The Wild Bunch

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% (04/07/2014)

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. (02/11/2007)

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. (09/02/2019)

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. (07/18/2023)

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." (07/13/2015)