The Wild Bunch

No one seems to feel strongly enough about THE WILD BUNCH to share their perspective. I didn't want to influence anyone's opinion before a response, but I'll share my opinion now. This is a film with a familiar premise and fabulous acting. I recorded it last week and I'm still only halfway through the film. The real star of this film is "what all can we do to shock the audience" The opening kids laughing at scorpions being tortured by ants. Is it symbolism? If so, they chose a shocking one.

Since the '70's it seems that screenplays must have x number of sex scenes and x number of scenes to shock an audience. Example: RUNNING SCARED with Gregory Hines and Billy Chrystal. Fast paced comedy, then wait! insert sex scene. Takes a few minutes to get back the momentum of the film. I suspect no one would have noticed lack of sex scene. Compare to MIDNIGHT RUN. Good pace, no need for sex scene here.

I'm not anti graphic violence, because frankly old movies can seem silly with all those bullets hitting the mark and death scenes without much blood. Some films make the co-star the gore with closeups, slow motion and quick shots to show every wound. It is the new title for the genres of Action/Gore, Police/Gore, Drama/Gore. My preference is leave the over emphasis of gore in my Horror films, but in other genres be realistic but don't make the gore a co-star.

Combining genres is fun and I can agree THE WILD BUNCH had a good production. My query is why it rates 4 out of 4 stars. As you say relying too much on the violence, or as I call it a costar of the film is not a film I watch over and over again. I've watched THE WILD BUNCH, not time wasted, but not a film I would watch over and over again as I would THE SEARCHERS. There's an audience for those films, same as for the sci-fi films that feature special effects and technical features as the point of the film. My taste is that alone does not make a great film, the violence, special effects should compliment the action not be the focus. I prefer films that the story is most important. Many films, certainly with an audience for the type of film, seem to originate with the ideas of violent scenes now wrap a story around those scenes.

It's not at my library. Before I search nearby libraries, please prepare me, NoShear. Is the explanation gross?

TB, per your statement:

"I am not a fan of Tarantino's movies because I think while he's clearly a very intelligent filmmaker, he relies too much on the violent aspects of a story to shock and "pleasure" the audience into what basically amounts to a form of sadism. A lot of what he does seems to be influenced by the extreme spaghetti westerns and highly sensationalized horror pictures of the 60s and 70s."

The only Tarantino film I've watched all of was ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD. It was all right, wouldn't watch it again. I was unsettled, not offended, that it was a rewriting of the Tate murders. I remember the horror of the incident when it was reported. I would have thought the story could be told as based on the murders using different names. I don't think Tarantino did this to minimize the crime. To change the facts of the case seemed a degree disrespectful, if I were a family member of one of the victims, I'd be insulted.