- Acting of Lead Performers
- Acting of Supporting Cast
- Music Score
- Title Sequence
- Historical Importance
- Would You Recommend?
0 Member Ratings
NO REVIEWS AVAILABLE
The title has not been reviewed. Be the first to write a review by clicking here to start.
look on the bright side. it is not s.o.b.
a story that has not become more popular over time. it probably will never be. maybe some people would like the script if they could read it rather than watch it. I thought the acting.. locations.. camera work were fine. not the best western but not the worst. it had an interesting idea to it. people do not like the execution of it.
Dumb movie and a waste of time
Nothing worth watching here.
Don't waste your time on this stupid movie
A typical movie from the early 1970s trying to be realistic but ending up being dumb and phony. Who thinks people actually act and talk like the movie's characters? And, who thinks that putting a pretty face in a movie makes it worthwhile entertainment? Just about the nicest thing I can say is this movie is so damn boring that it's surprising someone actually financed it.
Wild Rovers Review
- Jan White
I agree with the NY Times review of this movie (link below). I found it funny and one of the most realistic Westerns I have seen. The puppy peeing on Frank's shirt was genius! Who expected that? http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9A0CEEDE1330E73BBC4C51DFB066838A669EDE
Wild Rovers (1971)
- James Higgins
This western is highly regarded and although it isn't bad I found it to be very very slow moving and overlong. Granted, I am not a big fan of westerns, and I suppose this one is better than most. The acting is good, as is the cinematography. Will be much more appreciated for those who enjoy the genre.