max widner
I just picked this up on a whim at the local video rental shop, somewhat because I've had some good luck with indie flicks lately (He Was A Quiet Man, being the most recent). Wild Seven started out promising. Some nice scenery. A just released con, fresh out of prison and looking for revenge on his old partner in crime who set him up for a couple of decades. A group of wannabe bank robber kids. What could go wrong?The first signal that something was wrong came when the newly released con (Forster) turns out to be about as menacing as a cream puff. The ex-partner (Loggia) is equally non-threatening, despite carrying and constantly displaying a gold plated Desert Eagle. Flash forward (after some boring pointless setup, some of which made no sense whatsoever) to the (anti-)climactic bank robbery where everyone meets up by accident. At this point, enough time had been wasted that I had to see if the movie could redeem itself even just a little bit. But no. It wasn't to be. The movie ends abruptly, as if they ran out of money and/or ideas. In short, a pointless wasted of film. 3 out of 10 is being generous.
roonibaker
This movie had the framework to be very good. It has a good cast with an interesting premise and I dug the gritty style. It starts out and you think this movie is gonna take off and then it slows down till the final scene. The older cast of actors led by Robert Forster take on roles you have never seen them in. Although I felt Robert Loggia was merely reprising the same role he had in Lost HIghway. I thought the script was interesting, I thought the full circle karma thing was pretty cool, and there was some foreshadowing through out the movie that you figure out towards the end. But as I said there is about 35 min of this movie That I could have dome with out. I think this movie could have been a mini series on HBO or something. Each episode would have been each one of the seven characters stories. It has a great different look and format which we are not used to seeing, but I thought wild seven could have use just a little fine tuning.
barkbarkwoof
Unfortunately I managed to read the good reviews of this movies and it looked like a gem. There are basically three story lines one of which comes and goes with no rhyme or reason. The other two are centered around revenge and come together sloppily.Other than that there are good actors in bad roles and bad actors in nonsensical roles. You have to ask why certain characters are even in the movie. One character has troubles seeming like he stole something. He's killed and the situation and his murder has nothing to do with the rest of the movie. It not only doesn't influence the main plot or any other characters, they don't even know anything about it. They think he's just sleeping one off.I hate to spoil it but it ends abruptly like so many films (and the Sopranos) seem to do today. Leaving the viewer to ask "WTF did I just watch?"
dilbertsuperman
This is a low budget heist-revenge movie that makes several clumsy nods to Tarantino and pulp fiction and comes up WAY short on style, acting quality, plot and special effects. This is very much like watching a student film in several parts, with very poor and unbelievable scenes throughout. The Tarantino associations people make about this film are only in the context that this imbecile director tries and fails miserably to be in this genre.There are no women in this film- which makes it a tedious eye sore as well. The plot is simple, the execution mainly linear, the acting is from sub-par to painfully pathetic.PLOT: a guy gets out of prison and damages a few friends and family's lives by trying to hatch a bank robbery/revenge plot against an old nemesis. Bad editing, poor acting and stale plot ensue- with no women to see either.Instead of this trash go see Killing Zoe, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Employee of the Month, True Romance.
AD
