Wild Seven

Whew, the movie started out pretty interesting but rapidly became down right brooding. Lots of holes are left in the story making you wonder just what the hell happened and why. Acting in the movie was pretty decent and shots were pretty cool, minus the director's repeated attempt at seizing the frame; i.e., always having a close-up shot of someone looking indirectly at the camera for no apparent reason... overdone.

Other than the weak story and poor execution, the lighting in the film was good, acting (for the most part) was pretty decent, and sound was so so. I'd have to align this film more with Kalifornia or Lock, Stock, and Two-Smoking Barrels than to Pulp Fiction. Pulp Fiction actually brought all stories together eventually and it made sense, this was more of a simple "bank robbery gone bad" with some dumb acting added to *flesh the story out*.

Stick with it if you can, but don't look for any answers at the end as there aren't any. The movie is quite slow during places, so this is a decent film to have on while multi-tasking other things... you won't miss anything and it'll save you the boredom of the slow, slow, slow, parts. Not a wild ride.

This is a good independent movie. It has an ensemble cast of young actors paired with some actors who have a combined acting experience of 100 years. I love seeing Rober Forster, and Richard Roundtree is a really good actor he just gets a lot of crappy work. He is real good in this movie playing a reformed criminal. The music is good and it is a interesting story.I might have given this movie a higher rating but one of the younger actors bothered me and I had some question still at the end. Thatbeing said I enjoyed the film and would recommend it to people. If the director needs an idea for his next movie he should make one about how the Boston Red Sox mopped up the Yankees then went on to win the world series in 04, I will bet that that movie would win an Oscar. Derek Jeter, A-Rod, Stupid Jason Giambi suck. Go Sox's and we will be bringing home another championship!

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.

Man-I would just like to say to the director of this film: DON'T LISTEN TO ALL THOSE WHINY CRITICS! I mean, "Matchstick Men" as a recommendation? Please. Listen: this is obviously a young filmmaker and an impressive feat for one of his first movies. The guy had the wherewithal to pull it off and utilize some amazing, overlooked talent. The setting is gorgeous, there are incisive bits of off-color humour, and, despite the comparisons to Tarantino, the writing is pretty original. And so what if something reflects Tarantino? He's one of the greatest and most popular directors of our time! Isn't most art derivative? Tarantino obviously contributed to the culture in which this young director was raised. Give him a break! Frankly (at the LA festival), I was captivated and refreshed by the young talents that are part of this movie.

ya see this is what happens when you are too influenced by a director's style which is just out of your league. OK we get it, you like Tarantino, nothing wrong with that, but when you quite clearly don't have the writing skill that he has and none of your friends who you cast in the movie bother to tell you your material is sub par, well that's when stinkers like this piece of junk get made into actual movies that waste people's time and money, and when you waste people's time and money then that's when you get people feeling compelled to write and warn everyone that your work is rubbish, well shot rubbish with reasonable sound etc but content wise, annoyingly bad.

What made you rush your ability? Why'd you bite off way more than you could chew, and who green lite this stinker? truth is there is some craft in your movie, but none of it has to do with story or content, which is so overwhelmingly bad and so obviously derivative at a level well below those of the people you emulate that it kinda makes me angry.

what a waste of time. stay well clear.