Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Don't know who compares this movie to Tarantino, get a grip.This movie is a pile of crap.No humour, always waiting for something to happen but never happens.I like dark movies, example sin city or Tarantino style movies but this ain't nothing compared to sin city or Tarantino movies.Don't get me wrong the actor do their best and they fulfil their roles,storyline is hardly convincing and you guess what going to happen before the end of the movie.So there you are waiting for something explosive to happen in the end but it never happen, so much build up for nothing.Movie is crap, don't bother watching and waste your time on it.1 out of 10 and thats because i feel generous.

This movie had the framework to be very good. It has a good cast with an interesting premise and I dug the gritty style. It starts out and you think this movie is gonna take off and then it slows down till the final scene. The older cast of actors led by Robert Forster take on roles you have never seen them in. Although I felt Robert Loggia was merely reprising the same role he had in Lost HIghway. I thought the script was interesting, I thought the full circle karma thing was pretty cool, and there was some foreshadowing through out the movie that you figure out towards the end. But as I said there is about 35 min of this movie That I could have dome with out. I think this movie could have been a mini series on HBO or something. Each episode would have been each one of the seven characters stories. It has a great different look and format which we are not used to seeing, but I thought wild seven could have use just a little fine tuning.

This is a low budget heist-revenge movie that makes several clumsy nods to Tarantino and pulp fiction and comes up WAY short on style, acting quality, plot and special effects. This is very much like watching a student film in several parts, with very poor and unbelievable scenes throughout. The Tarantino associations people make about this film are only in the context that this imbecile director tries and fails miserably to be in this genre.There are no women in this film- which makes it a tedious eye sore as well. The plot is simple, the execution mainly linear, the acting is from sub-par to painfully pathetic.PLOT: a guy gets out of prison and damages a few friends and family's lives by trying to hatch a bank robbery/revenge plot against an old nemesis. Bad editing, poor acting and stale plot ensue- with no women to see either.Instead of this trash go see Killing Zoe, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Employee of the Month, True Romance.

I really enjoyed seeing this movie in DC. I can see how people who haven't watched a lot of movies would miss some of the references the writer or director makes to a lot of different genres. This dialogue is really funny and sharp and kind of reminded me of a new group of "Swingers". It is a small, intelligent gem that a lot of people I've brought it up to don't know about yet. There is lots of quirky of humor and twists to the plot. The filming of the Arizona desert was pretty spectacular, even though I've never been out there myself. My other favorites are Sin City and Brick, so if you like a noir with a twist type of thing I highly recommend this movie. "The Texican" heh heh.