. And what about Ryan? He accepts to turn a traitor not to go back to prison and first thing he does after having solved his problems is to get into troubles again. So why didn't he do this before? I could go on and on with things that do not work but these are the more irksome.

This is just silly Titoli. Can't you understand character development? Were you even paying attention to the film?

Pike was the leader of the gang. The Gorch Brothers clearly took issue with Pike's execution of the wounded man at the beginning of the film, in case you didn't notice, but Pike justified it by being in charge. More pertinently: Dutch and Sykes want to rescue Angel from the onset, but Pike turned it down as impossible. It isn't a decision or opinion that came out of the blue; the gang was willing to rescue Angel from the beginning, but Pike was in charge and he needed to come around to the idea. After watching Sykes get shot down by the bounty hunters and seeing the critically wounded, tortured and mutilated Angel, he realizes that he can't go on with the charade any further. He's betrayed too many men too many times, and with himself getting older, his gang getting smaller, and his implicit siding with the murderous Mapache and his lecherous subordinates, there's no reason to go on this way any longer. They weren't doing it for the sake of the Revolution, they were doing it for Angel, and for their own sense of pride.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on November 09, 2008, 01:30:44 PM
If you are not able to explain why you like a movie, then you can persuade nobody about having understood it except you. I have no doubt you are profoundly convinced you have WB in the palm of your hand. Only that argument has no value when discussing with others.
And you might even not have "understood" everything (nobody can), but you should be able to reply with solid arguments to whatever opposite view another person may have. You cannot simply say it's a matter of guts. Discussion is based on arguments, rational ones. Otherwise we would just give a vote and end it there. 

Oh well, I haven't tried to explain WB to you, I only wanted to say that imo you can't like this film if you don't understand it, which wasn't meant as an offence.
It's ok if someone don't likes this film that much. It's only a movie.

But you shouldn't interpret my postings by the things I haven't said, instead of the few things I have said.

I haven't said that I can't explain films or that I can't explain WB. I also haven't said that I understand everything.
Read again!

Groggy has meanwhile given a few explanations about the end of WB.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on November 09, 2008, 01:43:06 PM
This is just silly Titoli. Can't you understand character development? Were you even paying attention to the film?

Pike was the leader of the gang. The Gorch Brothers clearly took issue with Pike's execution of the wounded man at the beginning of the film, in case you didn't notice, but Pike justified it by being in charge. More pertinently: Dutch and Sykes want to rescue Angel from the onset, but Pike turned it down as impossible. It isn't a decision or opinion that came out of the blue; the gang was willing to rescue Angel from the beginning, but Pike was in charge and he needed to come around to the idea. After watching Sykes get shot down by the bounty hunters and seeing the critically wounded, tortured and mutilated Angel, he realizes that he can't go on with the charade any further. He's betrayed too many men too many times, and with himself getting older, his gang getting smaller, and his implicit siding with the murderous Mapache and his lecherous subordinates, there's no reason to go on this way any longer. They weren't doing it for the sake of the Revolution, they were doing it for Angel, and for their own sense of pride.


We can discuss without your introductory remarks, boy. Anyway, if you intend to do it again you can even stop answering me because I won't answer you. Verstanden?

I can't see Holden having betrayed anybody. He did the inevitable thing at the outset with Borgnine supporting him and showing the brothers the absurdity of remaining there for a burial service. Actually he always has to take bitter, but rational decisions. That's why he's the chief and he never got caught. About his "siding" with "murderous" Mapache (hadn't noticed that the wild bunch was a congregation of friars. but this shows where much of your misunderstanding comes from)  and his "lecherous" subordinates (uh? Is the wb any less "lecherous"?) it was the right thing to do to get the money they need to retire like they are wont to repeat throughout the movie. If the others disagree they can quit: but the only disagreement is about the guns destined to the revolution (I'm still waiting for an answer about the consistency of the Angel character, which is absurd all around).  
But is the final scene (whose particulars I had forgotten) which shows the inconsistency of your argumentations. in facts you could have been right  (only to a point, though) if Holden had contented himself with killing Mapache and revenge Angel's death. They are given this chance by Mapache's subordinates.  It would have been the usual finale showing us bad good gringos. Instead he decides to suicide himself. Why? Pride? They killed Mapache and showed themselves to the crowd. Revenge? ditto. There is no reason to "go on any longer"? Hey, they got the money, they can retire. Why suicide?  The only reason I can see is to give even more emphasis to the wrong decision of saving Angel, whose philosophy has nothing to do with that of the wb I(though apparently he remembered to have one only after he came back to his village and discovered his fiancée(?)'s betrayal (that scene between him and the girl before killing her is the most ridiculous of the movie, except for the even more ludicrous one of Holden's flashback with the husband killing his treacherous wife). Peckinpah probably realized the inconsistencies of his characters' motives and, as it often happens when you realize this, stepped on the gas of inconsistency instead of keeping the characters rational, hoping the audience wouldn't notice or mind. Well, he was right.  


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on November 09, 2008, 01:52:38 PM
Pike never betrayed anyone? Even excepting Angel and Buck (the gang member he executed), what about Crazy Lee at the beginning? What about Sykes? What about Thornton and Aurora in the past? Pike's motivations throughout the film are his increasing weariness and disgust with himself; he has a code which he claims to live by ("When you side with a man" etc.) but repeatedly fails to do so. Everything he does in the film is a failure; even the triumphant train robbery is soured by Mapache's capture of Angel and the continued pursuit by Thornton. By the end, he's simply at a point where he can't stand it any longer.

As for my remark about Mapache's murderousness: perhaps you didn't note the difference, but Mapache and his men killed people for fun throughout, as a game. The gang only killed people who got in their way. Throughout the film they try to distinguish themselves from Mapache: "We don't hang nobody!" In the Bunch's collective mind, at least, they're above these guys.

The pride issue comes down to wanting to go out on their own terms. They died a righteous death, not only avenging Angel but destroying Mapache's army, even if they were doing the right thing for the wrong reason. They died the way they wanted to die - in a blaze of glory. What awaited them if they killed Mapache and just walked out of Agua Verde? Even if they'd been allowed to do it (I seriously doubt that, to be honest - all it would have taken was for one nervous/angry Mexican soldier out of 200 to fire his weapon), they'd still have Thornton's bounty hunters waiting for them. And even if they killed off those guys, what then? They didn't know Sykes was still alive and had joined up with the Villistas. And they weren't getting any younger. Retirement wasn't really a possibility, as evidenced by the campfire exchange between Pike and Dutch; what would they "back off" too, when they'd spent their whole lives robbing banks and killing people? They weren't acting out of any revolutionary fervor, or righteousness beyond self-righteousness, so their decision was death. Seems pretty clear to me.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on November 09, 2008, 02:31:03 PM
Pike never betrayed anyone? Even excepting Angel and Buck (the gang member he executed), what about Crazy Lee at the beginning? What about Sykes? What about Thornton and Aurora in the past? Pike's motivations throughout the film are his increasing weariness and disgust with himself; he has a code which he claims to live by ("When you side with a man" etc.) but repeatedly fails to do so. Everything he does in the film is a failure; even the triumphant train robbery is soured by Mapache's capture of Angel and the continued pursuit by Thornton. By the end, he's simply at a point where he can't stand it any longer.

Angel was the author of his own destiny by going against the wb's code. in fact it is the relenting of the gang's code expecially in relation to him (and without a sounder reason, as the characters, with the exception of the bros., maybe, are intent on retiring, not in fighting for a cause). to let him go his way would have been the logical decision if the characters had followed what we hear them say and what, guessing about their past, one should expect from them, expecially Holden. Crazy Lee shows early like a crazy murderer (which he is): that's why he's left there by Holden. Of course one wonders how they didn't notice this before the heist. But as it was O'brien who interceded for his nephew one can accept the fact they accepted him in the gang and that he revealed his personality only in action. Thornton betrayed? How? Because Holden tells him erroneously   to open up the door and then he had to run, semi-naked, for life instead of being caught with him? Aurora? Bah. That scene it is preposterous and better left out of the movie.
Everything Holden does in the movie is a failure? On the contrary, the only failure it is not sticking to his premises. he recovers quite well from the failed heist and chooses failure deliberately and inconsistently. There lies his failure.


Quote
As for my remark about Mapache's murderousness: perhaps you didn't note the difference, but Mapache and his men killed people for fun throughout, as a game. The gang only killed people who got in their way. Throughout the film they try to distinguish themselves from Mapache: "We don't hang nobody!" In the Bunch's collective mind, at least, they're above these guys
.

"The gang killed only who got in their way": to crime, you ought to add. That somebody has to specify "we don't hang nobody" it is exactly because the one who said them and Mapache are the same kind of bandit can't see the difference. But that has little relevance to what it is the opinion the viewers makes for himself. And the difference between the wb before the "conversion" and Mapache's army is tenuous. Mapache is operating in the midst of a civil war, the bunch isn't: that's the only difference.

Quote
The pride issue comes down to wanting to go out on their own terms. They died a righteous death, not only avenging Angel but destroying Mapache's army, even if they were doing the right thing for the wrong reason. They died the way they wanted to die - in a blaze of glory. What awaited them if they killed Mapache and just walked out of Agua Verde? Even if they'd been allowed to do it (I seriously doubt that, to be honest - all it would have taken was for one nervous/angry Mexican soldier out of 200 to fire his weapon), they'd still have Thornton's bounty hunters waiting for them. And even if they killed off those guys, what then? They didn't know Sykes was still alive and had joined up with the Villistas. And they weren't getting any younger. Retirement wasn't really a possibility, as evidenced by the campfire exchange between Pike and Dutch; what would they "back off" too, when they'd spent their whole lives robbing banks and killing people? They weren't acting out of any revolutionary fervor, or righteousness beyond self-righteousness, so their decision was death. Seems pretty clear to me.

All of the above is inconsistent because all of the gang's actions from the start are directed toward retirement. When Holden and Borgnine discuss after the failed heist, they do not say "we are bound to failure, they're gonna get us, let's die triumphantly". And they reaffirm it, with O'Brien's support,  before embarking on the train heist. They say they just need another coup and then retire. Where does this longing toward diying comes from? As you say, they die "in a blaze of glory". That's the impression Peckinpah wants to communicate to the audience. not caring about the characters and story consistency. And he managed to do that thanx to the spectacularity of the action scenes. There is where the longing towards death comes from: in P.'s show sense.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on November 09, 2008, 03:16:03 PM
Angel was the author of his own destiny by going against the wb's code. in fact it is the relenting of the gang's code expecially in relation to him (and without a sounder reason, as the characters, with the exception of the bros., maybe, are intent on retiring, not in fighting for a cause). to let him go his way would have been the logical decision if the characters had followed what we hear them say and what, guessing about their past, one should expect from them, expecially Holden.

This would make sense, EXCEPT that they agree to help Angel give the guns to his tribe. If Angel had snuck the guns to them without the Bunch knowing, I would agree with you, but the Bunch decided to assist him, making your argument moot. That, and Angel didn't betray the gang's complicity in his actions after being captured and tortured. In any event, Angel's death was merely the catalyst, the immediate cause; there were much deeper, long-standing reasons for the Bunch's suicidal attack at the end than merely revenge.

Quote
Crazy Lee shows early like a crazy murderer (which he is): that's why he's left there by Holden. Of course one wonders how they didn't notice this before the heist. But as it was O'brien who interceded for his nephew one can accept the fact they accepted him in the gang and that he revealed his personality only in action.

Lee was implicitly a new member of the gang - hence Sykes' question "How'd my boy do?" True, he was a psychopath, but Holden left him to die, apparently thinking the gang would come back for him.

Quote
Thornton betrayed? How? Because Holden tells him erroneously to open up the door and then he had to run, semi-naked, for life instead of being caught with him?

Yeah, that's basically it. It might be justifiable under the circumstances you mention, but it's Pike's perception of the incident that matters - it's another instance of him being wrong, and one of his colleagues paying the price for it.

Quote
Aurora? Bah. That scene it is preposterous and better left out of the movie.

Your opinion of its quality has no bearing on its importance.

Quote
Everything Holden does in the movie is a failure? On the contrary, the only failure it is not sticking to his premises. he recovers quite well from the failed heist and chooses failure deliberately and inconsistently. There lies his failure.

Isn't this a self-contradiction, that he chooses failure deliberately? How is that a counter to what I said?

Quote
"The gang killed only who got in their way": to crime, you ought to add. That somebody has to specify "we don't hang nobody" it is exactly because the one who said them and Mapache are the same kind of bandit can't see the difference. But that has little relevance to what it is the opinion the viewers makes for himself. And the difference between the wb before the "conversion" and Mapache's army is tenuous. Mapache is operating in the midst of a civil war, the bunch isn't: that's the only difference.

Again, the question here isn't your objective point-of-view, which sees the Bunch as criminals. The Bunch themselves clearly hold Mapache and Co. in contempt, as degenerate murderous scum. They can always console themselves that as bad as they are, at least they aren't like that guy.

Quote
All of the above is inconsistent because all of the gang's actions from the start are directed toward retirement. When Holden and Borgnine discuss after the failed heist, they do not say "we are bound to failure, they're gonna get us, let's die triumphantly". And they reaffirm it, with O'Brien's support,  before embarking on the train heist. They say they just need another coup and then retire. Where does this longing toward diying comes from? As you say, they die "in a blaze of glory". That's the impression Peckinpah wants to communicate to the audience. not caring about the characters and story consistency. And he managed to do that thanx to the spectacularity of the action scenes. There is where the longing towards death comes from: in P.'s show sense.

Herein lies the basic problem of your criticism. You seem to completely rule out character development, and the possibility that events in the story can change a character's goals and ambitions, dismissing such development and changes as mere "inconsistency". Of course, at the beginning of the film the Bunch WANT to retire, and do so throughout the film, but as events stack up against them it becomes an increasingly distant and remote possibility. By the end, Dutch's "Back off to WHAT?" statement really resonates. By that point, the Bunch don't have too many other options. Or rather, Pike doesn't. It's important to recognize Pike is the leader of the gang, and everything that happens in the movie is the result of his decisions. The Gorches might be content to live in hedonistic limbo for the rest of their lives, but Pike and Dutch clearly aren't. They need a purpose, a drive, and with the frontier closed, their gang reduced to nothing, in the employ of a disgusting madman ("That ain't what counts. It's who you give it TO!") they don't have much option but to achieve satisfaction through death on their terms.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: The Firecracker on November 09, 2008, 08:24:50 PM
I think it's about time to grow up FC. Instead of continuing to take shots at me, just resort to acknowledging me all together man. Thanks.


I'm not taking shots at you TB.
You need to lighten up a little.
I was amongst the many that wanted you back here after you left for no apparent reason.
If there is a need to discuss this further then please PM me, let's keep this thread as the TWB thread... not a TB thread.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on November 09, 2008, 10:43:38 PM

I'm not taking shots at you TB.
You need to lighten up a little.
I was amongst the many that wanted you back here after you left for no apparent reason.
If there is a need to discuss this further then please PM me, let's keep this thread as the TWB thread... not a TB thread.

Sounds good to me.  :)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on November 10, 2008, 05:42:37 AM
I'm just editing a featurette about the WILD BUNCH locations for the PASSION & POETRY DVD - set.
Nice to read such an intense discussion here.

Although I can't understand why the psychological aspects of the film are so hard to get.
Pike is the central character and all his decisions are in the end the BUNCH's actions, that's right.
So it is not so much 'betrayel' (although betrayel is an important content in Peckinpah's oeuvre)
but GUILT. There's not much to understand in WB. As all of Peckinpah's best work the film works
on an emotional level, which is why I rate him higher than most film makers.
And Holden was never better than here. His decision to die in flames has not that much to do with
Angels death. It is just that final episode of many in his life.
I didn't read everything here, but I couldn't find a reference to the most important scene:
Pike with the young whore. Dutch is outside, his thoughts are with Angel. But Pike is living in his
own dilemma: the look at the girl and the baby show him the life he always wanted and never got
(so the Flashback with Aurora is ESSENTIAL here). The look at the bottle shows him what's left
for him: booze. loneliness. Guilt.  And the times are changing too.
So ENTER YOUR HOUSE JUSTIFIED.
Do something you have to do to be able to look at yourself in the mirror again.

The moment after Mapaches dead, when they ALL decide to go on with the shooting,
when they all look at each other and smile, that is a moment that is also so complex
on an emotional level.
They know, they might get out now. But they love the fact, that they are in control
much better. And they go on with what they know best: killing.
Besides, they almost made it... And Pike gets shot by a little boy. The little boy
that looked up to Mapache in awe at the station. So the story continues.

Sam said: THE WILD BUNCH is simply what happens when killers go to Mexico.

He never wanted to make an epic or a psychological study.
The fact that he did it anyway, always showed me how good he REALLY was.
For those who get it, it should be obvious. The others better stay away from Sam's world.

(http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1612/7186524/17740665/342535857.jpg)




Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on November 10, 2008, 05:55:58 AM
That's what I meant, this long spine shivering end starts in the brothel, and it only works in the uncut version.

The Aurora flashback intensifies this sequence with Pike and the young whore and her baby a lot.

And you can feel this film without understanding everything.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on November 10, 2008, 06:08:27 AM
My man :)

There's so much action out there, but very few films that work
on that level.
When we premiered the restored version in Munich in the mid 90's,
100 or 200 men had tears in their eyes on their way out.

I don't think anybody can name many films that achieve such
an impact. And are that well done. Groundbreaking too.
Acting, directing, writing, photography, music, editing,
production design, costumes, best film, sound. At least 10 nominations.
Can't be done better. 40 years show us that.
(http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1612/7186524/17740665/342538982.jpg)(http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1612/7186524/17740665/342538991.jpg)
(http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1612/7186524/17740665/342538988.jpg)(http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1612/7186524/17740665/342538987.jpg)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Novecento on November 08, 2011, 03:38:26 PM
And you can feel this film without understanding everything.

Nice comment in the NYT critics' picks (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/critics-picks-video-the-wild-bunch/?scp=1&sq=wild%20bunch&st=cse) today:

Quote
Near the end, in the brothel, Bishop says to the Gorch brothers, "Let's go." In today's cinema climate, this is where the main character emotes a soul-searching narrative why he and his bunch are forced to avenge their friend. Then each character chimes in with his own reason. Here's the beauty of this film. No explanation is needed.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 08, 2011, 04:12:37 PM
I saw The Wild Bunch once, a while ago. (It was the Director's Cut).  I never liked Peckinpah's shtick with the slo-mo deaths and what seemed to me to be gratuitous blood (in Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia as well). I am all for greater realism rather than the bloodless deaths in most prior AW's, and I appreciate how groundbreaking this film was in that sense. But I found it all to be waaaaay overdone. I kept rolling my eyes throughout the final shootout.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Novecento on November 09, 2011, 05:54:54 PM
Have you seen "Cross of Iron"? The editing is absolutely extraordinary.

I've only seen "Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia" once and remember being quite repulsed in parts.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on November 09, 2011, 06:08:09 PM
I saw The Wild Bunch once, a while ago. (It was the Director's Cut).  I never liked Peckinpah's shtick with the slo-mo deaths and what seemed to me to be gratuitous blood (in Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia as well). I am all for greater realism rather than the bloodless deaths in most prior AW's, and I appreciate how groundbreaking this film was in that sense. But I found it all to be waaaaay overdone. I kept rolling my eyes throughout the final shootout.

Nobody's perfect.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 09, 2011, 07:16:47 PM
Have you seen "Cross of Iron"? The editing is absolutely extraordinary.

I've only seen "Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia" once and remember being quite repulsed in parts.

never saw Cross of Iron, but it is in my queue.

It's not that blood repulses me. It's just that gratuitous blood (or gratuitous anything) annoys me. That slo-mo irritated me to no end. When people are shot they fall to the ground instantly. People don't fall to the ground in slo-mo. So the notion that that shootout was somehow a "realistic" depiction of death is ridiculous. That final shootout felt like a video game


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 09, 2011, 07:19:49 PM
Nobody's perfect.

you mean me or Peckinpah?  ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on November 09, 2011, 07:26:06 PM
If you looked up missing the point in the dictionary your portrait might be there. Get an avatar quick so we can picture it better. O0


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 09, 2011, 07:27:02 PM
If you looked up missing the point in the dictionary your portrait might be there. Get an avatar quick so we can picture it better. O0

make me one of your world-famous avatars, please  :)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on November 09, 2011, 07:29:47 PM
Try this on for size:
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l319/Obi-Ben/gifs/Dancingshermasn.gif)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 09, 2011, 07:30:37 PM
Try this on for size:
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l319/Obi-Ben/gifs/Dancingshermasn.gif)

haha that wouldn't please our good friend Richard W, now would it?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on November 09, 2011, 07:34:25 PM
It's too big anyway. Maybe it can go in your signature.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on November 10, 2011, 02:33:45 AM


It's not that blood repulses me. It's just that gratuitous blood (or gratuitous anything) annoys me. That slo-mo irritated me to no end. When people are shot they fall to the ground instantly. People don't fall to the ground in slo-mo. So the notion that that shootout was somehow a "realistic" depiction of death is ridiculous. That final shootout felt like a video game

You are really too much concerned with realism. Not the best precondition to watch westerns which are barely realistic.

TWB, and especially the final shoot-out, works on another level. That the final shoot-out is absolutely overdone, and that especially for a film of 69, is what it makes so astonishing in form and content. And especially on an aesthetic and emotional level.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on November 10, 2011, 02:43:32 AM
That reminds me of the day the restored version was shown for the first time back in 1995 in Munich. 400 happy (mostly) man awaiting the screening of the year (easily). We were a gang of 10, some were friends, two or three were just starting out becoming members of our inner circle. One guy was making comments here and there during the screening but we were tolerant for an hour or two. When it became obvious that he wouldn't stop we made him leave the theater. The risk that he would destroy the last third of the screening was too high. We all felt (for ONCE that year we ALL agreed on something) that somebody who doesn't get THE WILD BUNCH just wouldn't belong with us. And we were a mixed bunch, Antonioni lovers, a guy who worked for Fassbinder, a guy who dubbed Italian western back in the 60s inRome ... But we all cried or at least had wet eyes when the lights came up.
'guess I saw it 10 times on big screens, in 4 different countries over the last 30 years, but that must have been my favorite screening. I don't consider myself a nerd, my girlfriend is much too beautiful for that. And I try to be tolerant when it comes to appreciating the art of filmmaking. But since I spend my whole life with movies, films became a part of my body. I understand if BLOW UP is considered by some to be boring, or if the Irish humour of John Ford is too far out for some, but whenever holy cows like TAXI DRIVER, ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, WILD BUNCH, LEONE, certain KUBRICK's or WILDER's are butchered in online forums, my hairs stand up. Maybe those best films ever made, those who get you at a gut level, are there to be loved AND discussed. But for me some are beyond discussion, they are just perfect.


(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/sam/Bunch-L-BRD-LT-kl.jpg)
(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/sam/lilia4a-kl.jpg)

(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/sam/DSC03328.jpg)
(http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/peckinpah69/sam/wb-1163xx-kl.jpg)

  


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on November 10, 2011, 04:16:13 AM
You are really too much concerned with realism. Not the best precondition to watch westerns which are barely realistic.

TWB, and especially the final shoot-out, works on another level. That the final shoot-out is absolutely overdone, and that especially for a film of 69, is what it makes so astonishing in form and content. And especially on an aesthetic and emotional level.

Hear hear. If you don't like Peckinpah's style that's one thing. Criticism him for an "unrealistic" portrayal of violence is missing the point by a mile.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Novecento on November 10, 2011, 03:34:00 PM
It's not that blood repulses me. It's just that gratuitous blood (or gratuitous anything) annoys me. That slo-mo irritated me to no end. When people are shot they fall to the ground instantly. People don't fall to the ground in slo-mo. So the notion that that shootout was somehow a "realistic" depiction of death is ridiculous. That final shootout felt like a video game

For me, what I love is not the slo-mo per se but the editing of the slo-mo; it pulls you right into the scene. By slowing the image down Peckinpah speeds up our perception. Or to put it another way, by slowing reality down he is able paradoxically to speed reality up.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Novecento on November 12, 2011, 03:13:28 AM
never saw Cross of Iron, but it is in my queue.

It's my favorite Peckinpah film, although I haven't seen all of them.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 12, 2011, 01:12:43 PM
By slowing the image down Peckinpah speeds up our perception.
I'd put it this way: slow motion allows the viewer to not only perceive what's on the screen more clearly but to reflect on what's being seen as perception occurs. So the viewer can react and notice his reaction and still have time to ruminate some more. This produces, it seems to me, a deeper cognitive experience.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on November 12, 2011, 04:51:07 PM
Slow motion can also afford viewer time to take a leak. Or simply get bored once the game repeats itself. If I remember well, that's exactly what happened to me with WB. The technique, I guess, must be not simply applied and repeated, but once you have used it you have to make some variations on it the following times. 


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 12, 2011, 05:35:28 PM
Slow motion can also afford viewer time to take a leak. Or simply get bored once the game repeats itself. If I remember well, that's exactly what happened to me with WB. The technique, I guess, must be not simply applied and repeated, but once you have used it you have to make some variations on it the following times. 

Yeah,

It's not that I need 100% realism per se. I mean, no movie ever truly provides that. It's just that on a certain level that can't be properly explained in words, the film has to work for me. And I found myself rolling my eyes throughout TWB.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 13, 2011, 01:02:24 AM
That reminds me of the day the restored version was shown for the first time back in 1995 in Munich. 400 happy (mostly) man awaiting the screening of the year (easily). We were a gang of 10, some were friends, two or three were just starting out becoming members of our inner circle. One guy was making comments here and there during the screening but we were tolerant for an hour or two. When it became obvious that he wouldn't stop we made him leave the theater. The risk that he would destroy the last third of the screening was too high. We all felt (for ONCE that year we ALL agreed on something) that somebody who doesn't get THE WILD BUNCH just wouldn't belong with us. And we were a mixed bunch, Antonioni lovers, a guy who worked for Fassbinder, a guy who dubbed Italian western back in the 60s inRome ... But we all cried or at least had wet eyes when the lights came up.
'guess I saw it 10 times on big screens, in 4 different countries over the last 30 years, but that must have been my favorite screening. I don't consider myself a nerd, my girlfriend is much too beautiful for that. And I try to be tolerant when it comes to appreciating the art of filmmaking. But since I spend my whole life with movies, films became a part of my body. I understand if BLOW UP is considered by some to be boring, or if the Irish humour of John Ford is too far out for some, but whenever holy cows like TAXI DRIVER, ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, WILD BUNCH, LEONE, certain KUBRICK's or WILDER's are butchered in online forums, my hairs stand up. Maybe those best films ever made, those who get you at a gut level, are there to be loved AND discussed. But for me some are beyond discussion, they are just perfect.

  

are you REALLY comparing my criticism of TWB in a message board, to an annoying guy shouting out criticisms while a movie is playing in a theater? REALLY?  Sorry if I make your hairs stand up, but I don't like TWB. This is a message board where we discuss our opinions of a movie. I guess criticism is not allowed in a thread of a film that you decide is too perfect for criticism.

One of the many reasons I love these boards is that it is a generally friendly place without the ridiculous personal bashing that goes on in some other forums. And I avoid, at all costs, any of the personal shit that some other people engage in and try to only focus on the substantive issues. But that post of yours --  unless I am misinterpreting it -- is absolutely ridiculous.

The point of a message board is to discuss a movie. If there are movies that you believe are above criticism, then I'd recommend you avoid those movies' message boards.

There are films that I believe are absolutely perfect and I cannot understand how anybody cannot love, and how anybody can criticize. But I would never go on a board and compare their criticism of the movie -- no matter how much I disagreed with them -- to some dude shouting in a theater. Next time, I guess I'll check with you before I open my mouth  ::)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 13, 2011, 08:14:39 AM
Evidently, D&D, you don't understand that this is the Leone AND Peckinpah board.

I can't tell if your problem is with slo-mo in general or just Peckinpah's use of it. You don't bring in any examples of slo mo you like. I assume you like the way Leone uses it. But who else? If you can't bring up any other examples of slo mo that works for you, get off this board and see some films. You DON'T want to get tagged as Groggy 2.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 13, 2011, 08:39:18 AM
Evidently, D&D, you don't understand that this is the Leone AND Peckinpah board.

I can't tell if your problem is with slo-mo in general or just Peckinpah's use of it. You don't bring in any examples of slo mo you like. I assume you like the way Leone uses it. But who else? If you can't bring up any other examples of slo mo that works for you, get off this board and see some films. You DON'T want to get tagged as Groggy 2.

I know there are many Peckinpah fans here. I understand that. Doesn't mean I have to get anyone's permission before stating my feelings on TWB.

My problem is with Peckinpah's use of slo-mo. I never said slo-mo is never, ever appropriate. The topic of discussion here was  TWB, not slo-mo in general. I am sure there are many movies where I felt slo-mo was appropriate. Do I have to give all those examples before criticizing its use in TWB?

I just think the final shootout in TWB was awful. Felt like I was watching a video game.

I can recall 4 places where Leone used slo-mo:

1) OUATITW: the flashback sequences

2) DYS: the flashback sequences

3) OUATIA: when the gang runs from Bugsy and Dominic is shot

4) OUATIA: when Noodles and Max/Bailey share the flashbacks to their childhood  in Bailey's office

(If I am missing any, please let me know). think the slo-mo was perfect in all those cases.  In TWB, it was just the same thing over and over and over again. Initially it's groundbreaking, shocking, whatever you wanna call it. By the tenth time, I'm tearing my hair out asking "when is this over?"

(I just thought of a nice moment in Hannibal (one of my all-time favorite movies), when Clarice sees Hannibal on the screen while watching the surveillance video from the shop in Florence. She drops the other tapes in her hand, and they fall to the ground in slo-mo. That is one nice moment. I'll spare you the million and one other examples of slo-mo that works. I don't like how it is used in TWB. Doesn't mean it's never appropriate).

I know that Leone and Peckinpah were fans of each others' work, but based on the 4 Peckinpah films I have seen, he couldn't shine Leone's shoes. I have seen: The Wild Bunch, Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia, The Getaway, and Pat Garret and Billy the Kid. None of those were great, and the latter two weren't even good.

I know there are others that I haven't seen yet (eg. Cross of Iron is in my Netflix queue), and I plan on giving 'em all a fair chance. Perhaps one day (when I get into a masochistic mood  ;)) I'll give TWB another chance, and maybe then my opinion will change. But I sure as hell am not apologizing for my opinions, and I ain't asking for anyone's permission to like or not like a movie, whether or not their hair stands up. I don't even know wtf anyone would give a damn about what someone else thinks of a movie they love. I mean, if some dude would tell me he hated Leone, I may laugh and tell him I totally disagree with him, but it sure as hell wouldn't make my hair stand up and I wouldn't tell him it's beyond discussion. And I wouldn't compare him with some asshole disturbing a theater. And most of all i wouldn't give a damn  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Novecento on November 13, 2011, 02:04:54 PM
Slow motion can also afford viewer time to take a leak. Or simply get bored once the game repeats itself. If I remember well, that's exactly what happened to me with WB. The technique, I guess, must be not simply applied and repeated, but once you have used it you have to make some variations on it the following times. 

As I said, it's not the slo-mo per se but the editing that I love. Anyone can put something in slow motion. For me, Peckinpah's talent lay in the editing.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 13, 2011, 04:21:29 PM
(I just thought of a nice moment in Hannibal (one of my all-time favorite movies), when Clarice sees Hannibal on the screen while watching the surveillance video from the shop in Florence. She drops the other tapes in her hand, and they fall to the ground in slo-mo. That is one nice moment. I'll spare you the million and one other examples of slo-mo that works. I don't like how it is used in TWB. Doesn't mean it's never appropriate).

I know that Leone and Peckinpah were fans of each others' work, but based on the 4 Peckinpah films I have seen, he couldn't shine Leone's shoes. I have seen: The Wild Bunch, Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia, The Getaway, and Pat Garret and Billy the Kid. None of those were great, and the latter two weren't even good.
This is helping me understand your objections more clearly. It seems that you don't like Peckinpah regardless of whether he's using slo-mo or standard mo. It also appears that you prefer slo-mo "moments" to extended sequences.

In the first instance, I think you have to distinguish between good Peckinpah and bad Peckinpah. It's just as stoopid to throw out all the guy's films as it is to praise each of his works indiscriminantly. There are several of his films I don't much care for, but there are others (particularly Alfredo Garcia) that strike me as being something akin to high art. Then there are films like The Getaway that seem to have great passages (particularly in the first half) and not-so-good parts (much of the second half). Even if you don't like Peckinpah generally, there have to be things in his films that you find praiseworthy, otherwise you can't like cinema at all. Your reluctance to make distinctions within his work is, it seems to me, somewhat puzzling. Your distinctions don't have to be my distinctions, but I'd prefer to know I'm hearing from your brain and not your viscera. Of course you're free to say anything you want, it's just that listeners tend to enjoy hearing an informed, considered opinion to the other kinds.

Second, I'd be very interested to hear how you compare Peckinpah's use of slow mo with, say, John Woo's use of the technique. Woo, like Peckinpah, enjoys presenting elaborately choreographed--not to say "balletic"--actions on the screen. This is very different from the "moment" approach that you seem to prefer (using slo-mo to highlight a single action). The extended take in slow motion, with any number of actions occuring concurrently and consecutively, could be considered an art form in itself. I don't say one approach, in the service of narrative film, is better than the other, but they are different. It may be that you don't like, and can never like, the use of extended slo-mo in any case. Still, I'd be very interested if you found something in Woo that you thought was missing in Peckinpah.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 13, 2011, 07:05:32 PM
Did the Giants win, or something? Somebody's channeling a lot of euphoria here  . . . .


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 13, 2011, 07:13:34 PM
Did the Giants win, or something? Somebody's channeling a lot of euphoria here  . . . .

no, we lost a tough game. Thanks for reminding me  >:(

But my sister just got engaged 10 minutes ago. So it's not all bad  :)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 13, 2011, 07:37:07 PM
Congratulations. I'd be happy to come to the wedding if invited.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 13, 2011, 09:33:32 PM
Congratulations. I'd be happy to come to the wedding if invited.

would you table dance for me?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Novecento on November 14, 2011, 03:44:18 AM
never saw Cross of Iron, but it is in my queue.

It's a shame you won't be watching the German/UK region-B locked Blu-ray. Check out the DVD beaver comparison - the difference is huge.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 14, 2011, 03:58:34 AM
It's a shame you won't be watching the German/UK region-B locked Blu-ray. Check out the DVD beaver comparison - the difference is huge.

I don't have a blu-ray player anyway... maybe eventually  :)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on November 14, 2011, 05:13:54 AM
I would never attack anybody personally because of his taste in films.
'Just reminded what strong emotions Peckinpah brought out and still brings out in people with his art.
He would have loved that, shacking the cage.

It's nice to read all these opinions, although very often I have to stop, 'physical pain.
Peckinpah got bored discussing his style (my film PASSION & POETRY opens with him
saying 'I don't have a particular style..', which is hard to believe to viewers :)) and
so are most Peckinpah scholars. But I guess it is OK and neccessary for younger
audiences.
For admireres of TWB, people like Woo, Scorsese and us scholars, the strength and importance
of the film is not limited to the spectacular last reel. Of course it was and still is sensational,
but without his talent for drama and character it would have been just pornography.
(The same goes for RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, STRAW DOGS, JUNIOR BONNER... You care
for these people and therefore commit.). Every single scene in TWB was so perfectly done,
all characters breath and live. Holden was never better, the film reflects his own life
in a certain way and it shows. He's just fantastic. And at the end the affected viewer
is so much pulled into the story and the people that the powerful ending has a deep
emotional impact. (and of course Sam was the best Editor, impeccable).
It is hard to discuss. It is like having a wonderful wife and some buddy can't stand her.

The reason why Sam is my favorite was pointed out by someone (a critic I guess) whos name I forgot:
''Kubrick shows us that Life is hell, Peckinpah pulls us in and burns with us in the fire.''


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on November 14, 2011, 09:38:44 AM
Garfield is an admirer of this movie. I checked again his review and he points out how audiences were divided about this movie since it was release. He says that women especially couldn't appreciate it and that the violent scenes were the most debated ingredient. It seems like time and the fact that now we have a more complete version of the movie have done little to reinforce unanimity around the flick. I don't think that nowadays violence is an issue (actually I think that Leone's movies are more sadistic than this one) even among women. So if there is a debate it's only because this movie is flawed, though one can discuss how much. On the other hand I've never heard criticism about Ride in the High Country: there must be a reason, I guess.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on November 14, 2011, 10:59:22 AM
Scorsese called TWB ''Savage Poetry'' and that's what I feel about it. I don't really want to meet the woman
that could relate 100% to all those male emotions. Guilt, commitment, honesty, violence, greed, friendship.

Sam surely wasn't the women's director of that time, but in all his other films (except KILLER ELITE & STEINER maybe) there
were male-female relationships. My girl watches BONNER every year. COMPANIONS, DOGS, GETAWAY, GARCIA,
CABLE HOGUE even were films with love/relationships as a major theme. RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY has a young
couple in it, to balance the main theme of the oldtimers doing their thing.
But TWB is purely an uncompromising ride into male psyche. Not a favorite (deeper) subject for women, as my experience tells me.

Leone did well cutting Eastwoods love scenes. Although I would pay a lot of $$$ to see them :)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 14, 2011, 03:04:13 PM
On the other hand I've never heard criticism about Ride in the High Country: there must be a reason, I guess.
In my case, it's because I don't care enough about the film to comment one way or the other.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 14, 2011, 03:06:29 PM
Quote
Holden was never better, the film reflects his own life in a certain way and it shows. He's just fantastic.
Amen.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on November 14, 2011, 04:01:44 PM
So if there is a debate it's only because this movie is flawed, though one can discuss how much. On the other hand I've never heard criticism about Ride in the High Country: there must be a reason, I guess.

Only that TWB is not flawed. Well, maybe in some minor details.

TWb gets still more criticism than RtHC because it is a more challenging film, and a more risky film.

But there are also still people who are bored to death by OUTW. Or people who think that it is an absolutely overrated film.

But what counts is that both, TWB and OUTW can be for a lot of people an astonishing experience. And that both have a huge following which would count them among the best films ever, if not the best.
Both are doubtless my favourite westerns, and belong to my top 5 of all films I have ever seen.

RTHC is a very good film, but it seldom gets such extreme reactions. And I think that PG & BtK, generally also much more criticised than TWB or RtHC, is another Peckinpah which gets nowadays these extremely positive reactions to a higher extent than RtHC. Despite having some flaws.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Novecento on November 15, 2011, 01:18:46 PM
I don't have a blu-ray player anyway... maybe eventually  :)

Be sure to get a multi-region one. Twice the price, but definitely worth the investment.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on November 15, 2011, 06:23:11 PM
So if there is a debate it's only because this movie is flawed, though one can discuss how much.

Congrats Titoli, you failed Logic 101.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on November 15, 2011, 06:25:02 PM
In my case, it's because I don't care enough about the film to comment one way or the other.

Clearly you're not old enough to appreciate its thematic richness, Jenkins. Check back when you're 117 (that's next Tuesday, right?).


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on November 15, 2011, 07:56:31 PM
Congrats Titoli, you failed Logic 101.

titoli, please.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on November 16, 2011, 02:14:04 AM
titoli, please.

Then you should maybe change the title of your mini-reviews thread :)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on November 16, 2011, 10:35:51 AM
No, in the title I like a capital t.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 18, 2011, 12:56:22 AM
aiight, I just put The Wild Bunch into my Netflix dvd queue, at #2 -- right after Ace in the Hole. I'm gonna re-watch 'em both and see if TWB is as good as y'all say and AITH is as bad  ;) (btw, the one time I saw TWB was on my laptop, rented from iTunes; perhaps I'll like it better now that I'll be watching it on my dvd player, which is connected to the much bigger tv screen).


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on November 18, 2011, 04:55:55 AM
titoli, please.

How about T-bag?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 18, 2011, 05:47:56 AM
How about T-bag?

How about T-bone? (any Seinfeld fans here?)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on November 18, 2011, 08:48:21 AM
It's great to live in these times, I never found so many films (uncut, restored too sometimes) I wanted to see in
the 80s & 90s but never could because they weren't available in any format...

On the other hand watching great films often became ridiculous. I can't imagine watching OUATITW or WILD BUNCH on a laptop,
not even on a TV screen. Never saw them at home, only in cinemas. Not that I'm the smartest guy there is, I have them
on VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, Blu-ray: Why ?? :)
(I probably hope for a decent home cinema - someday. And there's the supplements of course. By the way, I just co-produced the UK blu-ray
for CROSS OF IRON. Those who like the film might enjoy the 110 minutes of extras I produced.)



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 06, 2011, 11:50:50 AM
so after our discussion, I decided to go back and watch the movie again. This time I rented the dvd from Netflix, so I was able to watch it on my tv screen, which is much bigger than the laptop screen I watched it on the first time I saw it (which was about a year ago).


I tried to love it. I really, really did. But i couldn't. Don't get me wrong: it is a good movie; I'd rate it about an 8/10. But I still can't consider it among the all-time greats like many of you do. The slo-mos still annoyed the hell out of me.


-- In the final shootout, too many of the Bunch live way too long after they should be in hell. For example, at one point we see Oates laughing as he sprays lead from the machine gun, even as we see three bullet holes in his back. Only after he gets hit a few more times does he finally die. After being shot 3 times in the back, he'd either be dead, or perhaps down on the ground writhing in pain and dying. No way could he be laughing and firing the machine gun... So basically, every Mexican gets one shot and he's dead, but none of the Bunch die till they get shot up like Bonnie and Clyde? PUHLEEZ.

-- Peckinpah was supposed to be the one who put realism in violence? I appreciate that he showed that being shot is a bloody death, but i have serious problems with his depictions as well. also, i did not like the editing of some of the opening shootout. too often, he switched perspectives back and forth so quickly, that you couldn't appreciate any of the shots. like when someone falls off a horse, he switches from side view to victim's pov back to side view back to victim's pov so quickly, i didn't like it.... ultimately, IMO it is a very good movie, but not among the greatest of all time.

-- I understand that the main point of the movie is really going on in Pike's head, as opposed to the external violence.... So only after banging hookers did his conscience get the best of him and he finally decided that he couldn't go on any longer without freeing Angel? If loyalty is such an important thing for him -- and the only moral he seems to care about -- how the hell could he go screw around in a bordello as a member of the Bunch is being dragged through the streets?

-- But I guess that the their "attempt" to free Angel was really a death wish more than anything else, no? They knew they were committing suicide; heck, if the General would have freed Angel and let them walk away, they probably still would have shot the place up. They were walking to their death and they knew it and probably wanted it that way. Their world was vanishing and the West no longer had any use for them, so they were finished (similar to the male characters in OUATITW). I mean, even after Pike shot the General, everyone was at a  standstill and they probably could have walked outta there alive. But then, once he inexplicably shot the German, that is when all hell broke loose. I guess you can interpret that in one of 2 ways:

Either

a) Pike wanted to commit suicide -- he knew the West couldn't handle his type any more --  but couldn't die without trying to get Angel back. Once he did his best to get Angel back (and therefore atoned for his earlier betrayals), he could now die in peace, so that's why he started firing; now that he had atoned for his sins and his conscience was clear, he knew it was time for him to go.

Or


b) Perhaps Pike really did want to get Angel back and walk out of there alive. But once Angel was killed, Pike knew he couldn't go on living; this was one final betrayal too many (ie. maybe he thought he should have done more to try to free him earlier); and once Angel was killed, his conscience could not allow him to live any longer., for he would live a completely tormented life, knowing that he was unable to atone for his earlier betrayals, and failed yet again. So once Angel was killed, Pike decided he couldn't go on any longer, and therefore shot the German as a means of bringing about his own suicide





Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 06, 2011, 02:41:02 PM



I tried to love it. I really, really did.

Why? Just not to have to discuss why you didn't like it?

Quote

 I mean, even after Pike shot the General, everyone was at a  standstill and they probably could have walked outta there alive. But then, once he inexplicably shot the German, that is when all hell broke loose. I guess you can interpret that in one of 2 ways:

Either

a) Pike wanted to commit suicide -- he knew the West couldn't handle his type any more --  but couldn't die without trying to get Angel back. Once he did his best to get Angel back (and therefore atoned for his earlier betrayals), he could now die in peace, so that's why he started firing; now that he had atoned for his sins and his conscience was clear, he knew it was time for him to go.

Or


b) Perhaps Pike really did want to get Angel back and walk out of there alive. But once Angel was killed, Pike knew he couldn't go on living; this was one final betrayal too many (ie. maybe he thought he should have done more to try to free him earlier); and once Angel was killed, his conscience could not allow him to live any longer., for he would live a completely tormented life, knowing that he was unable to atone for his earlier betrayals, and failed yet again. So once Angel was killed, Pike decided he couldn't go on any longer, and therefore shot the German as a means of bringing about his own suicide

But that doesn't explain why the other three be suddenly captured by Holden's suicide wishes. Do Oates and Johnson looked like they were tired of living? That final scene is spectacular but makes little sense rationally.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 06, 2011, 04:36:15 PM
titoli: When I say "I tried to love it," I mean that I tried my best to have a clean slate, and not have any preconceived notions. Of course, everyone has their own opinions and I don't give a damn if anyone agrees or disagrees with my opinion of movies, but when so many people here think this is the greatest AW ever, I decided maybe I was missing something and to give it another clean shot. But my opinion didn't change that much. I mean, I liked the movie a little more, I consider it a solid movie but not nearly the greatest ever.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 06, 2011, 05:02:56 PM


But that doesn't explain why the other three be suddenly captured by Holden's suicide wishes. Do Oates and Johnson looked like they were tired of living? That final scene is spectacular but makes little sense rationally.

That is an interesting point: When Holden says "LET'S GO!" Oates laughs and says "Why not?"

What's the meaning of that? I am not sure. Maybe he was just drunk and itching for a fight? He certainly was not following Holden blindly; Borgnine would have, but Oates was always challenging Holden. And Oates certainly was not tormented by a betrayal. So I am not sure what that "why not" means.

 also, when they first left the Generals compound after asking for Angel and being refused, they were asked if they wanna visit the whorehouse, and Holden  said, "Why not?"... I am sure there is some connection between the subsequent "why not" that Oates says...

Maybe some of the Peckinpah apologists here can answer that ;)




Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 07, 2011, 12:36:11 AM
, but when so many people here think this is the greatest AW ever,.

There are at least as many who don't. And it was like this since the movie was first released, as I pointed out even in this thread. If you check this thread you will also find different opinions about it, so no effort is required, by this or any other movie.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 07, 2011, 12:58:23 AM
There are at least as many who don't. And it was like this since the movie was first released, as I pointed out even in this thread. If you check this thread you will also find different opinions about it, so no effort is required, by this or any other movie.

I just meant that I tried to give it a fresh look and forget any prior feelings I had from the first time I watched it. But as soon as the slo-mos began, my eyes started rolling again  ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 07, 2011, 01:02:55 AM
That is an interesting point: When Holden says "LET'S GO!" Oates laughs and says "Why not?"

What's the meaning of that? I am not sure. Maybe he was just drunk and itching for a fight? He certainly was not following Holden blindly; Borgnine would have, but Oates was always challenging Holden. And Oates certainly was not tormented by a betrayal. So I am not sure what that "why not" means.

 also, when they first left the Generals compound after asking for Angel and being refused, they were asked if they wanna visit the whorehouse, and Holden  said, "Why not?"... I am sure there is some connection between the subsequent "why not" that Oates says...

Maybe some of the Peckinpah apologists here can answer that ;)

I hadn't noticed this before and the answer to that is easy: the repetition of the "Why not?" is a cheap hollywoodish way to reinforce the impression of rationality of an irrational decision by transitive property. I.e.: if that answer fits when deciding whether to go to a brothel or not, then it must rhyme just as well when deciding to suicide yourself. Which is not the case, of course.  


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 07, 2011, 01:16:31 AM

Another couple of questions RE: the bordello sequence: (btw I know I ain't the first one who's ever asked this, but as  am in no way a Peckinpah expert (or even a Peckinpah fan!) please excuse my ignorance and help me learn...  ;))

a) what happened in the bordello that made Holden decide to go back to get Angel? I don't recall anything particular happening that would cause Holden to suddenly decide, "LET'S GO!" (And I highly doubt that he knew he was gonna do it all along; if so, he woulda done it right away and not screwed around while Angel was being tortured). So something must have happened -- mostly inside Holden mind -- make him decide LET'S GO. But I don't think we see anything top justify/support that?


b) Borgnine didn't partake of the sensual delights as the other 3 did; he sat outside whittling on apiece of wood (sound familiar?  ;)  ), as if waiting for Holden to say 'LET'S GO"; as if he knew that moment was going to come even before Holden did.
 
Now, that may make sense IF Borgnine was aware of Holden's inner torment over his betrayals; then Borgnine would know that Holden would inevitably ask them to get Angel.

However, I don't recall Holden discussing his feelings with Borgnine; all the betrayal stuff happens in flashbacks in Holden's (and Robert Ryan's) mind. So if Borgnine didn't really know about Holden's feelings about his betrayals, why would he be waiting outside, sure that Holden would ask them all to get Angel?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 07, 2011, 01:34:27 AM
I hadn't noticed this before and the answer to that is easy: the repetition of the "Why not?" is a cheap hollywoodish way to reinforce the impression of rationality of an irrational decision by transitive property. I.e.: if that answer fits when deciding whether to go to a brothel or not, then it must rhyme just as well when deciding to suicide yourself. Which is not the case, of course.  

A) It would make sense if we see some reason to justify it. But I (and I see you as well  ;)) don't see any reason to justify Oates's saying it.

Just to expand a bit more on this poin:

Oates certainly had no inner torment over any betrayals, and probably had little  use for Angel anyway -- (I forgot if it was Oates or Johnson (or both) that had complained about Angel getting an equal share in the loot after they opening robbery; and one of them had tried pulling a gun on Angel in that scene as well). I mean, I am not denying that Oates would have preferred that Angel would be free, but not to the extent that he'd commit suicide for it, for he certainly had none of the issues with betrayal that Holden did.

The ultimate, overarching motivations of:

HOLDEN is his being haunted by and seeking to atone for his prior betrayals;

BORGNINE is his loyalty to Holden;

OATES (and JOHNSON as well) simply want to have fun -- to rob and and spend the money on whores and booze. Well, he now has lots of money, has just been boozing and banging the whores. Life is good for him right. So wtf would he in effect say "Why Not Commit Suicide?"


B) Once we are discussing the meaning of the "Why Not?", how about  we also examine when Holden says it initially, when invited to the whorehouse: (as discussed previously, IMO at that point he was not thinking of suicide yet; that happened in the bordello. Anyway...)

So Holden has just returned from asking the General to free a member of his gang, and been denied. (Perhaps he already feels like he is now betraying Angel, or perhaps he doesn't feel guilty yet about it. But even if he hasn't considered the betrayal-implications), at the very least, a member of his gang is at that very moment, just a few hundred yards away being tortured and about to be killed. Now he is invited to a bordello, and his response is "WHY NOT?" Are you kidding me?  "Because no person with any shred of emotion (which Holden is supposed to have) should be banging whores while a member of your gang is a few feet away at that very moment being tortured, THAT'S WHY NOT!"

So I would argue that not only does Oates's subsequent "WHY NOT?" have no justification, so does Holden's prior "WHY NOT?" have no justification.

(So I guess in a sense I am taking your theory of transitive property to a whole new level -- I say that it does not make sense on its own in either circumstance; but when you day the same dumb thing TWICE, suddenly it somehow does become meaningful!  ;D)


Finally, I just want to point out that  these are all just my initial thoughts on these sequences; it is more of a question than an argument on my part. If someone can offer a satisfactory explanation to show me how I am wrong or have misunderstood it, I'll be more than happy to accept it  O0


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 07, 2011, 02:14:35 AM
Two more, unrelated questions I have:

I) As the Bunch rides away from the opening robbery, Edmond O'Brien first tells Holden that the kid Holden left behind was his grandson, and we see that Holden feels bad about it.

Somehow, I think that scene is kind of superfluous. I mean, yeah, every additional betrayal adds a bit more to Holden's inner torment, which finally culminates in his own suicide. But I don't think that moment when he has the brief flashback to leaving that kid at the railroad office really adds much to Holden's motivations; his betrayal of Robert Ryan dwarfs everything else.

Actually, as I write this, I am thinking of a possible answer: Perhaps that brief bit of dialogue and flashback RE: that kid, is the very first indication we get that Holden has an issue with betrayals; so what it is really doing there is for purposes of foreshadowing Holden's motivation. Simply as an additional incident of betrayal, I think it is superfluous; but if it's there for purposes of foreshadowing, then it makes sense.

II) What is the meaning of the very final flashbacks that end the movie (ie. as Ryan and O'Brien ride away with the others at the end, there are flashbacks to previous scenes involving the Bunch). What function does that serve? Is it supposed to be a flashback that they are having? As I recall, the only one who could have possibly been there for all those scenes that are flashed to is O'Brien (and I am not 100% sure he was there for all of them either);  are the final flashbacks all going on in his mind? Or is it a combination of some sort, ie. some going on in O'Brien's mind, and some going on in Ryan's mind? Or is it not going on in their minds at all, but just shown for for the viewer?

 I totally do not understand what those final flashbacks are all about  :-[


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 07, 2011, 04:10:18 AM

B) Once we are discussing the meaning of the "Why Not?", how about  we also examine when Holden says it initially, when invited to the whorehouse: (as discussed previously, IMO at that point he was not thinking of suicide yet; that happened in the bordello. Anyway...)

So Holden has just returned from asking the General to free a member of his gang, and been denied. (Perhaps he already feels like he is now betraying Angel, or perhaps he doesn't feel guilty yet about it. But even if he hasn't considered the betrayal-implications), at the very least, a member of his gang is at that very moment, just a few hundred yards away being tortured and about to be killed. Now he is invited to a bordello, and his response is "WHY NOT?" Are you kidding me?  "Because no person with any shred of emotion (which Holden is supposed to have) should be banging whores while a member of your gang is a few feet away at that very moment being tortured, THAT'S WHY NOT!"

So I would argue that not only does Oates's subsequent "WHY NOT?" have no justification, so does Holden's prior "WHY NOT?" have no justification.

(So I guess in a sense I am taking your theory of transitive property to a whole new level -- I say that it does not make sense on its own in either circumstance; but when you day the same dumb thing TWICE, suddenly it somehow does become meaningful!  ;D)

But one could argue that Holden's mind is a divided one and so the contradictory (assuming it is such) answer might have a justification. The problem is that Oates' answer finds no justification at all if not in Holden's previous answer: that's why I go for my first assumption. I should watch again the movie but it seems that these fresh new arguments you brought to attention buttress up my doubts  as I expressed them in my discussion with Groggy.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on December 07, 2011, 04:53:56 AM
I find it fascinating (really) that people spend so much time discussing a film they neither understand nor like. Maybe I'm just  too lazy, I would consider it (speaking for myself) a waste of time. One can't discuss emotions really, I'll never dig Rohmer's films I suppose - not my kind of emotions.

I can't write a chapter here, but in short a few thoughts.
That whole film works on two ways for an audience: 1.) people who like action westerns certainly do get their share of action, and although they are a bit uncertain about what they just saw enjoyed the experience. 2.) people who dig the characters, that whole unfolding little universe of Peckinpah country and his basic themes. The performances that are beyond the level of your typical western performance. The subtext that Peckinpah concentrated on while dealing with a totally simple story (''WILD BUNCH is just what happens when killers go the Mexico'' SP).
Among those are the people who 'just' acknowledge what Peckinpah achieved, and also those who go through an emotional experience no (or few) other film(s) can provide to them.

I never cared much for logic when it comes to good films. It all goes back to Ford's ''If he would have shot the horses in front of the wagon it would have been the end of the picture.''. Almost all films have a moment when one can say ''why can't Joe Buck just go back to Texas and leave NY City, he doesn't seem to have a great time there...'
To me the only critical scene was bringing Angel back to the hacienda after they robbed the train. He took weapons to support his village, Mapaches enemies. He had already killed his ex-girlfriend, Mapaches slut. Big risk to go back there.


As for Pike, the story builds up beautifully. His character reaches many viewers on a very deep level, and that's why we love the film so much and weep at the end when they celebrate their end in such a unique, powerful and - for the involded viewer - physically exhausting way.
He is the leader of the bunch but makes many mistakes. (Sykes grandson, Thornton ''Being sure is my business'; killing for washers - although there was no way he could have known that - nevertheless his men died for it; the death of his girl because he wasn't prepared for her husband), finally he allows Angel to keep weapons - which leads to Mapache torturing Angel. Of course they go to the whores - what else can they do ? They tried to buy him back (for a lot of money too) - Mapache won't do it. THey are told his great mood could change quite quickly - so they stroll of. Except for Dutch, he won't go. He sits in front of the building, thinking of Angel. Meantime one of the best scenes takes places in the building. It is my favorite moment in the film. Pike reflects for brief moments on his life: he looks at the beautiful (and nice) Mexican girl who sells herself to feed her baby. (it hurt the film a lot when the flashback with the woman he loved and 'killed' was cut before the restauration. It was a Mexican girl too. She represented the life and family he never had. Now he sees that beautiful lovable girl, the baby... no such life for Pike. He looks at the bottle which represents the life he got instead. The sounds from the boys next room bring him back to this life, his only life. Losing Angel is just one pound of guilt too much on his back. Time to do what they can do best. Fight and kill.
In sets the poetic notion of men outlived by changing times. They rather go with a BANG than fade away. ''SAVAGE POETRY', I mentioned here before. How can one explain poetry ? What are you doing to me :)
A glorious moment of course, when they kill Mapache and the Mexicans are so puzzled they tend to give up. Those glances in close-up, when they decide to go on, the memory of it even gives me the goose pumps while writing this. Those of us you love that Bunch now fight and scream and suffer with them for 7 long minutes and when they are dead we died with them. They sky turns dark and stormy.
For those who couldn't care less the film could end here. But as for us, we need an uplifting moment. The smallest uplifting scene is so welcomed here (Sykes and Thornton founding a new Bunch). And the last 'flashback' is a final goodbye. Showing them in their prowdest moment, riding out the village where the people regarded them as human beings, not killers. Playing childrens games with girls, remember. WE ALL DREAM OF BEING A CHILD AGAIN. EVEN THE WORST OF US. PERHAPS THE WORST MOST OF ALL. And that wonderful song LA GOLONDRINA ...
Oh what a great film. What a gifted artist. No point in explaining emotions or greatness, but it was nice to reflect on it for some time here now. Those who have similar feelings will nod, the others I'm sure have their own sacred pieces of film art (I hope!  it would be nice to hear from some of you which films make you weep! Touch your heart. There must be some.)

LA GOLONDRINA (The Wild Bunch)

A donde ira, veloz y fatigada
la golondrina que de aqui se va, a donde ira,
buscando abrigo y no lo encontrara
Oh cielo santo y sin poder volar.

Junto a mi pecho le pondria yo su nido
en donde pueda la estacion pasar,
tambien yo estoy en la region perdida
Oh cielo santo y sin poder volar












Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 07, 2011, 05:51:40 AM
I find it fascinating (really) that people spend so much time discussing a film they neither understand nor like.


I find even more fascinating that people who like those very same movies spend so many lines (not) answering. (Really).


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 07, 2011, 06:07:53 AM
One can't discuss emotions really, I'll never dig Rohmer's films I suppose - not my kind of emotions.

There are no emotions in Rohmer's films (well, a couple in The Green Ray, but not otherwise). People in his films talk about their emotions, of course, and as you say, it really isn't possible to talk about emotions, so what happens is an interesting intellectual activity where putative emotions are transformed into fodder for conversation. But this is perfectly legitimate. Recall Wordsworth's definition of poetry: "the overflow of powerful feelings recollected in tranquility."(emphasis added). It's the "recollected in tranquility" part that's transformative, that adds value, that makes art. I think your real objection to Rohmer is that his movies are really just a series of conversations, and you're more of an action-film kind of guy. ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Leonardo on December 07, 2011, 07:05:42 AM

Well said Mike S., I fully agree  O0 O0. Very few movies (I'm 59, so I have seen a few) apart from Sergio's movies have left me so emotionally drained and scarred like TWB after watching it for the first time in a cinema.  Getting the same emotions when rewatching it on DVD. However, I'm impartial enough to say that other movies by Sam are lousy and boring: a few nights ago I rewatched after many years "Bring me the head of A. Garcia" and found it boring to put it mildly, couldn't believe it was a Sam Peckinpah movie.
On the other hand, an artist's production cannot achieve constantly the same high standards (Sergio was a remarkable exception). The story goes that Sam while filming TWB in Mexico had some health problems (booze?) and apparently his will to live was not at its peak; so I think the massacre at the end, including Holden's "death wish", probably has something to do with it.
Maybe it could be fair to say that TWB is a movie which either you love or you don't, but in any case it is a movie that one way or the other EVERYBODY remembers.
As for La golondrina, Mike, check out this version by the Trio los Panchos, which is as close to the one in the movie I could find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DeZNjQ4uvw









[/quote]


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on December 07, 2011, 07:32:16 AM
There are no emotions in Rohmer's films (well, a couple in The Green Ray, but not otherwise). People in his films talk about their emotions, of course, and as you say, it really isn't possible to talk about emotions, so what happens is an interesting intellectual activity where putative emotions are transformed into fodder for conversation. But this is perfectly legitimate. Recall Wordsworth's definition of poetry: "the overflow of powerful feelings recollected in tranquility."(emphasis added). It's the "recollected in tranquility" part that's transformative, that adds value, that makes art. I think your real objection to Rohmer is that his movies are really just a series of conversations, and you're more of an action-film kind of guy. ;)

Oh no, on the opposite. I'm not an action-guy per se, I fell asleep watching films one labels these days as 'action films'. Couldn't care less, seen everything before. Maybe not in 3 - D (so I get bored 20 minutes later).
But either a film has to offer some great ideas / theme / pace / coolness like Dirty Harry, Dirty Dozen, French Connection or Lethal Weapon (just to leave the golden age of film making for one second) or it must touch me on an emotional level. NIGHT OF THE HUNTER many can't stand or laugh at it, I think it's poetry. BLOWUP is considered by many as boring. I found it boring in the 80s. By now I relate to the protagonist, to the style, to the mood .. everything. 'love it :). But films by Rohmer, von Trier and some others really bore me and it didn't change the last 30 years. But it affects other people. There must be a reason on an emotional level I can't relate to.
Anyway, BUNCH is the perfect mix of action, character & emotion. That is very hard to find.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on December 07, 2011, 08:08:27 AM
Well said Mike S., I fully agree  O0 O0. Very few movies (I'm 59, so I have seen a few) apart from Sergio's movies have left me so emotionally drained and scarred like TWB after watching it for the first time in a cinema.  Getting the same emotions when rewatching it on DVD. However, I'm impartial enough to say that other movies by Sam are lousy and boring: a few nights ago I rewatched after many years "Bring me the head of A. Garcia" and found it boring to put it mildly, couldn't believe it was a Sam Peckinpah movie.
On the other hand, an artist's production cannot achieve constantly the same high standards (Sergio was a remarkable exception). The story goes that Sam while filming TWB in Mexico had some health problems (booze?) and apparently his will to live was not at its peak; so I think the massacre at the end, including Holden's "death wish", probably has something to do with it.
Maybe it could be fair to say that TWB is a movie which either you love or you don't, but in any case it is a movie that one way or the other EVERYBODY remembers.
As for La golondrina, Mike, check out this version by the Trio los Panchos, which is as close to the one in the movie I could find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DeZNjQ4uvw

Many thanks for the link, YOUTUBE won't play it in Germany :( :(

Sam & Sergio are my favorites. I don't consider Sergio as important as Sam because Leone didn't go into psyche and character as deep as Sam did. But Leone was so innovative and powerful and hitting my taste right on target - he must be Number Two :) PURE CINEMA AT ITS HIGHEST PEAK.

Peckinpah was a bit more complicated, I made a film about him which is called PASSION & POETRY, took me 2 years. Too much to talk about to start a discussion here, it would take hours and hours to (try to) explain the man. He was an addictive person and torn between his pioneer 'western roots' and psychological and artistic talents he had in him. He made only two or three films (out of 14) without having major problems (studio interference or his own erratic behaviour) while Leone like Kubrick and some other 'great ones' could merely work in peace.
But Peckinpah was very good at transforming trouble into art, see STRAW DOGS, CABLE HOGUE or CROSS OF IRON who all had difficult filming histories. One of the reasons his films are so good and still alive , is the fact that they are more than films. They work on another level. I watched STRAW DOGS every other 10 years on the big screen and it affected to audience the same way, be it the 80s, 90s or seven years ago. In the beginning one gathers together to watch 'an old film', in the end it was an unforgetable cinematic (and emotional) experience.
Sam was a favorite with shrinks and students of human behaviour. Although he had studied drama and not psychoanalysis, Sam was a natural. Not too clinical, for that he was too macho (after all there are men AND women on this planet, and Sam certainly was no Woody Allen). Then again the emotions he brought across in JUNIOR BONNER are strongly felt by women.

Interesting tales about the BUNCH shooting :) No, he was at his peak down there in Mexico, no death wish :) It was return after 4 years (blackballed by the studios after 1964s MAJOR DUNDEE & THE CINCINNATI KID), he had a studio and a producer who let him go and he showed what he could do! Booze was rather gas to him, his alcohol problems started in 1960 as I recall. He called himself 'a working alcoholic'. His real downfall was cocaine in the mid 70s. He already was a paranoid (I'd be too I suppose, if everybody would mess around with my films), and cocaine is not the right drug for a paranoid.

GARCIA is his most personal film, it devides people even more than BUNCH I think. Some really adore it. Sam loved Mexico and it shows (I love Mexico too, so the film has a big bonus with me, and any film with Warren in a lead is an experience anyway :))
Surely an offbeat film. For certain tastes and Peckinpah aficionados (Warren was playing Sam in that one. Booze, guns and whores. Sounds more like a Mexican bandit than a responsible person directing a crew of hundreds with a budget of millions. One of he reasons we love him so much. Like Kristofferson once said: 'he was like an old dog who's always doing something stupid, but you continue loving him'..







Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 07, 2011, 09:35:39 AM

Maybe it could be fair to say that TWB is a movie which either you love or you don't, but in any case it is a movie that one way or the other EVERYBODY remembers.

But the problem is whether one can discuss this movie if he thinks it is not such a masterpiece. Apparently some think you can't. And that it is not fair.  Especially if you are in a DISCUSSION board.
About Garcia I saw it twice (funnily, now I seem to remember it was the same cinema where I saw WB for the first time: probably there was a retrospective) and thought it sucked both times. Both you can't say that: you like it or don't. And one's arguments end there.  So I wonder what fora are for.

About watching WB I remember I saw it this first time with my school friends (4-5 of them) and at the end nobody was in tears, nobody hailed this as a masterpiece and everybody agreed that he had seen better movies than this one. (That much I remember, even though so many decades have passed). So what that should prove? That my circle of friends was inadequate? Or that it was perfectly adequate to my standards? This way of discussing movies with tears, feelings and what else is inadequate (again) to a discussion which should be based on what is happening on the screen and not what is happening to you unless you can put it into words that explain why you're having such a reaction. And inviting people not to discuss a movie because it hurts somebody's feeling is good in any place but a forum: where nobody forces another to read his comments.  :'(


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on December 07, 2011, 10:02:18 AM
But the problem is whether one can discuss this movie if he thinks it is not such a masterpiece. Apparently some think you can't. And that it is not fair.  Especially if you are in a DISCUSSION board.

Conversely, it's hard to respond to a discussion based on the premise that "the movie isn't universally loved, ergo it's not good." :P


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on December 07, 2011, 10:06:45 AM
Two more, unrelated questions I have:

I) As the Bunch rides away from the opening robbery, Edmond O'Brien first tells Holden that the kid Holden left behind was his grandson, and we see that Holden feels bad about it.

Somehow, I think that scene is kind of superfluous.

I think you answered your own question below. In and of itself it's not an essential scene, but contextually it's more proof of Pike's failure as a leader. For him, betrayals and needlessly sacrificing his men aren't a thing of the past; they're something he continues to live with in the present.

Quote
II) What is the meaning of the very final flashbacks that end the movie (ie. as Ryan and O'Brien ride away with the others at the end, there are flashbacks to previous scenes involving the Bunch). What function does that serve? Is it supposed to be a flashback that they are having? As I recall, the only one who could have possibly been there for all those scenes that are flashed to is O'Brien (and I am not 100% sure he was there for all of them either);  are the final flashbacks all going on in his mind? Or is it a combination of some sort, ie. some going on in O'Brien's mind, and some going on in Ryan's mind? Or is it not going on in their minds at all, but just shown for for the viewer?

I assumed it was for the audience's benefit - a way to link the old Bunch to Sykes and Thornton's buddies.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on December 07, 2011, 10:08:12 AM
I hadn't noticed this before and the answer to that is easy: the repetition of the "Why not?" is a cheap hollywoodish way to reinforce the impression of rationality of an irrational decision by transitive property. I.e.: if that answer fits when deciding whether to go to a brothel or not, then it must rhyme just as well when deciding to suicide yourself. Which is not the case, of course.  

I call it foreshadowing.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 07, 2011, 10:13:24 AM
Sam & Sergio are my favorites. I don't consider Sergio as important as Sam because Leone didn't go into psyche and character as deep as Sam did. But Leone was so innovative and powerful and hitting my taste right on target - he must be Number Two :) PURE CINEMA AT ITS HIGHEST PEAK.
You are expressing a preference for modern heroes over classical ones, which you are certainly entitled to do. But I see each as operating in different registers and fullfilling different needs. I may, for example, enjoy the novels of James Jones and the works of Homer equally; I don't feel the need to rank Jones over Homer simply because Jones peers into the complex workings of the minds of WWII combat infantrymen whilst Homer presents his heroes without any psychology whatsover.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 07, 2011, 10:22:05 AM
Conversely, it's hard to respond to a discussion based on the premise that "the movie isn't universally loved, ergo it's not good." :P

I'd rather put it: it's easy to respond to a discussion based on the premise that "the movie isn't universally loved, ergo it's not good for everybody."

Really, let's not make wordplays. The premise I make is that there is not a single movie universally loved. We are in a forum to discuss the reasons why. Reasons, not propaganda.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 07, 2011, 10:26:31 AM
I call it foreshadowing.

Childish.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on December 07, 2011, 10:27:19 AM
Quote
So if there is a debate it's only because this movie is flawed, though one can discuss how much.


"Word play" huh?

The premise I make is that there is not a single movie universally loved.

Sure you say that now, because (hopefully) you realized you'd get reemed for the asinine "premise" you advanced eaerlier.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 07, 2011, 10:29:42 AM


"Word play" huh?

It seems to me that this very point of the discussion demonstrates the validity of the above quotation. The problem is that some people cannot concede there are flaws.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 07, 2011, 10:33:34 AM
I may, for example, enjoy the novels of James Jones and the works of Homer equally;

So you can read ancient greek? :o


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 07, 2011, 10:36:09 AM


Sure you say that now, because (hopefully) you realized you'd get reemed for the asinine "premise" you advanced eaerlier.

You can think whatever you want.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on December 07, 2011, 10:56:19 AM
You are expressing a preference for modern heroes over classical ones, which you are certainly entitled to do. But I see each as operating in different registers and fullfilling different needs. I may, for example, enjoy the novels of James Jones and the works of Homer equally; I don't feel the need to rank Jones over Homer simply because Jones peers into the complex workings of the minds of WWII combat infantrymen whilst Homer presents his heroes without any psychology whatsover.

Not 'modern about classical ones' really. They are all 'Westerners' in a way, while Homer & Jones are thousands of years apart. Some difference I'd say. I guess my love for Sergio and his films (just check my archive :)) is proof enough that I rank him high as a jet airliner travelling through the atmosphere. But there's no doubt that Peckinpah was dealing with more ambitious contents than Leone did. I mean that's for sure or do we need to start that discussion as well? That isn't putting Leone down in any way. He was style over content, and as for that: my favorite style. I watch all his films every other two or three years.
Maybe that is why I have this deep love for GIU LA TESTA. Although it isn't my favorite (GBU can't be topped), it was the first time Leone went a little deeper than just having ''I never seen so many men wasted - and for what?.  In GIU LA TESTA the characters actually have feelings, there's history brought on the screen that not entertains but hurts (dead sons) and political content too. He was capable (of course) and willing to give us such films, unfortunately he stopped afterwards to wait for OUATIA (a film so good, it almost hurts.).
There's a reason why at least 8 books are published exclusevly about the content of Peckinpah's films. They started analyzing them 35 years ago - and they still do.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 07, 2011, 11:36:20 AM
Can we stick to discussing the movie rather than discussing whether or not it is ok to discuss the movie? Maybe I'm crazy, but while I enjoy reading discussions about a movie -- whether or not I agree with them -- I don't enjoy reading discussions over whether or not someone has a right to discuss a movie  ;D ;D ;D

Everybody can discuss whatever they want to, and that's that. If someone doesn't like it, they need not read DISCUSSION BOARDS  ::)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on December 07, 2011, 11:44:14 AM

There's a reason why at least 8 books are published exclusevly about the content of Peckinpah's films. They started analyzing them 35 years ago - and they still do.

8?
It must be closer to 20, maybe 30. It is astonishing how much books deal with Peckinpah's films.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on December 07, 2011, 11:49:20 AM
The premise I make is that there is not a single movie universally loved. We are in a forum to discuss the reasons why. Reasons, not propaganda.

Well, of course ,and if a work of art is universally praised, then it must be something wrong with it. ;)

I don't know why Mike thinks there are works which shouldn't be criticised, but I think that every film, be it a an acknowledged classic or a piece of trash, deserves the same treatment.

And I like it when other people respond negative to films I love. Maybe not always, but generally I do. Depends on the discussion.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 07, 2011, 11:58:51 AM
But there's no doubt that Peckinpah was dealing with more ambitious contents than Leone did. I mean that's for sure or do we need to start that discussion as well? That isn't putting Leone down in any way. He was style over content, and as for that: my favorite style. I watch all his films every other two or three years.
Maybe we should start a discussion on this as well. Because I see plenty of content with Leone's style. That content is gradually revealed as the oeuvre progresses, but because Leone is dealing with archetypes he is also tapping into 2,000-years plus of stories and characters. Leone's great theme--male friendships and the inevitable disappointments that attend them--goes right back to Achilles and Patroclus. As much as I enjoy Peckinpah, he seems very much a man of his period, whereas Leone seems to be "not of an age but for all time."


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on December 07, 2011, 12:00:40 PM
The problem is that some people cannot concede there are flaws.

Yes, there are some flaws, but only minor ones. Nothing which hurts the film for me, nothing which makes it less fascinating.
TWB is a film always on the brink of crashing down, and these type of emotionally and visually powering films are mostly (or maybe always) afflicted with some flaws.
And German director Dominik Graf opts for unclean scenes in films, which breathe life into films, which make certain films better. "Flawless" films are often lifeless films.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on December 07, 2011, 03:06:27 PM
8?
It must be closer to 20, maybe 30. It is astonishing how much books deal with Peckinpah's films.

I meant only the 'serious' academic books. Altogether I have 37 books on Peckinpah, but not all of them tried to dissect him.
I never meant BUNCH is above any critisism or discussion, that's nonsense of course. Maybe I'm just spoiled by discussions with
people who care for it or dig a little deeper. Or who really attack it. Most do because they were provoked - which Peckinpah loved to do.

Discussing that film is part of me for 32 years now, maybe I was just dumbfounded about the strange (at least strange to me)
points that came up here. Never heard such questions when it came to BUNCH in all those years. Provoked me too, I do not tend to discuss
Sam's films in the web. Good point this thread here therefore. Provocation all around. Sam would love it.
   
But sometimes I get the feeling films just become a number in web forums. This one is 5/10,  the next 7/10... I just can't destroy a film with three lines - except for those who really suck, and even those give room for discussion (mostly making fun regarding lack of talent I suppose).


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on December 07, 2011, 03:28:05 PM
You can think whatever you want.

Glad I have your permission. O0


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on December 07, 2011, 03:28:13 PM
Maybe we should start a discussion on this as well. Because I see plenty of content with Leone's style. That content is gradually revealed as the oeuvre progresses, but because Leone is dealing with archetypes he is also tapping into 2,000-years plus of stories and characters. Leone's great theme--male friendships and the inevitable disappointments that attend them--goes right back to Achilles and Patroclus. As much as I enjoy Peckinpah, he seems very much a man of his period, whereas Leone seems to be "not of an age but for all time."

Leone is surely ''not of an age but for all time.'' But not because of the themes of his films. All those themes are spread all over the American Cinema (and Catholic Church). Of course his films have content, of course he was perfect when it came to deal with archetypes. But that's not enough to become a cinema icon. That's not the reason this wonderful website exists. It was his way of directing. His pacing, his framing, his taste in general. His talent for finding faces, his talent for editing. And a great deal of luck: Leone & Clint & Morricone paved the way. The lion, the American & the Maestro.
Leone adored Cinema and Cinema adores him, because he is a champion. So powerful the coolness of his films will live forever.

Peckinpah's style was sensational too, and his carrer suffered from it. He was reduced to Bloody Sam & the master of slow motion. But many people then and now saw what was behind the curtain. A richness of lines and themes. Peckinpah in his best work dealt with the human condition, with complex psychological themes. With the political and geographical history of his country, with human relationships under extreme, but often realistic conditions. And so much more. He surely wasn't a man of his period, he even was a man BEFORE his period. Hoffman said 'A westerner in an age we fly to the moon!'
But his films, or at least some of them,  certainly have universal themes. We are the same idiots we were 50 or 150 years ago.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 07, 2011, 03:32:05 PM
i agree that simply using a number to rate a film is dumb. i never used to rate films here, till Dust Devil stated whining whenever i made a post about a film without rating it. So I, being a newbie and wanting to conform (yeah, Dubya;-) started rating as well, and it became a prt of me and i just started doing it automatically. but wnvr i stop to think about it i really hate it. i mean, it may be convenient for others who will wanna know if they should watch it, but i hate it for various reasons, like boxing myself in and putting a label that doesn't say much either. FUCK RATINGS. from now onI'll just describe: ("TWB is solid but overrrated, and I hate the slo-mos")


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on December 07, 2011, 03:39:48 PM
I like rating films.
Rating films means I try to give my enjoyment of a film (or the lack of it) a number. It makes things clear for myself if I rate a film.
And I can say a lot with it in combination with one or two sentences, without always writing an essay. (For which I mostly don't have the time)

If I find the time I will still try to answer some of D&Ds and Titoli's questions.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 07, 2011, 03:42:48 PM
Glad I have your permission. O0

And you can keep the signature as well.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 07, 2011, 03:50:47 PM
I like rating films.
Rating films means I try to give my enjoyment of a film (or the lack of it) a number. It makes things clear for myself if I rate a film.
And I can say a lot with it in combination with one or two sentences, without always writing an essay. (For which I mostly don't have the time)

If I find the time I will still try to answer some of D&Ds and Titoli's questions.

Rating, of course, is debatable. Still it is useful. Sometime I waste a lot of time thinking about a rating much more than what it takes me to think what I have to write in a short review. Because a movie may suck but still be worth seeing maybe for just a scene or a trick or what. And when I read some reviews by the 2 or 3 reviewers here I care to read and whose tastes rhyme with mine, I usually do not waste time reading the review but jump to the rating and, if it is good, then I read the review.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 07, 2011, 03:57:04 PM
Well, of course ,and if a work of art is universally praised

Such a work it never existed: all the great works of art have been criticized entirely or in part. And surely this is the case (even conceding is a work of art, which in part I think it is) with WB.



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on December 07, 2011, 04:04:22 PM
Such a work it never existed: all the great works of art have been criticized entirely or in part. And surely this is the case (even conceding is a work of art, which in part I think it is) with WB.



Sure, but some classics are probably not criticised any more. Someone here who thinks that the Mona Lisa is a piece of badly painted shit?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 07, 2011, 04:11:15 PM
Sure, but some classics are probably not criticised any more. Someone here who thinks that the Mona Lisa is a piece of badly painted shit?

Here maybe not, but I'm not an art critic. And then between a piece of s... and an undisputed\undisputable masterpiece (which, I repeat, doesn't exist) there are gradations.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 07, 2011, 04:36:43 PM
there are some films i rate a 10 that i wouldn't wanna watch a second time, and there are others I rate an 8 that I enjoy  watching over and over. So a rating is perhaps a convenient way of summing things up, but doesn't always say much.

Certain types of films lend themselves to being watched over and over, while others do not.

As one very broad example: a movie which is heavily based on the plot outcome, such as a "whodunit", or "what's gonna happen next," etc., may not be very interesting once you know who did what; so even if you enjoyed it immensely the first time, you may not wanna watch it again. On the other hand, sometimes you may want to watch it again, cuz now that you know "whodunit" the second time you watch, you can look for the clues, and see where the movie dropped hints to "whodunit." On the other hand, a comedy, or a movie with fun action sequences or a great score you like listening to, may be fun again and again, especially cuz the plot is really irrelevant.

It's kind of hard to explain precisely why some movies are enjoyable to watch over and over, while others are not; there often may not even be a common denominator.

Below, I will list some movies I love. (I'd rate each of these movies a minimum of 9/10). But I will split them into 2 lists:

LIST A is for those that I have either watched many times; or only watched a couple of times, but am interested in watching again;

LIST B is for those I have watched once or twice, but have no desire to watch again (at least not anytime soon):


LIST A

all of Leone's movies
HANNIBAL
A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT
20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA
BULLITT
INSIDE MAN
THE GODFATHER
THE GODFATHER PART II
RIO BRAVO

LIST B

LEGENDS OF THE FALL
SUNSET BOULEVARD
OUT OF THE PAST
ACE IN THE HOLE
HARRY AND TONTO
IN A LONELY PLACE
CASABLANCA
RED RIVER
STAGECOACH
McCABE & MRS. MILLER


I'd be more than happy if someone can come up with a distinction between those in List A and those in List B. (Sounds like something dj will try to do  ;))


(NOTE: I love military music. Therefore, there are some movies that I would be interested in watching again mainly because they feature lots of military music. But I am not including those movies on this list, cuz that's like a whole separate category  ;) ).


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on December 08, 2011, 01:04:54 AM

I never meant BUNCH is above any critisism or discussion, that's nonsense of course. Maybe I'm just spoiled by discussions with
people who care for it or dig a little deeper. Or who really attack it. Most do because they were provoked - which Peckinpah loved to do.

Discussing that film is part of me for 32 years now, maybe I was just dumbfounded about the strange (at least strange to me)
points that came up here. Never heard such questions when it came to BUNCH in all those years. Provoked me too, I do not tend to discuss
Sam's films in the web. Good point this thread here therefore. Provocation all around. Sam would love it.

Oh, this is very coherent with your previous, scathing post about people discussing movies they don't like. Of course, I shouldn't even answer this post as you revealed at last that you don't like to discuss P.'s movies on the boards (and that makes me wonder why I or anybody else should then waste time reading your  post). 
Anyway the "strange" points that came up are just about the meaning of the movie and the devices which P. adopts to put them across the audience. And I'm not sure "Sam" would have liked to see his bag of tricks opened up.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on December 08, 2011, 04:20:49 AM
And you can keep the signature as well.

 ;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on December 08, 2011, 04:22:13 AM
It seems to me that this very point of the discussion demonstrates the validity of the above quotation. The problem is that some people cannot concede there are flaws.

Well sure, in the sense that everything is flawed in some way. I doubt anyone posting here believes TWB is completely bereft of minor quibbles. However, I'm not sure this is the argument you wished to advance.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 08, 2011, 09:01:28 AM
Leone is surely ''not of an age but for all time.'' But not because of the themes of his films.
Not ONLY because of the themes. They are necessary, surely, though not sufficient (for the reasons you rightly list). And when I say Leone, I really mean Leone/Morricone.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on December 08, 2011, 10:08:33 AM
a) what happened in the bordello that made Holden decide to go back to get Angel? I don't recall anything particular happening that would cause Holden to suddenly decide, "LET'S GO!" (And I highly doubt that he knew he was gonna do it all along; if so, he woulda done it right away and not screwed around while Angel was being tortured). So something must have happened -- mostly inside Holden mind -- make him decide LET'S GO. But I don't think we see anything top justify/support that?

Why do you think anything "happened"? Pike had time to mull things over in his mind and came to a decision. Perhaps the hooker (reminding him of his past relationship with Aurora?) was a catalyst for this as well.

Quote
b) Borgnine didn't partake of the sensual delights as the other 3 did; he sat outside whittling on apiece of wood (sound familiar?  ;)  ), as if waiting for Holden to say 'LET'S GO"; as if he knew that moment was going to come even before Holden did.


Dutch was the one who was with Angel when he got captured and did nothing to save him. Ergo he's too guilty over Angel's fate to partake in the whoring.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on December 08, 2011, 10:23:08 AM
Oh, this is very coherent with your previous, scathing post about people discussing movies they don't like. Of course, I shouldn't even answer this post as you revealed at last that you don't like to discuss P.'s movies on the boards (and that makes me wonder why I or anybody else should then waste time reading your  post). 

I think it's more an issue of addressing non-sensical criticisms like "slow-motion isn't realistic!"


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 08, 2011, 11:07:39 AM
I think it's more an issue of addressing non-sensical criticisms like "slow-motion isn't realistic!"

it's not just about being realistic, though if you wanna keep playing that game you can. You guys mention the word "realism" in my posts far more than I do  ;)

Of course, slo-mo is never "realistic," BUT I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ALL SLO-MO. In previous posts I even mentioned some examples of slo-mo that I liked. eg. I just watched parts of Hannibal again (for like the 20th time  ;)) and  there are several slo-mo parts in there, none of which I didn't like (eg. Clarice dropping the videotapes in when she sees Hannibal on the security video, the scene in Florence where Hannibal kills the Inspector and one of the other guys trying to kidnap him...) I won't go on and on with every instance of slo-mo in cinema history that i did not disagree with, even though slo-mo is never "realistic." But you can keep putting the word "realism" in my mouth if you want to;  I wouldn't want to ruin your fun  ;)

What I have said re: the slo-mos is that I found them to be "ridiculous," and I stand by that. Showing one or two deaths is slo-mo may be fine. But showing a hundred deaths like that just annoyed the hell outta me. Made this feel more like a video game than a movie. Constantly stopping action sequences for slo-mo deaths is stupid. Not simply cuz "people don't die in slo-mo," but because it simply doesn't work to show it over and over like that. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing. (Slo-motion replays are important when watching sports, but if half the game is shown in slo-mo, that's annoying). All slo-mo is "unrealistic," but I don't have a problem with that. My problem is when that is done over and over and over


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on December 08, 2011, 07:33:35 PM
If slow-motion can be situationally appropriate in limited use why not pervasively? With Peckinpah it's as much about the editing as the slow-mo. Using it in one or two scenes alone generally comes off as a gimmick.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 08, 2011, 08:15:27 PM
what can I say, it didn't work for me in this film


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Jill on July 08, 2012, 05:11:41 AM
It just hit me... if anyone has seen the French dub / subtitles, how did they translate Pike's "Let's go"? Because if it happens to be "Allons-y!" it would be hilarious and awesome.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on July 08, 2012, 01:25:42 PM
It just hit me... if anyone has seen the French dub / subtitles, how did they translate Pike's "Let's go"? Because if it happens to be "Allons-y!" it would be hilarious and awesome.

No I haven't, glad to see you back, you've been absent and we missed your input  ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Jill on July 08, 2012, 06:09:17 PM
Yes. Shame on me, I tend to forget to come here! Too absorbed into ASoIaF, Doctor Who (obviously) and Avengers. I should hold a western marathon.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Leonardo on July 11, 2012, 05:25:40 AM
Yes. Shame on me, I tend to forget to come here! Too absorbed into ASoIaF, Doctor Who (obviously) and Avengers. I should hold a western marathon.
Jill, please do post more often! I kinda like your avatar: makes me crave for a strong black coffee everytime I look at it..! O0 O0 O0


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Jill on July 11, 2012, 07:02:15 AM
 :-* Now I put it in bookmarks so I don't forget.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 11, 2012, 09:50:43 AM
Jill, please do post more often! I kinda like your avatar: makes me crave for a strong black coffee everytime I look at it..! O0 O0 O0
Hmmm, makes me crave something else.......


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 11, 2012, 02:16:48 PM
Btw, the blu-ray at amazon is only $7.99


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 06, 2012, 11:27:17 PM
The Wild Bunch is playing now on TCM.

In the intro, TCM host Robert Osbourne is having a debate with Drew Barrymore (a frequent guest on TCM) about the merits of The Wild Bunch. Barrymore loves it, Osbourne is saying that while it is on the "TCM Essentials" cuz many people love it, it just doesn't do much for him.

I've always loved Robert O. and never liked Barrymore much, and now I know why  ;)

I'm gonna try to record this intro (primitively, as always) and maybe post a link here, if I can


-----


I've seen the movie twice, and as we've discussed, I don't like it nearly as much as many of y'all do.  I recorded tonight's showing and I'm gonna give it another shot.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on October 07, 2012, 02:19:17 AM
Don't waste your time


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 07, 2012, 03:01:24 AM
here is the TCM intro to today's showing  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E20D3y-GYME&feature=plcp

----------------

btw, I love TCM and Robert Osborne is awesome, but idk wtf they have that loser Drew Barrymore as probably the most frequent guest. She has done absolutely nothing other than share a last name with people far more talented than she can ever hope to be. It's painful just to watch her speak. There are so many real cineastes in the movie industry that love being guests on TCM; Drew B.'s ugly, overly made-up ass isn't worthy of it.

and she hardly says a word substantively about the movie. All she says is general nonsense like "variety is the spice of life" and sometimes I wanna see negativity and sometimes I wanna kick some ass. More brilliant words have never been spoken. Osborne explains why he doesn't like the movie, he thinks there's too much blood, it was too long, etc. Barrymore's response? Variety is the spice of life, sometimes I wanna kick ass. What brilliance  ::)

and btw, that's a perfect way to separate the great guests on TCM from those who don't belong there: I want people who will enlighten me somewhat about the movie, tell a little behind the scenes story, or some useful information on how the movie came about, or discuss something substantive about what they think makes the movie great, like discussing a theme of the movie or something like that. But for the assholes, rather than offering something useful to the viewer, they just prattle on and on with how much they love the movie, shit like "OMG, this is awesome, I can watch it twice a week and it never gets old, this movie is so amazing, I cry every time I see it, blah blah blah." Thanks a lot, that's very helpful ::)
 


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on October 07, 2012, 07:27:09 AM
Barrymore can't be worse than Rose McGowan, who quite frequently admitted she'd never seen the movie they were watching.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 07, 2012, 01:43:17 PM
just finished watching the movie (3rd viewing). My opinion remains the same: it's a very solid Western, gets an 8/10, but certainly is not the greatest of AW of all-time. Not by a long shot.

The slo-mo violence and blood which I so hated the first time I saw the movie, actually hasn't bothered me nearly as much the last two times. Maybe it's cuz I've come to expect it now? Those moments seem to pass much quicker.

Anyway, I do agree that the film editing is terrific.

btw, after the movie, Osborne did delineate several things he loves about the movie, including the score, the opening credits, and the cinematography.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 07, 2012, 01:48:11 PM
Barrymore can't be worse than Rose McGowan, who quite frequently admitted she'd never seen the movie they were watching.

 ;D haha I haven't seen that.

But Barrymore is actually not just a guest; she's actually the co-host, along with Osborne of the "TCM Essential" series.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on October 07, 2012, 02:14:38 PM
Barrymore can't be worse than Rose McGowan, who quite frequently admitted she'd never seen the movie they were watching.
I think it's safe to assume that Rose's picks were really Robert Rodriguez's.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on October 07, 2012, 02:18:35 PM
;D haha I haven't seen that.

But Barrymore is actually not just a guest; she's actually the co-host, along with Osborne of the "TCM Essential" series.

So was McGowan. They should bring back Alec Baldwin, who at least knew something about the movies they watched.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 07, 2012, 03:43:38 PM
So was McGowan. They should bring back Alec Baldwin, who at least knew something about the movies they watched.

I think Baldwin is still there pretty frequently.

I also read that until 2006, Peter Bogdanovich used to host The Essentials series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bogdanovich#Later_years He definitely has real cred as a cineaste; I'd far prefer someone like him over Barrymore.



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on October 07, 2012, 04:57:03 PM
Bogdanovich however is a asshole  :P


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 09, 2012, 05:55:20 PM
Bogdanovich however is a asshole  :P

well I know he didn't get along with Leone, but few of his creative collaborators did.

I loved The Last Picture Show (1971), and has made great contributions as a cineaste. Someone like him should definitely replace Drew Barrymore on TCM


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on October 09, 2012, 11:08:50 PM
like is the key word  ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 10, 2012, 01:15:39 AM
RE: Barrymore: don't they give actors lessons on how to speak properly? (At least that's what I thought from Singin' In the Rain  ;))  How can a (supposedly) big actress not have been taught to speak normally? It's like she's talking outta the side of her mouth and arghhh it's fucking painful to watch her talk


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on October 10, 2012, 05:12:49 AM
I don't care for her either  O0


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 10, 2012, 06:05:57 AM
What the fuck has she ever done in her life, besides scream in the closet in ET and have the last name Barrymore? And flash David Letterman? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UUqwrpw3uA


Looking at her wikipedia page now, I was SHOCKED SHOCKED SHOCKED to learn that she got a star on the Hollywood walk of Fame. I mean, I really used to think that that meant something, but now, I will regard it with about the same meaningfullness as I regard the Nobel Peace Prize. If Drew fucking Barrymore deserves a star -- DREW FUCKING BARRYMORE??!! -- then really, who the hell does not deserve a star?

Seriously, if her last name wasn't Barrymore, nobody would have ever heard of her. And that means she would never contaminate the hallowed halls of TCM.  I don't begrudge anybody fame or fortune, I'm happy for anyone who can acquire whatever they can in life.... BUT GET THE HELL OFF MY TCM! DO NOT PROFANE THE HOLY!


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on May 15, 2013, 08:43:57 AM
Oh hell naw!

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/will-smith-lined-up-for-remake-of-the-wild-bunch (http://www.totalfilm.com/news/will-smith-lined-up-for-remake-of-the-wild-bunch)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 15, 2013, 12:42:18 PM
"The new film will take place in a modern-day setting, and will follow a disgraced D.E.A. agent as he attempts to take down a Mexican drug lord south of the border."

It is not enough to say bad things about this movie. It is not enough to boycott the film and the studio that is making it.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on May 15, 2013, 02:19:54 PM
Well, they will lose a lot of money with that stupid idea.

Let's hope and pray for the remakes of 2001, Eight and a Half, Eraserhead, OuTW, La regle du jeu, The Great Dictator, Vertigo, Festen and the 60th Birthday Party Vid of my dead neighbour.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Groggy on May 15, 2013, 02:20:51 PM
That sounds exactly like the project David Ayer was kicking around in 2005/2006. Hopefully this means it will never actually get made.

But Will Smith? Damn. What the hell is that smell, indeed.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on May 16, 2013, 05:03:11 AM
terrible idea.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 23, 2016, 09:44:50 PM
TCM showed the movie as part of the Robert Ryan series.

Y'all who think this is (even close to) the greatest Western of all time are still a bunch of mental cases.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Novecento on May 23, 2016, 10:01:16 PM
Y'all who think this is (even close to) the greatest Western of all time are still a bunch of mental cases.

I think it was mentioned a while ago that while there is a sampeckinpah.com forum, it is barely used because the Sergio Leone Webboard is also the unofficial Sam Peckinpah Web Board  ;)

Leone and Peckinpah are possibly my two favorite directors of all time (although I always like to give Giuseppe Tornatore a nod as well). While many people who like one seem to like the other, their styles are quite distinct in spite of all the supposed influence they had on each other. So, while I don't agree with you, I think I can understand how you can like one without the other.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on May 23, 2016, 11:35:37 PM
That makes me, TWB being my favorite film, not only my favorite western, the boss of all mental cases? Sigmund Freud? Or rather Charlie Manson?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: noodles_leone on May 24, 2016, 12:20:25 AM
Manson, no doubt.
(Where is this report button?)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on May 24, 2016, 01:04:46 AM
Y'all who think this is (even close to) the greatest Western of all time are still a bunch of mental cases.

Again? No, please. ;D


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 24, 2016, 08:14:48 AM
Again? No, please. ;D

 Yes. Every time TCM tortures me by showing this movie, I torture you with a post.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on January 06, 2017, 09:53:16 PM
Gotta see this movie...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on January 07, 2017, 07:24:35 AM
You never saw it? The best film ever made ??  :)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on January 07, 2017, 12:14:14 PM
You never saw it? The best film ever made ??  :)

Not yet, lol. Been trying to wait till it comes on tv. Might have to go ahead and purchase the blu ray...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 07, 2017, 05:55:07 PM
Might have to go ahead and purchase the blu ray...
By all means! O0


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 07, 2017, 06:28:57 PM
Don't believe the idiots around here. The Wild Bunch isn't anywhere near the best movie ever made. Well, decide for yourself. To each his own. Don't go in with any preconceived notions one way or another.   ;)

Looks like you are looking around for good Westerns to watch. Here are some American Westerns you may want to check out: some are great, each of these are at least pretty good

My Darling Clementine
Fort Apache
Stagecoach
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Red River
Rio Bravo
The Gunfighter
The Far Country
Texas (with William Holden and Glenn Ford)
Jesse James
The Return of Frank James
The Bravados
The Outlaw Josey Wales
 (you might want to watch Unforgiven, which is Clint Eastwood's most famous Western. I do not like it much but it won him a bunch of awards)
Dances With Wolves - there is the theatrical version, and the director's cut which is like 400 minutes long. I saw the latter. It's a good movie - very revisionist; conservatives may not like it - but it is the reason GOODFELLAS was screwed at the Oscars.
Mccabe & Mrs Miller (probably greatest revisionist AW ever made)


Also, The Cowboys, a cute Western John Wayne made in the 70's.
When you have watched all the other John Wayne Westerns, then watch The Shootist - his final movie, a nice end to his career.

Also, Budd Boetticher directed 7 Westerns with Randolph Scott acting. They are mostly short, with minimal plot and not many cast members, but some are very good. IMO, there are 4 good movies out of the 7. They are:
Seven Men From Now
Comanche Station
The Tall T
Ride Lonesome
(The 3 I do not like are Westbound, Buchanan Rides Alone, and Decision at Sundown.)

I envy you if you have not yet seen some of these and are about to watch them for the first time.

I am not a big Peckinpah fan at all - I did not write any of his films here, but you can try and see if you like his films.


Enjoy  :)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on January 08, 2017, 02:46:45 AM
Did you just call me an idiot?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 08, 2017, 04:05:30 AM
Did you just call me an idiot?

Not "just" - I did already a long time ago  ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on January 17, 2017, 08:41:39 PM
FINALLY got around to seeing this. I'm almost speechless. What a movie.  Better than Butch and the Sundance Kid, the movie its probably most similar to.  Everything was on point.  The story. The acting. The cinematography, and of course, the gunfights. I got to let this digest before i comment more on it...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 17, 2017, 09:08:34 PM
FINALLY got around to seeing this. I'm almost speechless. What a movie.  Better than Butch and the Sundance Kid, the movie its probably most similar to.  Everything was on point.  The story. The acting. The cinematography, and of course, the gunfights. I got to let this digest before i comment more on it...

This movie is about as far from Butch & Sundance as you can get, with the one exception being the theme of end of the West (which is the theme of a million Westerns). Oh and yeah, it all ends in a hail of bullets in a Latin American country. But this is as far from that as you can get. B&S is really a comedy; nobody in The Wild Bunch will be riding bicycles to fucking "Raindrops." I don't love either movie (though I have a special hatred for TWB, as you'll see if you read further up this thread, cuz of how much so many fools seem to love it  :P ) But comparisons to B&S? I don't see it. As far as Peckinpah Westerns go, B&S is closer to Ballad of Cable Hogue than it is to TWB  ;)

anyway, I hope you'll watch some of the movies I suggested to you the other day  ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on January 17, 2017, 09:18:42 PM
Don't believe the idiots around here. The Wild Bunch isn't anywhere near the best movie ever made. Well, decide for yourself. To each his own. Don't go in with any preconceived notions one way or another.   ;)

Looks like you are looking around for good Westerns to watch. Here are some American Westerns you may want to check out: some are great, each of these are at least pretty good

My Darling Clementine
Fort Apache
Stagecoach
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Red River
Rio Bravo
The Gunfighter
The Far Country
Texas (with William Holden and Glenn Ford)
Jesse James
The Return of Frank James
The Bravados
The Outlaw Josey Wales
 (you might want to watch Unforgiven, which is Clint Eastwood's most famous Western. I do mot like it much but it won him a bunch of awards)
Dances With Wolves - there is the theatrical version, and the director's cut which is like 400 minutes long. I saw the latter. It's a good movie - very revisionist; conservatives may not like it - but it is the reason GOODFELLAS was screwed at the Oscars.
Mccabe & Mrs Miller (probably greatest revisionist AW ever made)


Also, The Cowboys, a cute Western John Wayne made in the 70's.
When you have watched all the other John Wayne Westerns, then watch The Shootist - his final movie, a nice end to his career.

Also, Budd Boetticher directed 7 Westerns with Randolph Scott acting. They are mostly short, with minimal plot and mot many cast members, but some are very good. IMO, there are 4 good movies out of the 7. They are:
Seven Men From Now
Comanche Station
The Tall T
Ride Lonesome
(The 3 I do not like are Westbound, Buchanan Rides Alone, and Decision at Sundown.)

I envy you if you have not yet seen some of these and are about to watch them for the first time.

I am not a big Peckinpah fan at all - I did not write any of his films here, but you can try and see if you his films.


Enjoy  :)


Didn't know you was talking to me when you made this list until you rementioned it after my Wild Bunch review. You are correct, i'm searching for good westerns to watch. I've probably only seen a couple of the movies you listed... Unforgiven and Outlaw Josey Wales. Thanx for posting that list...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on January 17, 2017, 09:21:25 PM
This movie is about as far from Butch & Sundance as you can get, with the one exception being the theme of end of the West (which is the theme of a million Westerns). Oh and yeah, it all ends in a hail of bullets in a Latin American country. But this is as far from that as you can get. B&S is really a comedy; nobody in The Wild Bunch will be riding bicycles to fucking "Raindrops." I don't love either movie (though I have a special hatred for TWB, as you'll see if you read further up this thread, cuz of how much so many fools seem to love it  :P ) But comparisons to B&S? I don't see it. As far as Peckinpah Westerns go, B&S is closer to Balld of Cable Hogue than it is to TWB  ;)

anyway, I hope you'll watch some of the movies I suggested to you the other day  ;)

I know its far from Butch and Sundance, which is why i said its better than Butch and Sundance.  There ARE similarities, that you  pointed out, which is why i made the comparison.  Butch and Sundance is a  hit and miss movie with me.  On a side note, wait till  you read my Good, Bad and Ugly review when i get around to it.  Lets just say i think its over rated...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 17, 2017, 10:22:52 PM
Didn't know you was talking to me when you made this list until you rementioned it after my Wild Bunch review. You are correct, i'm searching for good westerns to watch. I've probably only seen a couple of the movies you listed... Unforgiven and Outlaw Josey Wales. Thanx for posting that list...

I truly envy you if you are about to watch these Westerns for the first time  :)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 17, 2017, 10:37:50 PM
I know its far from Butch and Sundance, which is why i said its better than Butch and Sundance.  There ARE similarities, that you  pointed out, which is why i made the comparison.  Butch and Sundance is a  hit and miss movie with me.  On a side note, wait till  you read my Good, Bad and Ugly review when i get around to it.  Lets just say i think its over rated...

The first time I saw GBU (as with a number of other Leone films) I did not like the first half nearly as much as I do now. The first half moved way too slow for me. And I HATED OUATITW. Totally did not understand Leone's style. You have to understand what Leone does; you can't worry about story or whatever. Just listening to the sound itself is an experience. Leone used to say that sound is 40% of a movie. I love those movies now. FAFDM is the only Leone movie that I loved the first time I saw it as much as I love it now. Some of them take getting used to Leone's style.

After you have seen a Leone film once, the second time you watch it, do so with Frayling's commentary (available on FOD, FAFDM, and DYS. Also on GBU, but only on the blu-ray, not the dvd.) Also there is a commentary on OUATITW, its half Frayling and half rabdom commens from other people, some decent some awful.  Frayling's commentaries are a joy to listen to and you'll gain a whole new appreciation for the movies. Watch GBU on blu-ray with Frayling's commentary before you write a review on it  ;)

Also, Frayling's book "Sergio Leone: Something to Do With Death" (abbreviated aroud here as "STDWD") is a must-read for anyone who is, or wants to become, a Leone fan.

My favorite movie - not just Leone, but any movie, period - is FAFDM. Most people say OUATITW or GBU or OUATITW. But IMO, Leone made many great movies but FAFDM Is the greatest.

When you are watching Westerns, bear in mind that the films from the late 30's until yhe early 60's (let's say roughly from STAGECOACH in 1939 - John Ford's first great Western, which is generally considered to be the first great sound Western -  until THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE in 1962,  John Ford's last great Western) established the "rules" of the genre. In the late 60's and onward started the revisionist Westerns, which in many cases were explicitly trying to subvert the genre. You may not understand what some of these revisionist Westerns were all about until you see the originals that established the "rules" of the genre. Of course, you can watch it backwards, or mix it up. However you like it  :)

The whole myth of the gunfighter actually started being questioned as early as 1950 with the great Gregory Peck movie "The Gunfighter." But the real revisionist period probably starts in late 60's: Leone came along with great spaghetti Westerns, then many American Westerns started being more spaghetti-like; then in the 70's it seemed as if so many Westerns (other than John Wayne's) were made with the specific intention of turning every Western convention on its head. A great example of this is MCCABE & MRS. MILLER, which IMO is the greatest revisionist AW. The main charcater in that film is as far as you can get from John Wayne. The town and the townspeople are as far as you can get from God-fearing people moving across the plains in covered wagons to the promised land.

Anyway, whatever your taste, you have good times ahead.

Enjoy  :)

p.s. A few more titles to add to your list: THE BIG COUNTRY, THE PROUD ONES, WINCHESTER '73, BEND OF THE RIVER, THE NAKED SPUR, THE COMANCHEROS, THE MAN FROM LARAMIE. Some of these I like, some I love, some I do not like at all but some other people do. I won't say which is which cuz I don't want you to have any preconceived notions; just go into every movie with an open mind and feel free to like or not like whatever you want. Have fun  ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: noodles_leone on January 18, 2017, 01:34:43 AM
I know its far from Butch and Sundance, which is why i said its better than Butch and Sundance.  There ARE similarities, that you  pointed out, which is why i made the comparison.  Butch and Sundance is a  hit and miss movie with me.  On a side note, wait till  you read my Good, Bad and Ugly review when i get around to it.  Lets just say i think its over rated...

You could check out The Professionals, which bears far more similarities with TWB ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on January 18, 2017, 03:00:53 AM



When you are watching Westerns, bear in mind that the films from the late 30's until yhe early 60's (let's say roughly from STAGECOACH in 1939 - John Ford's first great Western,

Surely not. That honor belongs to his silent epics The Iron Horse and 3 Bad Men.

Quote
which is generally considered to be the first great sound Western -  

Surely not. That honor goes probably to The Virginian (Victor Fleming, 1929)

Quote
until THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE in 1962,  John Ford's last great Western) established the "rules" of the genre.

The "rules" were actually established in novels and the films followed these patterns since westerns were made for the screen.

Quote
In the late 60's and onward started the revisionist Westerns, which in many cases were explicitly trying to subvert the genre.

This actually started much sooner.
The first anti-western was probably The Ox-Bow Incident (Wellman, 1943) and many 50s westerns changed or questioned already the "rules". And the cycle of the twilight westerns, which questioned the myths as a central point of their content, started already in 1961 with Ride The High Country (a seminal film for the genre) and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Actually the western was always in a constant flow stylistically and thematically.

Quote
Leone came along with great spaghetti Westerns, then many American Westerns started being more spaghetti-like;


I know this is debatable, but I'm still pretty sure that the influence of SWs on the US Western was only marginal. US Westerns of the late 60s and 70s do not rely on SWs, but on that what was established and developed in the US westerns in the years before.
If one watches some central westerns from every year of the 60s you'll will easily see how the US Western got from Mag 7 or One Eyed Jacks or Ride the high Country to The Wild Bunch and from that on to The Shootist (1976) and Heaven's Gate (1980) without much outside influence. Especially if viewed in the context of how other US genre films were made in these years.

Drink, if you want to lecture about film history, you should first read more books about film history. ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on January 18, 2017, 03:53:18 AM
You could check out The Professionals, which bears far more similarities with TWB ;)

Agree


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on January 18, 2017, 04:18:14 AM
Another couple of interesting AM's (American Western) films to add to your must see list Moorman:

Hombre
Rio Conchos
Day Of The Outlaw
The Bravados
Barquero

The best of the non Leone SP's (Spaghetti Westerns) to check out after your American Odyssey

The Mercenary
The Big Gundown
The Great Silence
A Bullet For The General
Vamos A Matar Companeros
Run, Man, Run
Face to Face
Death Rides a Horse
Day Of Anger
Tepepa
Keoma


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on January 18, 2017, 05:49:32 AM
The first time I saw GBU (as with a number of other Leone films) I did not like the first half nearly as much as I do now. The first half moved way too slow for me. And I HATED OUATITW. Totally did not understand Leone's style. You have to understand what Leone does; you can't worry about story or whatever. Just listening to the sound itself is an experience. Leone used to say that sound is 40% of a movie. I love those movies now. FAFDM is the only Leone movie that I loved the first time I saw it as much as I love it now. Some of them take getting used to Leone's style.

After you have seen a Leone film once, the second time you watch it, do so with Frayling's commentary (available on FOD, FAFDM, and DYS. Also on GBU, but only on the blu-ray, not the dvd.) Also there is a commentary on OUATITW, its half Frayling and half rabdom commens from other people, some decent some awful.  Frayling's commentaries are a joy to listen to and you'll gain a whole new appreciation for the movies. Watch GBU on blu-ray with Frayling's commentary before you write a review on it  ;)

Also, Frayling's book "Sergio Leone: Something to Do With Death" (abbreviated aroud here as "STDWD") is a must-read for anyone who is, or wants to become, a Leone fan.

My favorite movie - not just Leone, but any movie, period - is FAFDM. Most people say OUATITW or GBU or OUATITW. But IMO, Leone made many great movies but FAFDM Is the greatest.

When you are watching Westerns, bear in mind that the films from the late 30's until yhe early 60's (let's say roughly from STAGECOACH in 1939 - John Ford's first great Western, which is generally considered to be the first great sound Western -  until THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE in 1962,  John Ford's last great Western) established the "rules" of the genre. In the late 60's and onward started the revisionist Westerns, which in many cases were explicitly trying to subvert the genre. You may not understand what some of these revisionist Westerns were all about until you see the originals that established the "rules" of the genre. Of course, you can watch it backwards, or mix it up. However you like it  :)

The whole myth of the gunfighter actually started being questioned as early as 1950 with the great Gregory Peck movie "The Gunfighter." But the real revisionist period probably starts in late 60's: Leone came along with great spaghetti Westerns, then many American Westerns started being more spaghetti-like; then in the 70's it seemed as if so many Westerns (other than John Wayne's) were made with the specific intention of turning every Western convention on its head. A great example of this is MCCABE & MRS. MILLER, which IMO is the greatest revisionist AW. The main charcater in that film is as far as you can get from John Wayne. The town and the townspeople are as far as you can get from God-fearing people moving across the plains in covered wagons to the promised land.

Anyway, whatever your taste, you have good times ahead.

Enjoy  :)

p.s. A few more titles to add to your list: THE BIG COUNTRY, THE PROUD ONES, WINCHESTER '73, BEND OF THE RIVER, THE NAKED SPUR, THE COMANCHEROS, THE MAN FROM LARAMIE. Some of these I like, some I love, some I do not like at all but some other people do. I won't say which is which cuz I don't want you to have any preconceived notions; just go into every movie with an open mind and feel free to like or not like whatever you want. Have fun  ;)

Thanx for the additional movie list. I've always intended to further explore the western genre, and i'm about to go all in.  My experience soo far has mainly been limited to some westerns from 1980 onward, and the Leone sphagetti westerns.  I just recently went back and saw High Noon, The Westerner,  3:10 to Yuma (original), The Wild Bunch, and Major Dundee.  Gary Cooper is a favorite of mine.  I've never really liked John Wayne ( my bad, i have seen Sons of Katie), but will give his movies a try.



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on January 18, 2017, 06:04:37 AM
Agree

Got that on my to do list. Thanx...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on January 18, 2017, 06:05:40 AM
Another couple of interesting AM's (American Western) films to add to your must see list Moorman:

Hombre
Rio Conchos
Day Of The Outlaw
The Bravados
Barquero

The best of the non Leone SP's (Spaghetti Westerns) to check out after your American Odyssey

The Mercenary
The Big Gundown
The Great Silence
A Bullet For The General
Vamos A Matar Companeros
Run, Man, Run
Face to Face
Death Rides a Horse
Day Of Anger
Tepepa
Keoma

Thanx for this list. I'm gonna be busy...lol


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 18, 2017, 06:26:55 AM
Thanx for the additional movie list. I've always intended to further explore the western genre, and i'm about to go all in.  My experience soo far has mainly been limited to some westerns from 1980 onward, and the Leone sphagetti westerns.  I just recently went back and saw High Noon, The Westerner,  3:10 to Yuma (original), The Wild Bunch, and Major Dundee.  Gary Cooper is a favorite of mine.  I've never really liked John Wayne ( my bad, i have seen Sons of Katie), but will give his movies a try.



Sons of Kate Elder is a dumb movie. Don't judge Wayne based on that.  ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on January 18, 2017, 06:32:15 AM
Sons of Kate Elder is a dumb movie. Don't judge Wayne based on that.  ;)

Its not the movie, its John himself. He to him, any western that doesn't portray the west as pilgrims in stagecoachs fighting the indians, is not a western. When he panned both High Noon and 3:10 to Yuma, he confirmed that...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on January 18, 2017, 06:33:03 AM
Sons of Kate Elder is a dumb movie.

It's not. It is a good western done by people who know how to do such things.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 18, 2017, 02:51:26 PM
Its not the movie, its John himself. He to him, any western that doesn't portray the west as pilgrims in stagecoachs fighting the indians, is not a western. When he panned both High Noon and 3:10 to Yuma, he confirmed that...

I panned both High Noon and 3:10 to Yuma as well   >:D


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on January 18, 2017, 04:04:39 PM
Moorman another couple for your list.

Ulzana's Raid
Lawman


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on January 18, 2017, 04:34:03 PM
Moorman another couple for your list.

Ulzana's Raid
Lawman

Will do. Thanx...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on January 22, 2017, 09:15:20 AM
It's not. It is a good western done by people who know how to do such things.

Dennis Hopper, Dean Martin, Lucien Ballard, Bernstein, Hathaway & the Duke - next to El Dorado it is for me the last of the really good ol' Hollywood western.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 22, 2017, 11:03:21 AM
Dennis Hopper, Dean Martin, Lucien Ballard, Bernstein, Hathaway & the Duke - next to El Dorado it is for me the last of the really good ol' Hollywood western.

Don't forget the immortal Earl Holliman. He cancels the others all out  ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: T.H. on January 25, 2017, 12:33:28 AM
You could check out The Professionals, which bears far more similarities with TWB ;)

Eh I wouldn't compare a fun studio action western to one of the greatest movies ever made.


Copied from an other thread, might as well give him more titles:




Favorite classic American westerns up to 1962. I consider anything that takes place after the Mexican revolution to be a modern western, so it won't be included ie Bad Day at Black Rock.


50 The Proud Ones
49 North to Alaska
48 Ramrod
47 The Tin Star
46 Destry Rides Again
45 The Gunfighter
44 Terror in a Texas Town
43 The Law and Jake Wade
42 Vera Cruz
41 Winchester '73

40 The Ox-Bow Incident
39 The Last Sunset
38 The Furies
37 Devil's Doorway
36 She Wore a Yellow Ribbon
35 Three Godfathers
34 Buchanan Rides Alone
33 Wagon Master
32 Last Train From Gun Hill
31 Warlock

30 Comanche Station
29 Hondo
28 The Sheepman
27 Run of the Arrow
26 The Violent Men
25 Cowboy
24 Gunfight at the O.K. Corral
23 The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
22 High Noon
21 Ride the High Country

20 The Bravados
19 The Naked Spur
18 Day of the Outlaw
17 The Man From Laramie
16 The Tall T
15 Jubal
14 Ride Lonesome
13 Yellow Sky
12 Forty Guns
11 Man of the West

10 The Magnificent Seven
09 Johnny Guitar
08 Seven Men From Now
07 My Darling Clementine
06 Stagecoach
05 3:10 to Yuma
04 Red River
03 Shane
02 Rio Bravo
01 The Searchers


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 25, 2017, 12:36:32 AM
T.H., I do not see Fort Apache on your list. IMO it is one of the ten greatest AW's ever


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on January 25, 2017, 02:14:02 AM
T.H., I do not see Fort Apache on your list. IMO it is one of the ten greatest AW's ever

As long as we don't find TWB on your list, one of the greatest westerns ever, and the greatest for me, don't bleat ... ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on January 25, 2017, 02:16:17 AM
Eh I wouldn't compare a fun studio action western

Strange view on a cynical film like The Professionals.



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 25, 2017, 08:48:03 AM
Is this a good time for me to mention I hate westerns?  >:D


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Cusser on January 25, 2017, 10:17:51 AM
I sure don't understand Johnny Guitar at 9, didn't like this at all.  And 23 for The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance ???

Anybody can have a list !


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: T.H. on January 25, 2017, 12:16:27 PM
Strange view on a cynical film like The Professionals.

It's been years since I've seen it, but I would compare it more to The Mag 7 than The Wild Bunch. But I'll give it a watch at some point and maybe change my stance.

T.H., I do not see Fort Apache on your list. IMO it is one of the ten greatest AW's ever

I forgot to include it. It would be somewhere in the mid 30s. Good critique.

I sure don't understand Johnny Guitar at 9, didn't like this at all.  And 23 for The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance ???

Anybody can have a list !

Aren't you a little too old to be acting like a teenager?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on January 25, 2017, 01:29:56 PM
It's been years since I've seen it, but I would compare it more to The Mag 7 than The Wild Bunch.

It is somewhere in the middle between both. But The Professionals is much better than Mag 7, in nearly every respect.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on January 25, 2017, 01:35:03 PM
T.H, why did you chose 1962 instead of 1960 or 1965?

Interestingly none of your 50 films is beneath 6/10 on my entertainometer, I like them all to a certain degree.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: T.H. on January 25, 2017, 02:25:03 PM
T.H, why did you chose 1962 instead of 1960 or 1965?

Interestingly none of your 50 films is beneath 6/10 on my entertainometer, I like them all to a certain degree.

You and I are much more receptive to the oddball cult westerns like Johnny Guitar, Forty Guns, etc.

I had '62 listed because Liberty Valance and Ride the High Country are the last great old school Hollywood westerns imo. I guess '63 might be a better cutoff because Fistful came out in '64. I don't really have a strong opinion on X year being the end of the classic hollywood western though.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on January 25, 2017, 02:34:19 PM
You and I are more receptive to the oddball cult westerns like Johnny Guitar etc.

I had 62 listed because Liberty Valance and Ride the High Country are the last great old school Hollywood westerns.

Why these 2?
They mark the beginning of the twilight western phase (Lonely Are the Brave also), especially Ride the High Country, which set the patterns for a lot of westerns set after the turn of the century up to The Shootist (actually up to Heaven's Gate). But then, of course  one can view both as sort of an end.
But I think the term great old school Hollywood westerns might fit better for Katie Elder, El Dorado, True Grit and some others.

Johnny Guitar, yeah, it is pretty strange that so many here despise such a classic western from an estimated director.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: noodles_leone on January 25, 2017, 05:01:27 PM
Stanton is so right about all this stuff. Case closed.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 25, 2017, 05:34:28 PM
an estimated director.
Good thing titoli isn't awake to rip you a new one. Of course, we all knew what you mean.

True Grit is a good place to draw the line--the time line, I could say--but you could go as late as Lawman, maybe. 1962 is much too early. You gotta be able to include Hombre and TG.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: T.H. on January 25, 2017, 11:48:43 PM
I agree that this topic is murky and there isn't a clean cut off year (for example 1959 works much better for noir than an end date for the classic western). With that said, I don't know how True Grit or Lawman would be viewed as a classic hollywood western, they were more modern. Lawman has exploitation elements.

FWIW there wouldn't be any US westerns from 63-65 that would have made the list anyways.



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on January 26, 2017, 04:12:07 AM
Quote
I agree that this topic is murky and there isn't a clean cut off year (for example 1959 works much better for noir than an end date for the classic western).



From the many and varied books written about Film Noir that the often quoted time frame that these films fit into is usually 1941 to 1958 some occasionally stretch to 1959. Who came came up with this initially, and why is it so strictly adhered too?
 
The more Noirs I watch the more I'm questioning this. I'm beginning to come around to a different thought, and that is that Classic American Film Noir stretched from say 1940 to 1968 (1968 being the last general use of B&W film in production) here is the breakdown by year of Black & White Noirs (there may be a few more to add in, in that 1959 to 1968 stretch:
 
1940 (5)
1941 (11)
1942 (5)
1943 (5)
1944 (18)
1945 (22)
1946 (42)
1947 (53)
1948 (43)
1949 (52)
1950 (57)
1951 (39)
1952 (26)
1953 (21)
1954 (26)
1955 (20)
1956 (19)
1957 (12)
1958 (7)
1959 (7)
1960 (2)
1961 (5)
1962 (6)
1963 (1)
1964 (4)
1965 (3)
1966 (2)
1967 (2)
1968 (1)
 
I'm also thinking now that the Color Film Noirs within this 1940-1968 time frame were the first Neo Noirs so that the two sub genres actually overlap. The catalyst for this new alignment is when I read a quote about Neo Noir that said that if the filmmakers made a conscience decision to film in black and white when color was the norm then it was an artistic decision and not one of necessity for budget purposes, Same the other way if B&W was the norm for low budget B Noirs then it was an artistic decision to film it color.
 
The color film Noir the first 30 years (again there maybe a few more in these early years but they as a whole really up ticked in the 1980s and 1990's):
 
1945 (1)
1947 (1)
1948 (1)
1953 (2)
1955 (3)
1956 (3)
1958 (1)
1966 (1)
1967 (1)
1969 (1)
1970 (2)
1971 (4)
1972 (1)
1973 (0)
1974 (2)


I'll post this also in Film Noir if anyone wants to continue the Noir discussion here:  http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=10920.msg186445#msg186445 (http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=10920.msg186445#msg186445)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: uncknown on February 05, 2017, 03:21:15 PM
I have always considered TWB  a great western, not a great film.
By that I mean  it is a superb genre piece. FAFDM is in the same category.

For me, GBU and OUTW transcend the genre and are simply great films, masterpieces of cinema.

I agree with Mike Siegel about GIU LA TESTA. It is the one Leone with real emotion, due primarily to Morricone's incredible score.

Bruce Marshall

ps did anyone else get to see the 70mm re-issue in theaters?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on February 05, 2017, 03:25:50 PM
I saw the Extended English Language print at the Film Forum in NYC a while back.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 05, 2017, 03:55:23 PM
If you don't get any emotion from OUTITW and OUATIA, you're a cold blooded psycho. Which is cool, you know, but you're still on the wrong side of history.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on February 05, 2017, 04:13:53 PM
I have always considered TWB  a great western, not a great film.

Actually it is indeed both. And also transcends the genre. There are others ...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Spikeopath on February 09, 2017, 10:09:15 PM
Brutal and elegiac masterpiece.

Outlaws led by Pike Bishop on the Mexican-U.S. frontier face not only the passing of time, but bounty hunters {led by a former partner of Pike, Deke Thornton} and the Mexican army as well.

In 1969 Sam Peckinpah picked up the torch that Arthur Penn lit with 1967's Bonnie & Clyde, and literally poured gasoline on it to impact on cinema to the point that the shock wave is still being felt today. The death of the Motion Picture Production Code in 1967 ushered in a new era for cinema goers, it was a time for brave and intelligent directors to step up to the plate to deliver stark and emotive thunder, and with The Wild Bunch, director Sam Peckinpah achieved this by the shed load.

The Wild Bunch doesn't set out to be liked, it is a harsh eye opening perception of the Western genre, this is the other side of the coin to the millions of Westerns that whoop and holler as the hero gets the girl and rides off into the sunset. The Wild Bunch thematically is harshly sad for the protagonists, these are men out of their time, this is a despicable group of men, driven by greed and cynicism, they think of nothing to selling arms to a vile amoral army across the border.

The film opens with a glorious credit sequence as we witness the Bunch riding into town, the picture freeze frames in black & white for each credit offering, from here on in we know that we are to witness something different, and yes, something very special. The film is book-ended by carnage, and sandwiched in the middle is an equally brilliant train robbery, yet the impact of these sequences is only enhanced because the quality of the writing is so good (Walon Green and Roy N. Sickner alongside Peckinpah). There's no pointless discussions or scene filling explanations of the obvious. Each passage, in each segment, is thought thru to gain credibility for the shattering and bloody climax. There is of course one massive and intriguing question that hangs over the film; how did Peckinpah make such low moral men appear as heroes? Well I'm not here to tell you that because you need to witness the film in its entirety for yourself. But it's merely one cheeky point of note in a truly majestic piece of work. A film that even today stands up as one of the greatest American films ever made. 10/10


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on February 10, 2017, 02:24:29 AM
There is of course one massive and intriguing question that hangs over the film; how did Peckinpah make such low moral men appear as heroes?

Perfect question. And the answer is probably the reason why it is my favorite film. It is a mix of Peckinpah's background regarding family and education, as well as his talent and taste as a filmmaker.
His overall theme of the dying west of course comes from his upbringing in Madera County (RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY), there is even a "Peckinpah-mountain". When he was a little boy in the early 1930s, the "frontier" of course was already gone, but some of his family and others still sort of lived that lifestyle and told many stories as well...

Much unlike many other "western directors" Sam had studied drama. He started in theater, as a stage director. His favorite writer was Tennessee Williams and I can feel him in many of Peckinpah's films. Sam was a brilliant re-writer, he took mediocre (STRAW DOGS, RTHC) or even good (WILD BUNCH, JUNIOR BONNER) scripts and enhanced them with his personal vision quite a bit. WILD BUNCH works on all levels: as an action-epic, for those who can't look behind the characters. As farewell-song to the dying west and especially as character study of Shakespirian proportions: William Holden's Oscar-worthy portrayal of a man who outlived himself and is faced with wrong or bad decisions makes the film. I love Lee Marvin, but I'm not sure the impact would have been quite the same. Holden WAS Pike Bishop at that time. He had it all behind him, he drank too much and he had some dark spots in his life (a man dying because he drove his Ferrari too fast for instance). He told Warren Oates stories about his lost love Audrey Hepburn for instance on the set. He probably still loved her in 1968! 14 years after their romance. The intensity of his performance combined with Sam's direction was right on spot, about the best and most believable I've ever seen. So we (who have feelings for him) feel with him without even knowing it and get caught up in this story about a man dealing with his own guilt, who is a killer by all means - as the rest of his bunch. Very complex. It is one of the very few westerns I experienced in the cinema where parts of the audience actually cry at the end (RTHC, CABLE HOGUE also are members of that club, SEARCHERS & LIBERTY VALANCE too of course and few others). Peckinpah is my favorite director because most of his characters on screen are more than just "characters", they are real people. Women for instance love JUNIOR BONNER for this reason. He wanted to see the truth and he did catch it very often, also he was technically on the highest level - the best of stage & cinema combined :).


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 10, 2017, 05:16:44 AM
I think that, honestly, Spikeopath, before posting your old reviews in this forum, you should read at least read some of the previous contributions to the debate when you write about important movies like this one. Apparently you don't care about it (and so I wonder what are you planning to do here) so I'm forced, as an invitation to do a real contribution, to resurrect some point of debate raised in the previous pages of this thread.

"...this is a despicable group of men, driven by greed and cynicism, they think of nothing to selling arms to a vile amoral army across the border....There is of course one massive and intriguing question that hangs over the film; how did Peckinpah make such low moral men appear as heroes?

Not hard to understand: by cheating, adopting the usual hollywooden tricks which make sense only for distracted viewers. The choice to suicide themselves is absurd and makes no rhyme or reason with the preceding behaviour and assertions of the characters. But it is intended to glorify them and make the less smart viewers happy.  Me and d&d illustrated these points in the previous pages, if you're interested.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on February 10, 2017, 05:26:07 AM
I think that, honestly, Spikeopath, before posting your old reviews in this forum, you should read at least read some of the previous contributions to the debate when you write about important movies like this one. Apparently you don't care about it (and so I wonder what are you planning to do here) so I'm forced, as an invitation to do a real contribution, to resurrect some point of debate raised in the previous pages of this thread.

"...this is a despicable group of men, driven by greed and cynicism, they think of nothing to selling arms to a vile amoral army across the border....There is of course one massive and intriguing question that hangs over the film; how did Peckinpah make such low moral men appear as heroes?

Not hard to understand: by cheating, adopting the usual hollywooden tricks which make sense only for distracted viewers. The choice to suicide themselves is absurd and makes no rhyme or reason with the preceding behaviour and assertions of the characters. But it is intended to glorify them and make the less smart viewers happy.  Me and d&d illustrated these points in the previous pages, if you're interested.

First, i don't know if thats Spike's review or one he pulled from imdb.  Second. The ending DID make sense if  you look at that ego that the Wild Bunch had.  How dare that general take one of " theirs" and degrade him like that.  The way they thought, it made perfect sense for them to go out like that.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on February 10, 2017, 05:35:06 AM
I think that, honestly, Spikeopath, before posting your old reviews in this forum, you should read at least read some of the previous contributions to the debate when you write about important movies like this one. Apparently you don't care about it (and so I wonder what are you planning to do here) so I'm forced, as an invitation to do a real contribution, to resurrect some point of debate raised in the previous pages of this thread.

"...this is a despicable group of men, driven by greed and cynicism, they think of nothing to selling arms to a vile amoral army across the border....There is of course one massive and intriguing question that hangs over the film; how did Peckinpah make such low moral men appear as heroes?

Not hard to understand: by cheating, adopting the usual hollywooden tricks which make sense only for distracted viewers. The choice to suicide themselves is absurd and makes no rhyme or reason with the preceding behaviour and assertions of the characters. But it is intended to glorify them and make the less smart viewers happy.  Me and d&d illustrated these points in the previous pages, if you're interested.

This won't change his view of the film. So he would post it anyway.

In that case I think you are both wrong about how the film works. Neither is Pike an amoral men, the film's main point is how he tries to deal with his high moral claims, and only if you understand Pike's last choice, the ending can enfold its massive emotional power. And believe me, it is all understandable, but not that easy to see, because Peckinpah does not use the "usual hollywooden tricks".

You only illustrated that you don't look deep enough.

But then one can understand TWB also on a pure emotional level, without actually being able to explain it, but if one wants to understand one will one day.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on February 10, 2017, 05:42:25 AM
First, i don't know if thats Spike's review or one he pulled from imdb.  Second. The ending DID make sense if  you look at that ego that the Wild Bunch had.  How dare that general take one of " theirs" and degrade him like that.  The way they thought, it made perfect sense for them to go out like that.

It's spike's review from IMDb, the IMDb boards are going down like the Titanic, he's saving his own reviews here, but titoli has a point too, spike's a good debater, we'll all have fun once things settle out, there should be more IMDb refugees coming along to our lifeboat also before too long.  O0


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on February 10, 2017, 05:45:24 AM
Cigar Joe, make a subforum for just the imdb reviews...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 10, 2017, 07:06:51 AM
The ending DID make sense if  you look at that ego that the Wild Bunch had.  How dare that general take one of " theirs" and degrade him like that.  The way they thought, it made perfect sense for them to go out like that.

Same invitation I made for the newbie: check past posts.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on February 10, 2017, 07:07:51 AM
"make the less smart viewers happy"

What an arrogant & ignorant man.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 10, 2017, 07:09:36 AM
This won't change his view of the film. So he would post it anyway.

In that case I think you are both wrong about how the film works. Neither is Pike an amoral men, the film's main point is how he tries to deal with his high moral claims, and only if you understand Pike's last choice, the ending can enfold its massive emotional power. And believe me, it is all understandable, but not that easy to see, because Peckinpah does not use the "usual hollywooden tricks".

You only illustrated that you don't look deep enough.

But then one can understand TWB also on a pure emotional level, without actually being able to explain it, but if one wants to understand one will one day.

You have certainly read the past posts, so I presume you remember that the point was made that, even assuming what you say about Holden is right (and it isn't) there's no reason why the other ones should follow his suicidal decision.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Spikeopath on February 10, 2017, 07:24:46 AM
I think that, honestly, Spikeopath, before posting your old reviews in this forum, you should read at least read some of the previous contributions to the debate when you write about important movies like this one. Apparently you don't care about it (and so I wonder what are you planning to do here) so I'm forced, as an invitation to do a real contribution, to resurrect some point of debate raised in the previous pages of this thread.

Blimey! I seem to have stepped on some toes. In simple terms it was my intention to get all my Western reviews over here first and foremost, it was hoped that by giving this site a more extensive index of Westerns was a good thing, to have a starting point in the search facility for a ream of Oaters. Once all this was done I could then have a great time of things reading through the existing threads. With IMDb shutting down its message boards the future of user reviews there could well be under threat, so I thought that not only would I be boosting this site but also archiving my own reviews on a valid forum with like minded souls.  Plus I have a multitude of Westerns (traditional and spag) still to view so was hoping to bring more new stuff on board once viewed. To say I don't care is not fair and I hope I have explained the situation clearly now.

Regards

Spike


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 10, 2017, 07:30:29 AM
Blimey! I seem to have stepped on some toes. In simple terms it was my intention to get all my Western reviews over here first and foremost, it was hoped that by giving this site a more extensive index of Westerns was a good thing, to have a starting point in the search facility for a ream of Oaters. Once all this was done I could then have a great time of things reading through the existing threads. With IMDb shutting down its message boards the future of user reviews there could well be under threat, so I thought that not only would I be boosting this site but also archiving my own reviews on a valid forum with like minded souls.  Plus I have a multitude of Westerns (traditional and spag) still to view so was hoping to bring more new stuff on board once viewed. To say I don't care is not fair and I hope I have explained the situation clearly now.

Regards

Spike
My fault not seeing through your action. Your not following the alphabetical order of posting for this movie deceived me.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on February 10, 2017, 08:16:10 AM
Blimey! I seem to have stepped on some toes. In simple terms it was my intention to get all my Western reviews over here first and foremost, it was hoped that by giving this site a more extensive index of Westerns was a good thing, to have a starting point in the search facility for a ream of Oaters. Once all this was done I could then have a great time of things reading through the existing threads. With IMDb shutting down its message boards the future of user reviews there could well be under threat, so I thought that not only would I be boosting this site but also archiving my own reviews on a valid forum with like minded souls.  Plus I have a multitude of Westerns (traditional and spag) still to view so was hoping to bring more new stuff on board once viewed. To say I don't care is not fair and I hope I have explained the situation clearly now.

Regards

Spike

Moorman suggests dumping all your reviews into a "Spikeopath's Western Reviews/Archive" new topic much like titoli has his "lil Duce" reviews, then we can retrieve them in a "trickle in" to the Western Index at our leisure, it would save me work too, it took about an hour and a half to index what I did this morning.

 :'(


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on February 10, 2017, 08:42:02 AM
Moorman suggests dumping all your reviews into a "Spikeopath's Western Reviews/Archive" new topic much like titoli has his "lil Duce" reviews, then we can retrieve them in a "trickle in" to the Western Index at our leisure, it would save me work too, it took about an hour and a half to index what I did this morning.

 :'(

How long would it take to RE index them into their own thread....lol.   Man, thats a lot of work... I appreciate it though. I love the fact he is bringing them over, i just wish they had their own thread from the get go so that we can do like you said, go over,  look at some them and review them. Its all good though...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on February 10, 2017, 09:42:49 AM
You have certainly read the past posts, so I presume you remember that the point was made that, even assuming what you say about Holden is right (and it isn't) there's no reason why the other ones should follow his suicidal decision.

There's no reason for you, for me I understand what they do. And there are different reasons for Holden, for Borgnine and for the brothers. The brothers maybe don't understand at all, maybe only for the "Why not?", but they do.

And even if there were no explainable reason, sometimes people do stuff they would never do the other day, o never if they had a few minutes more to think about it. But in TWB I have no question about that, and because that the film is able to overwhelm me.
If you don't understand the film on an emotional level, than of course it may only be a strange or odd movie with some technical brilliance.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 10, 2017, 10:34:52 AM
STANTON FTW!!!!!!!!

Spike, don't worry too much about the grumpy italian guy, he's bluffing: he doesn't do "debates". Glad to have you on board.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 10, 2017, 10:47:20 AM
See what you did? I mistakenly edited your post instead of quoting it...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 10, 2017, 10:48:18 AM
Quote
STANTON FTW!!!!!!!!

Spike, don't worry too much about the grumpy italian guy, he's bluffing: he doesn't do "debates". Glad to have you on board.

You know some member that does, actually? :D


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 10, 2017, 10:51:02 AM
You know some member that does, actually? :D

I doooo! It's not my fault if I'm right most of the time.

Seriously though, Stanton is the most open to debates here. Which is a good thing because if you let him alone with his opinions, he goes around telling everybody that The Lady From Shanghai is a masterpiece.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 10, 2017, 10:52:39 AM
I doooo! It's not my fault if I'm right most of the time. Seriously though, Stanton is the most open to debates here.

Yeah, right. :D


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on February 10, 2017, 11:01:55 AM
I doooo! It's not my fault if I'm right most of the time.

Seriously though, Stanton is the most open to debates here. Which is a good thing because if you let him alone with his opinions, he goes around telling everybody that The Lady From Shanghai is a masterpiece.

Speaking of which, how good of a movie IS The Lady From Shanghai?  I got it on my to do list...lol


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 10, 2017, 11:20:28 AM
Speaking of which, how good of a movie IS The Lady From Shanghai?  I got it on my to do list...lol

http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=11277.0

 ;)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 10, 2017, 11:51:25 AM
There's no reason for you, for me I understand what they do. And there are different reasons for Holden, for Borgnine and for the brothers. The brothers maybe don't understand at all, maybe only for the "Why not?", but they do.

Ok, there are different reasons: a pity though it is never explained or hinted what they may be.

Quote
And even if there were no explainable reason, sometimes people do stuff they would never do the other day, o never if they had a few minutes more to think about it. But in TWB I have no question about that, and because that the film is able to overwhelm me.
If you don't understand the film on an emotional level, than of course it may only be a strange or odd movie with some technical brilliance.

A pity though too that the irrational thing they decide to do is to redeem themselves in the eyes  of the viewers (the less smart ones, of course). What if instead they decided that Angel has nothing to do with them and that Mapache is a sob as they are? What would happen is that  you wouldn't have the good bad gringos turning into heroes and a more realistic movie bound to bomb, or almost, at the box office. (Not counting an excuse less to do the slow motion orgy). These are the usual hollywooden recipes of popular culture, which have nothing to do with realism: which is good, to a point: but there lies the difference between Art and pop culture.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: uncknown on February 10, 2017, 02:31:29 PM
Actually it is indeed both. And also transcends the genre. There are others ...


I admit to a possible bias in my evaluation.
For years, decades TWB was hailed by critics a  masterpiece while Leone's films were all but ignored. (If he was acknowledged at all it would be OUTIW - GBU was totally ignored).

SO, I did kinda resent the film for reasons not having anything to do with its merits.
But, having seen it recently on the big screen, in 70mm, and the WB special edition dvd I am sticking with my opinion:
great western, not a great film like OUTIW
bruce marshall


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Moorman on February 10, 2017, 02:59:57 PM
Great movie, great ending. Can't wait to get the Blu Ray version...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Spikeopath on February 10, 2017, 04:13:06 PM
Moorman suggests dumping all your reviews into a "Spikeopath's Western Reviews/Archive" new topic much like titoli has his "lil Duce" reviews, then we can retrieve them in a "trickle in" to the Western Index at our leisure, it would save me work too, it took about an hour and a half to index what I did this morning.

 :'(

Whatever you think best and whatever is easier for you mods. I only want that the index sections show as many Westerns as possible, that there be links available for anyone interested in a new viewing - or having themselves seen a little discussed one can post and damn my review for it   ;)

I guess I should postpone my plans to bring all my noir reviews over then  :-[

Not here to make waves, just looking for a Western loving home to lay my head, and if the noir gang make a niche in the OT section then I'll obviously be active there. But not if it's going to cheese any of you guys off.

 8)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: cigar joe on February 10, 2017, 04:23:11 PM
Whatever you think best and whatever is easier for you mods. I only want that the index sections show as many Westerns as possible, that there be links available for anyone interested in a new viewing - or having themselves seen a little discussed one can post and damn my review for it   ;)

Agree

Quote

I guess I should postpone my plans to bring all my noir reviews over then  :-[

No, do the New Thread like titoli did (http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=10905.msg150938#msg150938 (http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=10905.msg150938#msg150938)) and get them all saved there before who knows what happens on IMDb, we can roll them out two or three at a time a day to the list

Quote

Not here to make waves, just looking for a Western loving home to lay my head, and if the noir gang make a niche in the OT section then I'll obviously be active there. But not if it's going to cheese any of you guys off.

 8)

Don't worry people are figuring you out, just do a slow roll out, two pages of new Western posts all reviews was overwhelming to Moorman and a few others. Moorman just joined about a week or two before the IMDb debacle, he is just new to Westerns and got bowled over by your blitz, lol.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 11, 2017, 12:44:21 AM
great western, not a great film like OUTIW

What is it that doesn't persuade you?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on February 11, 2017, 02:19:16 AM
STANTON FTW!!!!!!!!

Äääähhh ... ? Fuck The What? Or what?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 11, 2017, 02:24:52 AM
For The Win


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on February 11, 2017, 02:39:03 AM
Ok, there are different reasons: a pity though it is never explained or hinted what they may be.

I prefer movies which don't explain me everything in dialogues, but without these all explaining dialogues the films are of course more ambiguous, and risk that some don't get it. In the end if there are no obvious and simple explanations everyone is free to find some fitting ones. And when you don't get it you can't assume that others shouldn't get i either
You don't find them, the film does not work for you, that's ok, as long as there are enough other which work for you. But the fact that TWB belongs to the rare breed of films of which some think it is the best ever is telling enough for me that others also have no problems to understand the ending and anything else.

I think it is a good sign that TWB isn't hailed by everyone, that there are still debates about it, which means the film still "lives".
Quote
A pity though too that the irrational thing they decide to do is to redeem themselves in the eyes  of the viewers (the less smart ones, of course). What if instead they decided that Angel has nothing to do with them and that Mapache is a sob as they are? What would happen is that  you wouldn't have the good bad gringos turning into heroes and a more realistic movie bound to bomb, or almost, at the box office. (Not counting an excuse less to do the slow motion orgy). These are the usual hollywooden recipes of popular culture, which have nothing to do with realism: which is good, to a point: but there lies the difference between Art and pop culture.

1. One of the strenghts of the ending is of course that there is some irrationality about it, which is then boosted by the irrational directing of the overdone bloodshed. In the ending (beginning with the brothel scene) every open conflict and motive of TWB flows together, and then everything explodes. And that is absolutely fantastic.

2. What if Charles Bronson would have been killed in the first scene of OUTW? Then we would have got a more realistic movie etc etc ... also one we probably wouldn't have cared for.

3. TWB is not a realistic movie, and I'm actually not very interested in realistic genre movies.

4. TWB is art as long as some people love it, as long as TWB "speaks" to them.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on February 11, 2017, 02:43:34 AM
For The Win

Ahh, never read that term. I've checked its meaning, thanks for the flowers ...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 11, 2017, 03:26:05 AM
I prefer movies which don't explain me everything in dialogues, but without these all explaining dialogues the films are of course more ambiguous, and risk that some don't get it. In the end if there are no obvious and simple explanations everyone is free to find some fitting ones. And when you don't get it you can't assume that others shouldn't get i either

But what I am remarking is that the fact that no explanations for (irrational) behaviour is given it is just a good excuse for letting the movie have the redeeming turn of plot and make the supposedly "Wild" Bunch a happy gang of choirboys. Which is what Hollywood customarily does. The irrationality works always one way, never the other, except in more adult approaches.


Quote
I think it is a good sign that TWB isn't hailed by everyone, that there are still debates about it, which means the film still "lives".

You should translate this in deutsch.


Quote
1. One of the strenghts of the ending is of course that there is some irrationality about it, which is then boosted by the irrational directing of the overdone bloodshed.

Well, thank God, after more than 20 pages you're finally admitting as much.

Quote
2. What if Charles Bronson would have been killed in the first scene of OUTW? Then we would have got a more realistic movie etc etc ... also one we probably wouldn't have cared for.

And what if he hadn't been wounded at all? I don't understand the connection, sorry.

Quote
3. TWB is not a realistic movie, and I'm actually not very interested in realistic genre movies.

That doesn't mean it has to eschew logic.

Quote
4. TWB is art as long as some people love it, as long as TWB "speaks" to them.

Well, then you'll have to admit that Shoeshine Redemption or ET are art as well. Well, I don't.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 11, 2017, 03:51:32 AM
0. The fact that "Hollywood movies does one thing" doesn't validate or invalidates a particular choice in a particular movie.
1. What Stanton may be saying is the simple and well known fact that people are irrational. It took approximately 50 years after Adam Smith to economists to get that, so it's an easy mistake from your part.
3. Everybody agree there.
4. ET is art.

All in all, this is quite a simple debate and you guys are getting lost in philosophical arguments that lead nowhere. Titoli is acting like D&D here by trying to answer the "Would I have done what the characters do in the end?" which is off topic and pointless.

There are lots of stuff that can be criticized in TWB (which is at least in my top 50), and I think Titoli has a point in saying the movie is a tad hypocritical... but "believability" isn't one of them.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 11, 2017, 04:02:23 AM
I haven't seen it in a while, you guys are gona make me rewatch it.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 11, 2017, 06:02:25 AM
I haven't seen it in a while, you guys are gona make me rewatch it.

I started discussing it in depth (but there was other criticism even before by late firecracker and granpachum) in 2008 (sided successively by d&d): wtf you were in the meantime? >:(


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 11, 2017, 11:11:21 AM
I started discussing it in depth (but there was other criticism even before by late firecracker and granpachum) in 2008 (sided successively by d&d): wtf you were in the meantime? >:(

Saigon. :D


I remember trying to read this thread a couple of times so far, and I always can't get past the 10th-something page. The problem is: I never cared for this movie much, I don't see this has enough substance for long and elaborate discussions anyway.

I watched it once as a kid, and saw it maybe a dozen times again on TV, but mostly in 15-20 min pieces, never caring to sit through it in one session. Until now, and my opinion did not change. I lost track maybe 5 times of the so-called character development - what do they develop into anyway? They don't develop into anything really, in the end we have to take 'em for what they are - ''men who live by their own code of violence''. So what's so subtle and deep about that, or philosophical? I could not detect. You don't have to ride us for 2.5 hours to tell us that that's just what they are, and that we have to put all logic aside only to come back to the starting point. I mean, I can understand that, but that's far from being philosophical or deep on any level.

The movie is visually remarkable and the action scenes are great, although the movie as a whole suffers from the recurring Peckinpah gimmicks (making some of the characters suffer to the point of becoming buffoonish). As a game-changer, this movie also lacks the sparks of life of many SW/ZW, and some AW before, not to mention the best ones. It's a good ride though, it just isn't great. 7 - 7.5/10


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 11, 2017, 12:36:53 PM
Saigon. :D
Then you're excused.

Quote
The problem is: I never cared for this movie much, I don't see this has enough substance for long and elaborate discussions anyway.

Me too.
Quote
I lost track maybe 5 times of the so-called character development - what do they develop into anyway? They don't develop into anything really, in the end we have to take 'em for what they are - ''men who live by their own code of violence''. So what's so subtle and deep about that, or philosophical? I could not detect. You don't have to ride us for 2.5 hours to tell us that that's just what they are, and that we have to put all logic aside only to come back to the starting point. I mean, I can understand that, but that's far from being philosophical or deep on any level.

 I agree there's no character development but there surely is character change: sudden and totally irrational, not justified by the previous action and words. The point I'm trying to make is all there. And I added that the justification lies in the necessity (by the producer, the director or the writers) to make palatable the characters to the largest slice of the audience: the usual hollywooden gimmick.. 



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on February 11, 2017, 12:41:30 PM
Then you're excused.

Me too.
 I agree there's no character development but there surely is character change: sudden and totally irrational, not justified by the previous action and words. The point I'm trying to make is all there.



You try, but you fail hopelessly ...


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 11, 2017, 12:48:58 PM
You try, but you fail hopelessly ...

Come on, don't be so sad because another one jumped on my same wagon.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on February 15, 2017, 02:32:13 AM
Coming back to this:

But what I am remarking is that the fact that no explanations for (irrational) behaviour is given it is just a good excuse for letting the movie have the redeeming turn of plot and make the supposedly "Wild" Bunch a happy gang of choirboys. Which is what Hollywood customarily does. The irrationality works always one way, never the other, except in more adult approaches.


Well, thank God, after more than 20 pages you're finally admitting as much.

Only that this irrationality is in concordance with the film, works for the film.
And the explanations are there, only not in explaining dialogues. Your view of TWB is one with which you don't understand the film, my is one with which the film is an amazing adventure. If there is more tahn one way to understand a film, this film, I'm the winner anyway.

Quote

And what if he hadn't been wounded at all? I don't understand the connection, sorry.

What's not to understand? In both cases (TWB, OUTW) you would have a different film, or not a film at all.
If he did not get wounded the film would have been the same.

Btw, just another indication the the "Rising" scene was not really intended to be there. If Leone wanted the audience to know immediately that Harmonica has survived, he could just let him win the shoot-out as in every other Leone shoot-out.

Quote
That doesn't mean it has to eschew logic.

Not necessarily, yes, but you construct problems where this is not necessary.
Quote
Well, then you'll have to admit that Shoeshine Redemption or ET are art as well. Well, I don't.

If one guy in the world thinks that they are art, they are art.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 15, 2017, 09:33:20 AM
Coming back to this:

You needed to restore forces? Or meditate on my notes? Or watch again the movie?

Quote
Only that this irrationality is in concordance with the film, works for the film.
And the explanations are there, only not in explaining dialogues. Your view of TWB is one with which you don't understand the film, my is one with which the film is an amazing adventure. If there is more tahn one way to understand a film, this film, I'm the winner anyway.

Sure, the explanations are all in the mind of the observer, not in the movie. What I said. And you win whatever there is to:  I'll pin a medal on you first chance.

Quote
What's not to understand? In both cases (TWB, OUTW) you would have a different film, or not a film at all.

If he did not get wounded the film would have been the same.

Btw, just another indication the the "Rising" scene was not really intended to be there. If Leone wanted the audience to know immediately that Harmonica has survived, he could just let him win the shoot-out as in every other Leone shoot-out.[/quote]

The fact that Bronson gets wounded adds realism to the scene, so it makes perfectly sense: even the best shootist against three other professional runs the risk of being wounded. Leone saw the danger of irrealism and acted consequently. The rising from the dead is the usual elucubration of people with nothing to do.


Quote
If one guy in the world thinks that they are art, they are art.

Well, I'm not that guy and that's what matters to me.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on February 15, 2017, 09:55:09 AM

The fact that Bronson gets wounded adds realism to the scene, so it makes perfectly sense: even the best shootist against three other professional runs the risk of being wounded. Leone saw the danger of irrealism and acted consequently.


Now I understand why you have problems with TWB ... ;)



Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 15, 2017, 11:34:02 AM
Now I understand



It was high time.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 15, 2017, 11:56:15 AM
We yet have to read why this movie is great.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 15, 2017, 12:32:26 PM
We yet have to read why this movie is great.

This is called trolling, but here I go.

  • Technical achievement: it single-handedly created a new way to shoot and edit action sequences. Its huge influence can still be seen nowadays in almost every action sequence ever. The parallele editing used in other kinds of sequences is also groundbreaking. Needless to say, influence is kind of an objective quality: you may like or dislike a movie, when it determines how the next 50 years of moviemaking are going to be, your own opinion doesn't matter anymore.
  • Character development: the decision of the bunch to sacrifice themselve obviously talk to most moviegoers all around the world. Of course, all the other themes of the movie (end of an era, end of the western, friendship and betrayal, ideals vs cynicism...) and the way they are developed are striking for many people. We can discuss it for hours, it just works in a very powerful way for me.
  • Violence:  yeah I know, it's been widely discussed and is kind of cliché to defend some movies with this, but the use of violence and the way to show it here made film history. When even the slightest part of your movie makes film history, that's a huge WIN in my book. Hell, I'll probably rewatch even The Lady From Shanghai several times just because of the mirrors scene.
  • Ernest Borgnine:  :-*

Like I always say, the script is far from perfect, I lose interest from time to time in the middle hour, the cinematography isn't half as "finished" as it should be most of the time... but the movie is incredibly powerful as a whole, and I constantly think about its opening sequence (credits + shootout) when I'm in front of my editing software... and I'm far from the only one.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 15, 2017, 12:34:33 PM
We yet have to read why this movie is great.

Lots of reasons. "Because Sam was a good friend"; "Because some friend of mine was crying after watching it"; "Because if you can't see it I can't explain it"; "Because titoli stinks"; "Because it took Dave Jenkins 40 years to learn how to eat spaghetti"; "Because cigar joe sees the world (and, what it's worse, the movies) through noir eyes";  "Because Groggy, The Firecracker and Banjo are dead" etc.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 16, 2017, 05:54:51 AM
This is called trolling, but here I go.

  • Technical achievement: it single-handedly created a new way to shoot and edit action sequences. Its huge influence can still be seen nowadays in almost every action sequence ever. The parallele editing used in other kinds of sequences is also groundbreaking. Needless to say, influence is kind of an objective quality: you may like or dislike a movie, when it determines how the next 50 years of moviemaking are going to be, your own opinion doesn't matter anymore.
  • Character development: the decision of the bunch to sacrifice themselve obviously talk to most moviegoers all around the world. Of course, all the other themes of the movie (end of an era, end of the western, friendship and betrayal, ideals vs cynicism...) and the way they are developed are striking for many people. We can discuss it for hours, it just works in a very powerful way for me.
  • Violence:  yeah I know, it's been widely discussed and is kind of cliché to defend some movies with this, but the use of violence and the way to show it here made film history. When even the slightest part of your movie makes film history, that's a huge WIN in my book. Hell, I'll probably rewatch even The Lady From Shanghai several times just because of the mirrors scene.
  • Ernest Borgnine:  :-*

Like I always say, the script is far from perfect, I lose interest from time to time in the middle hour, the cinematography isn't half as "finished" as it should be most of the time... but the movie is incredibly powerful as a whole, and I constantly think about its opening sequence (credits + shootout) when I'm in front of my editing software... and I'm far from the only one.

1) OK, I'll buy that for a $.
2) Sorry, that is illogical doesn't bother me as such, but it is pretty simple and often times childish.
3) Maybe I could buy that for another buck if #2 was worth anything, and it isn't to me.
4) I like EB for other reasons: he's a legend, in form and substance, and an actor that today could never become a recognizable movie star (maybe on television) - there's no market for individualism anymore. BUT, when he's miscast he surely won't make the screen explode. Here he's 50:50.

SL's and other movies that I consider great do not make me lose interest when I watch them, that's the difference. I may not be in the mood to watch them on a particular day, but they do not bore me.  :)


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 16, 2017, 06:04:16 AM
Lots of reasons. "Because Sam was a good friend"; "Because some friend of mine was crying after watching it"; "Because if you can't see it I can't explain it"; "Because titoli stinks"; "Because it took Dave Jenkins 40 years to learn how to eat spaghetti"; "Because cigar joe sees the world (and, what it's worse, the movies) through noir eyes";  "Because Groggy, The Firecracker and Banjo are dead" etc.

There was something about Scarface, sex, and a girlfriend too, don't know if it was connected with the movie. ;D


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on February 16, 2017, 06:18:05 AM


SL's and other movies that I consider great do not make me lose interest when I watch them, that's the difference. I may not be in the mood to watch them on a particular day, but they do not bore me.  :)

I never lose interest while watching any Peckinpah film, and certainly not in TWB, which instead would lose some of its impact with every scene gone from the current version. And does not work any more in the 126 min version, which was released in Germany.

And Borgnine is certainly not miscast in the best film he ever appeared in. First time ever that I read such a thing.

And the character development is surely not illogical, otherwise the film would have a major problem, and then TWB would never have become the classic film it is.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on February 16, 2017, 06:41:15 AM
I find it fascinating how you never stop trying to explain emotions to people who obviously have no feelings at all regarding the mindset of neither Peckinpah nor the characters in his work :).
Thank heavens we are in good company.
Discussing opposite sides of it surely often is interesting and some way of passing the time,
but I find it more and more rewarding to talk to people who really get it.

I don't like KEOMA. Never will.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: stanton on February 16, 2017, 07:32:13 AM
Well, it's a matter of taste, of course. They don't get it, they don't understand this one.

There are other films I don't get, but I know that others (whose opinion I respect) love them or like them, but unfortunately I don't.

Interestingly Leone has become a director whose films are liked meanwhile by nearly everyone. Normally not a good sign ... ;)
Hitchcock is a similar case. I would really like to read a new essay in which Hitchcock's film are bashed, or at least are viewed more critical than usual.

Keoma. That's one I did not like either for a long time. But meanwhile I see it much more positive (even if Nero's costume still looks ridiculous). 6,5/10


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: mike siegel on February 16, 2017, 09:04:04 AM
Well Leone is easy to love, even my ex-girlfriend saw all his past 1964 films and liked them very much. His style and way of working with sounds & Ennio of course... Very hip, high quality, timeless, always en vogue. And never too deep of course. Except for GIU LA TESTA & AMERICA - and those are the two Leone's not loved everylone :).  Too many deep personal problems in those two, not so easy to digest :).

Hitchcock is not on my Top 10 director's list. Fantastic director, but not one single film hit me on a deep emotional level. For some it's VERTIGO, which I understand and respect. But I'm not into creating a dream girl by myself, and surely not into necrophilia. (Great film nevertheless.). I guess my favorite was always his own personal favorite (as I recall) SHADOW OF A DOUBT.  I suppose I was never pervers enough to get really touched by some of his themes or obsessions. I love his work, but not as much as others, a personal thing I suppose.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 16, 2017, 02:42:26 PM
"Because it took Dave Jenkins 40 years to learn how to eat spaghetti";
Why drag me into the discussion? I didn't say a thing!


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 16, 2017, 03:34:37 PM

Hitchcock is not on my Top 10 director's list. Fantastic director, but not one single film hit me on a deep emotional level. For some it's VERTIGO, which I understand and respect. But I'm not into creating a dream girl by myself, and surely not into necrophilia. (Great film nevertheless.).
The greatness of AH is that you don't have to share a character's predilections in order to empathize with him. All of us have lost something/ someone we love. In Vertigo we see a man who is responsible for the death of another--the policeman--which must be a terrible thing to have to live with. Is there anything worse than that feeling? Yes, AH reveals, it's much worse to be responsible for the death of a loved one. Anything worse than that? Yes: to be responsible for the death of that same loved one a second and final time. Herrmann's music helps put the audience through the experience--we feel what Scotty feels. The emotions generated by that film are more exquisite than those in any other film I can think of.

Still, Vertigo is something of an outlier. The typical AH film is about a man on an adventure who meets a woman along the way; they solve the problem together, fall in love, live happily ever after. Pleasant, but rather bland. The really interesting films are the ones where AH makes you root for the villains: Strangers on a Train; Dial "M"; Rope. I don't have anything in common with the murderers in those films, but AH makes me wish I had (at least, while the films are unspooling).


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 16, 2017, 03:45:31 PM
Why drag me into the discussion? I didn't say a thing!

No, you said some pages ago in this thread that this is the Sergio Leone and Sam Peckinpah Board. I assume it was your usual clowning with absurd notions. Still it cannot go unnoticed and forgiven. >:(


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: Novecento on February 16, 2017, 05:57:39 PM
Peckinpah: editing/montage; script/narrative
Leone: visuals/cinematography; music/atmosphere

Both very different; both equally brilliant.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 17, 2017, 10:00:37 AM
I assume it was your usual clowning with absurd notions. Still it cannot go unnoticed and forgiven. >:(
titoli is now the Spanish Inquisition! Welcome to the board in your new role! O0


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: titoli on February 17, 2017, 11:26:08 AM
titoli is now the Spanish Inquisition! Welcome to the board in your new role! O0

"NEW role"?


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 17, 2017, 01:32:06 PM
titoli is now the Spanish Inquisition! Welcome to the board in your new role! O0

Mussolini's grandson and the Spanish inquisition too?

I think Hitler was also his fourth cousin twice removed.

You should invite him on your next Weinerschnitzel excursion.


Title: Re: The Wild Bunch (1969)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 17, 2017, 05:08:18 PM
Mussolini's grandson and the Spanish inquisition too?
What was it Voltaire said about Satan? "If he didn't exist, he'd have to be invented"?

titoli is the Great Satan of this board. He doesn't post nearly often enough, so some of us are going to have to start doing it for him.