The Wild Bunch

By western standards, a solidly brutal film whose final machine-gun massacre in Aqua Verde is one of the most memorable scenes in the history of cinema. Sam Peckinpah just likes violence, The Wild Bunch doesn't look shabby in that respect and has a very realistic edge to it. This is also true of many scenes in which the horses in particular must have had a lot of fun (I would single out the slow-motion shots rolling down a sand dune and falling from a mined bridge into a river, which take on an almost bizarrely aesthetic impression). The production design with its impressive period Mexican realism with dirty hirsute locals is downright incredible. Women have no place in Peckinpah's harsh world of rough men, they only play the minor role of cheerleaders or treacherous bitches. Last but not least, we must mention William Holden (Sunset Boulevard), his charismatic performance brought back memories of his heyday in the 1950s. (09/08/2006)

Plenty of dead civilians as an inevitable part of a harsh life; men who only use the word "law" when it suits them; a woman as a symbol of a man's mere distraction... Sam Peckinpah had balls like no other director before or since, and the male superiority simply oozes out of his films. Yet it is a superiority that's honest, uncompromising, and harsh at the same time. This ensures that it can only be seen as an expression of an unmistakable creative genius, one that puts an almost mystical equivalence between the words violence and art and expands the film western to indescribable greatness. (11/02/2007)

For everything that happened after the train robbery, I would be delighted to give Peckinpah’s most famous picture full marks and I would also gladly place the Wild Bunch on the pedestal of best westerns right behind Leone’s masterpieces. But I can’t, I just can’t. What prevents me doing so it the hour it takes to get going. It’s not bad, but it is so desperately ordinary and confusable with any other western (with the exception of the opening sequence, of course) that it’s hard to watch. (05/12/2009)

It is a bit paradoxical that the only film in Sam Peckinpah's filmography that I have a major problem with is the one that definitively captured the attention of film critics and audience interest. The Wild Bunch once fascinated people with its bloody violence (according to comments on FilmBooster, it still captivates many today, even though the standards have shifted and we are much more desensitized). Journalists tended to consider Peckinpah's film an artistic reflection of the Vietnam War or the rise of violent crime in American cities. Peckinpah, however, rejected one of the important genre rules. A classic western usually works with polarized black-and-white characters, where the positive hero faces villains. In The Wild Bunch, you will find exclusively more or less dirty characters, mostly driven by base motives. The director justified the behavior of his characters with instincts and animality, but this explanation lacks logic. Instincts have their own laws, and they function based on the need for defense, reproduction, acquiring food, and so on. The outbursts of violence in The Wild Bunch defy logical explanation. It is not about the film hero knowing less than the viewer and having only a fraction of the time for crucial decisions. The aggression in the film is actually built on effect, and the characters' decision-making is contrary to their interests and often even natural instincts. At the same time, I was disturbed by the use of humorous relieving elements. The film is strangely inconsistent in its pace, mood, and expressive means. On the other hand, Peckinpah is undoubtedly strong in his visual style with the slow motion technique and careful editing. Moreover, he utilizes the traditional advantages of westerns, expertly enchanting with panoramic shots of the beautiful and wild landscapes of the American Southwest. But sadly, this one won't be getting more than 2 stars from me. Overall impression: 45%. (05/04/2018)

A bloody masterpiece with several powerful scenes. In my opinion, stealing the weapons from the train is slightly better than simply a destructive finale. The setting, shortly before the outbreak of the world war, gives it the necessary feeling of the end of the Wild West as we know it, and the beginning of a new era. (02/09/2019)

A solid ride, whose the moral values and strength of friendship inspired of some of the creators of the contemporary film industry (John Woo, Michael Mann). Sam Peckinpah's fondness for blood and violence is very evident, especially in the action scenes, which are excellently shot, unusually clear and realistic, though at times the too hectic editing can be bothersome, but otherwise, more or less satisfaction. The actors deliver exactly what is needed: rough faces, tough gestures, and decisive actions. The central duo forms a perfect example of enemies. It is hard to distinguish between good and evil, which plays only to the advantage of the film. (21/10/2006)

This is unique. At a time when the western genre was already primarily based on the balladic, character-building and "Kubrick-esque" precision of Once Upon a Time in the West, and when monotonous stories were taking a back seat to popular scenic gems (man-on-man fights, bank robberies), Peckinpah, the violent man of cinema, came up with a picture-perfect ode to manhood in the form of thrilling gunfights, tautly constructed action scenes, excellent actors and, most importantly, that shocking final massacre, quite unconventional compared to the classic John Wayne happy endings, which taught us that a machine gun has a cadence of TA-TA-TA-TA-TA-TA. It may be a bit tedious and emotionally distant at times, but if even I, a born opponent of westerns who at most follows in the footsteps of Sergio Leone, had a great time and got so carried away by the tough male element, there can be no doubt about its enormous and undeniable quality. 80% (07/04/2014)

I'm afraid my expectations were too high after reading other people's reviews. One thing is clear, the movie is much grittier and rawer compared to classic Westerns; traditional gun duels cannot compete with these wild explosions of violence. However, if I put aside the opening and final scenes, all that was left in the extensive middle was a train robbery. The part where they traveled from the place of the previous massacre to the place of the future one was quite time-consuming, and there was only a limited amount of action in it. It dragged on for me, and similarly divided plots in contemporary Westerns are often the main reason for my decreased satisfaction. It's a shame because I enjoyed the movie otherwise. It's quite possible that it's just me, as the majority opinion disagrees with me. Well, I can't do much about how I perceive things, so I'll conclude by saying that if I hadn't been somewhat bored in the middle of the film, I would have given it at least four stars. / Lesson learned: A machine gun with unlimited ammunition is every shooter's dream. (18/07/2023)

It's a good western, no doubt about it. It's incredibly bloody, incredibly action-packed, incredibly tough, but I simply found that Sergio Leone and his approach to the western suited me more. The Italian is more American, more emotional, and more Western than the Americans themselves. Here, it is very much influenced by the Mexican setting of a large part of the plot. But as I said, it's an excellent western, it just didn't resonate with me as much as "Once Upon a Time in the West." (13/07/2015)