- 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.
- kevin sellers
I agree with previous reviewer James Higgins that this movie is absurdly long (I mean, an OVERTURE? And an INTERMISSION? Who do you think you are, Blake old fellow? Cecil Goddamn DeMille?) and tries to tackle too many sub plots (let me list a few: Sheep/Cattle Wars, Buckman husband and wife conflict, Greedy Banker And Wife, Buckman sibling rivalry, Maybelle's Whorehouse, and that's just off the top of my head) but I'd be dishonest if said I didn't have a good time watching it. Blake Edwards' screenplay is a bit on the talky/corny side (i.e. that bathetic last soliloquy Bill Holden says for Ryan O'Neal) but he has a good ear for the wisecrack (Moses Gunn's telling Holden that the fact that they were Army buddies "gets you little and your friend nothing") or the telling comment (i.e. Joe Don Baker's lamenting that he's been born into the wrong family) that instantly illuminates a character and his direction of the climactic shootout in the cantina is as good as anything you'll see in Peckinpah. As for the acting, it's all good, with special kudos to the two leads, Karl Malden and Lynn Carlin as the ill matched Buckmans, the aforesaid Joe Don Baker and Moses Gunn, and Victor French as a whoring, dyspeptic sheriff. Give it a very solid B.
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.