Each character has his own set of personal traits and motives, all of which seem particularly deliberate and well-constructed. Every scene works to either clarify those motives, advance the plot, or demonstrate the cathartic changes of the Bunch (and particularly Pike) during the picture. I don't think the Wild Bunch is any more challenging than, say, The Godfather or The Seven Samurai.

Really? Huh. Some of it was a physical thing; I kept getting Pike and Thornton confused, and I couldn't tell how many different Mexican generals there were, or maybe there was just the one. I guess I wasn't paying enough attention during the backstory flashbacks to understand their significance. The only time I thought there was some interesting character stuff going on was the bit about owing something to a railroad, and how it matters whom you owe things to. But I felt like there were lots of scenes which didn't seem to serve any purpose; I thought you could have shaved off thirty to forty-five minutes easily. I have yet to see The Godfather or The Seven Samurai, but I couldn't follow Ran either, and I fucking know King Lear.

That said, all of these movies are definitely asking more of a viewer than most Hollywood fare, which is exactly why they're more rewarding in the long run.

Yeah, I recognized that. I was all, come on, tell me what's going on! Movies usually do that! Let me in on the story, people!

Of course, I was 18 and fairly naive when I read it, and it might speak more to me now. I certainly got more out of Faulkner when reading him in my late 20s, when I'd seen a bit more of the world, than when I read him as a teenager, when I was sure I know how the world worked a priori.

I read The Sound and the Fury in high school, and I really liked it, but then I read Absalom! Absalom! in college, and it was so awesome. I read half of it in one day, which really fried my brain, I'll tell you.

All of which is to say: if you don't want to rewatch it after a week like Strega suggested, at least be open to the idea of rewatching it in the future. You might find yourself surprisingly engaged.

Maybe. Certainly not after a week, but maybe in the future, I guess. There are a lot of movies I've just not gotten, but I don't remember whether I've really given them a second chance. There are too many other movies I need to give first chances to.

The Searchers is the cream of the crop, but others like Stagecoach, Liberty Valence, and Rio Grande are brilliant films, mainly because Ford knew how to use John Wayne as a symbol and as an actor.

I didn't think I was into Westerns, but the first one I saw was Stagecoach, I believe, and I liked it, surprisingly. I didn't care much for Shane, though. I haven't seen The Searchers yet.

I can't think of movies I've grown into. Though in college, I was watching Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and realized it was a slasher flick, which made me love it even more.

Still not much of a Wild Bunch fan myself. I don't think it holds up well and, with due respect to Corwood, I think it has less going on in it than smart cookies like himself see in it. He thinks it's brilliant, I think it's merely good, with with some truly brilliant moments balanced by some deeply flat and flawed scenes.

His take on Ford, though, I endorse 100%!

Though in college, I was watching Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and realized it was a slasher flick, which made me love it even more.

I love the satirical stuff during the search for the Golden Tickets.

"I don't care about the money! All I want is to have Harold back!"
"They want your box of Wonka bars. Do you understand? It's your Wonka bars or your husband's life!"
"How long will they give me to think it over?"

I think it has less going on in it than smart cookies like himself see in it. He thinks it's brilliant, I think it's merely good, with with some truly brilliant moments balanced by some deeply flat and flawed scenes.

Oh good! So maybe I'm not crazy.

I love the satirical stuff during the search for the Golden Tickets.

Oh God yes.

Woo hoo, endorsed by Raquel and Robin on John Ford!

Yeah, P-C, I could see where it would help if you're a little familiar with the actors (seeing as how they're all so damn dirty throughout the movie). All that backstory is building to Pike's realization that he's a hypocrite (which is why he's lost or killed so many of his people needlessly over the years and why his best friend is currently chasing him down), which culminates in the final massacre at Agua Verde, where Pike finally does the right thing for the right reason and dies for his convictions. Some folks don't find this change cathartic, but I find it amazing and exhilarating and honest every single damn time.

Anyway, I hear you on Faulkner, and can't even imagine reading so much of Absolam! Absolam! at once. Wow.

I hope you do come back to The Wild Bunch (and Ran) after a few years. Contrary to Robin's opinion (and we've had this lovely conversation a few times), I think it shares a kind of cinematic language with Kurosawa and John Ford that finds epic truths in unimportant people and the landscapes that surround them.

I gotta run to a meeting. I'll check in when I get back.

All that backstory is building to Pike's realization that he's a hypocrite (which is why he's lost or killed so many of his people needlessly over the years and why his best friend is currently chasing him down), which culminates in the final massacre at Agua Verde, where Pike finally does the right thing for the right reason and dies for his convictions.

See, I didn't catch any of that at all. Maybe it wasn't all spelled out enough for me, but I'm not sure I even realized Pike and Thornton were buddies till maybe near the end, and it was only after reading something afterward that I found out they were supposed to be best friends. And yeah, everything else. I didn't see his character arc at all. He came, he saw, he died like hell.

Anyway, I hear you on Faulkner, and can't even imagine reading so much of Absolam! Absolam! at once. Wow.

It's a trip. It really is. That many long sentences and giant paragraphs all in one day hurts. In a fabulously good way.

It shares a kind of cinematic language with Kurosawa and John Ford that finds epic truths in unimportant people and the landscapes that surround them.

And see, this sort of thing should probably get me, since one of my pet themes is Ordinary People Doing Extraordinary Things, but I often don't get things unless they're blatantly thrown at me. I mean, I'm supposed to be all smart and intellectual and appreciative of great cinema, but they don't all work for me. Citizen Kane, sure. Sunset Boulevard, rock on. Let's not start the Touch of Evil debate again. I don't know. I'm trying. At least I don't think any of them are really bad, I just don't get why they're so great. Oh, let's throw The African Queen in there. Didn't see what the big deal was. But don't worry, I like Casablanca.

I'm really afraid of finally seeing The Godfather, cause...what if I don't like it?

Can anybody name me movies that they "grew" into?

I think I hit most movies about the right time. When they were a bit beyond my grasp, the movies themselves tended to change me and pull me up to to a new plateau. I'm thinking specifically of Vertigo and Fanny & Alexander and Children of Paradise.

I did like Godard the first time I saw him. (Admittedly, I watched Breathless at age 19 primarily for Jean Seberg's haircut.) But I definitely get more out of him as I get older.

Godard's funny - he's got such an air of spinach about him now, that you watch his movies dutifully. But his first five or six films are just amazingly alive and charming. People don't talk about how charming Godard is.

You can totally see why Godard was so influential to other filmmakers. It wasn't just that he was creating a radically new film language, but his talent was dazzling. Again and again and again he does something completely unprecedented in film and pulls it off.

I liked it, but I definitely missed something major, going by Corwood's reaction, but mos def, that scene with Pike was quite brilliant. movies I grew into
I'm not sure if there is a specific film, so much as that my tolerance for ambiguity and less-than-perfect heroes has expanded a lot, even over the last few years.(chuckles because this conversation makes my tag funnier) Now, maybe I've gone too far to enjoy most of network TV.

Huh. I was just looking at IMdb and my husband's grandfather was one of the AD's on The Wild Bunch. He was an AD on Finian's Rainbow too. Man, I love that movie - it's so cheesy but so good.

PC you'll probably like The Godfather

At least I don't think any of them are really bad, I just don't get why they're so great.

I think that one problem in film-viewing today is that it's hard to put yourself into the context of the film in the time it was made. That is to say, a lot of movies called "great" are so because they were radical for the time in which they were made, and without that context they're merely good -- or even not-so-good -- movies. But, like, it's very hard to re-wire the brain so that it has never seen a dolly-out/zoom-in shot (which Hitchcock invented for Vertigo ), because you have seen it, it's effective, and its currency is less now because it's used so often. The first time that shot was used, it probably seemed like the movie theatre was changing shape, which effect I personally would find terrifying.

I think that, a lot of the time, it's worth it to read crit about a "great" film before you see it, so that you know what that context is, and can attempt to appreciate it as film history appreciates it. If the movie bowls you over above and beyond the crit, that's great, but if it doesn't, you won't walk away with the question-marks circling your head.

I saw Citizen Kane when I was 16, and didn't care about it. The very next day, a guy raved about how it was his favorite movie evar, and explained why (i.e., it was a critique of the American Dream, formal elements, blah blah blah). A couple years later, I rewatched the movie, and got it. Didn't love it; I never will; and it wasn't the years that helped me get it, but the explanation from somebody who did love it why it was lovable.