User Reviews

In Wild Bill we get to see one of the best characterizations of the legendary western character. Jeff Bridges joins a pantheon of great players who've essayed the part of the marshal of Abilene, Kansas. Folks like William S. Hart, Gary Cooper, Roy Rogers, Guy Madison, Bill Elliott, Forrest Tucker, and Charles Bronson have all played Hickok with varying degrees of success.

Some of these people have played Hickok more or less nobly as the script and their screen persona permitted. Someone like Roy Rogers you know without seeing the film had Hickok be a straight arrow. The real Wild Bill was someone who was as tough as he had to be to enforce law and order in a wild and woolly town like Abilene, Kansas circa 1870-1871 when Hickok kept the peace there.

Among those other actors who played Hickok also includes Jeff's father Lloyd Bridges who did it in an hour television drama on the Great Adventure series. I saw that years ago and I wish I could remember more of it so I could compare father and son. The part I best recall is the famous story of Hickok accidentally shooting his own deputy who made the fatal mistake of coming up behind him too quietly and after he'd just shot one of Texas's rowdier cowboys. It's part of the Hickok legend and shown here as well.

Of course the manner of Hickok's death has also entered into folklore with wide and varying accounts of the kind of man Hickok's killer Jack McCall was. He was probably closer to the sneaky rat that Cecil B. DeMille had Porter Hall play him as in The Plainsman. Here he's shown as a drunk and scared kid played by David Arquette much in the same manner as Bob Ford was played by Casey Affleck last year. Arquette does well in the role.

Ellen Barkin is cast as Calamity Jane and while she's as tough as the famous frontierswoman, she's way too good looking. Too bad Louis B. Mayer never thought of using Marie Dressler for the part back in the day. Even she was a little too femme for the part.

The film is done in Citizen Kane style, narrated by John Hurt who is a close friend of Hickok in the story. It's a pretty good western, coming out when those are few and far between.

Historians may scoff, but Walter Hill's "Wild Bill" is an absorbing and intriguing western with elegiac overtures yet much of the emphasis placed on the battles. Jeff Bridges does a fine job as scruffy, mangy, weathered James Butler Hickok in the 1870s Midwest, getting into brutal fights while doing nothing more than standing at a bar (John Hurt's narration tells us, "Being 'Wild' Bill was in itself a profession."). Ellen Barkin plays Calamity Jane like a lovestruck toughie who clucks behind Hickok, waiting for a commitment; David Arquette is Jack McCall, a young man defending the honor of his mother, whom Hickok loved and left. Occasionally, director Hill hits a stumbling block (there's an inconsequential bit with Keith Carradine as Buffalo Bill Cody which disconnects the mood, and also a black-and-white flashback filmed in high-contrast where Hickok attempts to talk sensibly with a no-nonsense Indian tribe). Still, the hand and gun bouts are fully charged with adrenaline, and there's a genuine feel for these sad, meandering people that recalls strong sections from other westerns, particularly "McCabe and Mrs. Miller". A bumpy film, but not a bad one at all. **1/2 from ****

Walter Hill has based his screenplay on two literary works by two individuals: Paul Dexter's book and Thomas Babe's play. Hill is a good screenplay-writer himself. I recommend viewers to view the film as an example of a good screenplay and not be unduly worried about facts.

The structure of the narrative is simplified by the sepia and black-and-white flashbacks by the director. Unlike other directors, Hill chooses to uses tilted shots for most of these flashbacks, suggesting a "colored" viewpoint of what is shown.

The film can be dismissed easily as a crass action western--but this film looks at bravura narcissism (opening shots of shooting a glass on top of a dog's head), a man who refuses to be tied down to relationships with women but is friendly with men, stupid reactions to knocking his hat, etc. The heroics may belong to the mustachioed men rather than the clean-shaven but the film has more to offer than hairy faces.

The casting of John Hurt, Bruce Dern and Ellen Barkin is commendable--they provide fascinating screen time that adds to the credibility. Hurt and Barkin who open the film carries the film even though Jeff Bridges proves to be a credible lead player but he is no great thespian.

The film ultimately belongs to Hill and art director Dan Olexiewicz, with the atmosphere changes from bright sun to slushy streets--that strangely keeps pace with the characters. Hill develops the characters slowly through filmed flashback and dream sequences (visit of Wild Bill to the insane asylum, the conversations with Red Indians, are examples) rather than the spoken word of the main character and that contributes to the feeling that most characters are not fleshed out. They are well developed, in an unusual way. This is not great cinema but above average stuff--a good way to describe Hill's body of work.

I've been checking out the comments on this film and they seem to be in line with most of the other reactions I've heard. It's important to say up front that this is not a film for Western fans. It's not a film for action fans. It's not for history buffs who care only about the facts. It's not a film for people who want to see a good story told simply.

Wild Bill is one of the richest and most disturbing films ever made about the American West. It shows us a complicated man without trying to explain or rationalize the contradictions in his character. He's capable of love, but he also commits acts of brutal violence. He cares for his friends but he holds them all at arm's length. And he feels compelled to play the part of the living legend to the end, come what may.

I suspect that Walter Hill chose this subject because he identified strongly with Wild Bill himself. But whether or not this is true, the contradictions in Hickok's character are a part of this country's character. Hill was lucky to have Jeff Bridges in the lead. It's one of his finest performances. Though Wild Bill doesn't voice doubts about his life out loud, Bridges' face shows us that he doesn't understand himself the reasons for many of his actions.

The story is not told in chronological order, but the organization of the sequences is not haphazard. In fact it's beautifully thought out. This is not a film for everybody, but I think it deserves a lot more attention than it's gotten so far. I feel like fans of Walter Hill's work will see the same thing I do: a beautiful and haunting meditation on why this country is the way it is.

Great gunfight scenes and exquisite costuming highlight this fast-paced story of Wild Bill Hickok, man and myth. The film illuminates some of the most exciting and legendary characters of the untamed American West. One of the better Wild Bill portraits on film. Remember.. "You shouldn't oughta touch a man's hat!"

The life and death of the legendary Wild Bill Hickok is presented by Walter Hill in a stylistic western. The direction is great, the cast is excellent, the art and photography are wonderful, showing the important parts of Wild Bill's life in flashbacks in black & white and inclined camera. However, the performance of Jeff Bridges is horrible, using grimace to represent a nasty gunfighter, opium, card and whiskey addicted in a weak screenplay. The story is not pleasant and is impossible to feel any sympathy for the character Wild Bill Hickok. Diane Lane and Ellen Barkin are beautiful as usual. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): 'Wild Bill – A Lenda do Oeste' ('Wild Bill – The Legend of the West')

Most reviews seem to look at this through the prism of "Deadwood," which seems unfair as the elongated TV format allows for far more character development. So to point out that the characters in "Wild Bill" aren't as-- well, you get the picture. Viewed alone, the movie deserves praise for performance, set design, a sense of period dialogue and historical accuracy in visual recreations. Yes, WB really did wear Navy Colts backwards, cavalry-style, in a red sash; yes, he did have greasy lanks of hair and wear a big floppy hat, a thick tie and a vest that didn't match his jacket which didn't match his pants. And for about an hour, I think the movie is pretty amusing. But when it sinks into Deadwood over its last hour, it appears to use too much of the stagey dialogue of one of its sources, a play by someone named Thomas Babe. At this point, it pretty much abandons history which is bad enough, but also cinematic fluency, of which Hill is a master: it becomes static, talky, dreary, and completely loses its momentum. And someone--Babe?--made the decision to give the McCall-Hickcock dynamic an Oedipal overtone--he's the "son" of a woman once loved , then abandoned, by Hickcock. This is an attempt at coherency, to bring the murder into some sort of classic framework. Yeah, swell, however: McCall was much older, a buffalo hunter who'd lost dough to Wild Bill the night before. He didn't stand for the abused son, he stood for the randomness of frontier violence, where booze, pride, stupidity and a culture of pointless aggression could easily spell an ambush murder like McCall's. THAT, to me, would not only have been more accurate, but more fluent and a better movie.

OK, I'm biased. I was in this film. So I should love it, right? When we were making it, it seemed very cool, and everyone was excited. It sat for a year, and then when it came out, awful. Just terrible. Everyone in it was over-acting. (In our defense, that's what they asked for on the set.) And the story sort of...rambles. I am going to avoid a long rambling review, since I was, 'Gambler guy who walks in front of Bill as he gets out of the stage in Deadwood', my opinion may not be entirely free from favoritism.

A great time shooting, a bad time watching. Oh, well, they can't all be Oscar winners. (I think we were heading for the Razzies!)

Hey, we had fun, anyway!

Charley Prince (John Hurt) and Calamity Jane (Ellen Barkin) are at Wild Bill Hickok (Jeff Bridges)'s funeral. The movie flashes back as Wild Bill ride with California Joe. Then it jumps around from Nebraska 1867 to as a Marshall in 1871 Abilene, Kansas where he accidentally shoots his own deputy in a chaotic shootout. He joins Buffalo Bill Cody (Keith Carradine)'s show in NYC where he's generally a bad actor. He's losing his eyesight. He gets called out by wheelchair bound Will Plummer (Bruce Dern) in Cheyenne and promptly kills Will. He meets up with Jane and is dogged by young Jack McCall (David Arquette). Jack is helped by Lurline Newcomb (Christina Applegate). Will Bill had an affair with his mother Susannah Moore (Diane Lane) which ends in tragedy.

The movie jumps around so much in time period that it feels very aimless. The plot meanders and pacing drags. The back and white flashbacks make it lifeless. Sometimes it turns surreal. I was relieved that Calamity Jane finally rejoins the movie but then it goes off once again to another place and time. Other than being a drunk card-playing gunslinger, the movie doesn't get too deep into Wild Bill. The movie fades in and out so much that it's hard to cling onto. Jack McCall is not necessarily a compelling character. In the end, the movie slips through my fingers.

If there was ever a psychedelic western movie, this has to be it. It's so bizarre, at least compared to most westerns, that it was tough for me to write this review. I stopped and re-started several times. Where to start?

I just found it great fun, an entertaining film that's always a kick to view, and what more you can ask? Being someone who is very much into visuals, great cinematography and unique approaches to camera-work, this film provided all of that and more, such as an interesting story with whacked-out characters.

I love narration and John Hurt's description of the goings-on here was just great to hear. He played "Charlie," an Englishman with a gentleman's vocabulary that was in stark contrast to the hardened outlaws, led by 'Wild Bill' Hickok himself, played by Jeff Bridges. Ellen Barkin plays "Calamity Jane," and few women of the 1980s and '90s played foul-mouthed, hard-but-sexy women as convincingly as Barkin.

In addition to Hurt, Bridges and Barkin, other fun characters included "California Joe," Hickok's gravel-voiced friend who doesn't say much but when he does, you hear some some of the longest sentences ever uttered. Daid Arquette plays a very strange villain, the man who became famous for shooting Wild Bill. He acts strange and talks as if he has a mouthful of marbles. James Remar, another mean-looking tough guy, is a hired killer. Christina Applegate, Bruce Dern, Margoe Gortner, Keith Carradine and assorted other characters all add to this strange tale, strange in its telling and even stranger in its visual style.

Some of the film is in flashback, which is seen in startling black-and-white and mainly features Diane Lane, who is flat-out gorgeous and maybe the most intriguing person in the film. One of the flashbacks has the film deliberately overexposed with wild dream-like images.

No western "purist" admits to liking this but I love the genre and I put this near the top of my list of favorite westerns. So, sue me!

I can just barely recommend this movie because I happen to like Ellen Barkin. This role as Calamity Jane isn't anywhere near her outstanding performance in The Big Easy. Jeff Bridges did a fairly good job as Wild Bill Hickock. Fans of the TV series Deadwood may want to watch to see another version. David Arquette was the worst Jack McCall that you could imagine; gunning after Wild Bill because he thought he left his mom (Diane Lane). It was slow as westerns go and that was a fine set of guns Wild Bill had. They must have got off 20 shots at the end! Like so many movies, I feel the ending will leave you disappointed. It just didn't seem in character for McCall.

This film presents the viewer with an odd perspective on the psychedelic West, but as MGM's answer to Disney's/BuenaVista's "Tombstone," it falls flat on its face. It failed at the box office, and it fails to convey any resemblance to a modernized western. Actually, this plays more like Andy Kaufman meets Quentin Tarantino in Deadwood.

That combination may sound like fun, and at times, it is, but for the most part, this is one convoluted mess that cannot live up to the name Wild Bill Hickock, though it is slick and stylish in its development and execution.

Jeff Bridges was one bright spot in this work, while there are other bright spots, they are matches next to his spotlight.

All in all? I was entertained, if somewhat aghast.

It rates a 4.8/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Wild Bill (1995)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

Wild Bill Hickok (Jeff Bridges) comes into Deadwood where he meets up with his old flame Calamity Jane (Ellen Barkin) and has a pesky young kid (David Arquette) threatening to kill him. While staying at Deadwood, Hickok begins to feel that his questionable past is starting to haunt him.

Walter Hill's WILD BILL pretty much took a beating when it was originally released. The critics ripped it apart and movie goers pretty much stayed away turning it into one of the year's biggest bombs. I avoided watching the film due to its reputation but I finally got around to the movie and I must admit that I found it to be incredibly entertaining on a number of levels.

I think what I enjoyed most was the style of the storytelling. The film starts off like a greatest hits package as we get several small scenes showing some of the more notorious moments from Hickok's life. I really loved how Hill made this work as we basically get to see what made the man a legend and then we get to the current story of him struggling with his past while at the same time having to deal with this young man who wants to kill him.

Not only does the story work extremely well but we're also given a terrific cast. Bridges is downright terrific in the lead role and I must say that he's a lot better here than he was in TRUE GRIT. In fact, you could make the argument that this contains some of the actor's greatest moments on the screen, which is saying a lot. Barkin is also extremely good in her role of the love interest and Arquette is also good in his part. We've also got a great supporting cast including Bruce Dern, Keith Carradine, Diane Lane, Christina Applegate, James Gammon and John Hurt.

As you'd expect from a Hill movie, WILD BILL is well-made and contains some great style and especially when it comes to the violence. The shoot outs are handled extremely well and they are so well-filmed that you can't help but get caught up with them. The personal story of Bill and his demons also work extremely well. I'm really not sure why WILD BILL was such a disaster at the box office and with critics but the film is certainly worth watching.

Damn good western with plenty of smokin' guns, hot lead, and wagons of dead bad men. Bridges was perfect as the famous gunslinger and the rest of the cast also looked the part of the old west. I liked the use of flashback, especially the stark black and white style used; it was a nice addition to the story. A real rip roaring shoot-em-up.

An odd movie, "Wild Bill". I reconciling the legend with the man (especially one who's on the downslope of life), there's plenty of backstory to fill in. And the way it bounces around between flashback and present day gives the movie a fairly schizophrenic vibe. On one hand, you kinda wish there was more running time to this just to handle all of the history - but on the other hand, the movie has its own pacing issues after the first 30 minutes or so. Maybe excitement just wasn't in the cards for this one.

Putting aside the weakness of David Arquette, the movie boasts a solid cast (with Jeff Bridges as the standout). It's a decent western and the shootouts are classic Walter Hill.

6/10

Perhaps I love Deadwood too much; the critically praised, HBO series for which director Walter Hill appropriately won an Emmy for the pilot. I clearly set my expectations a little too high of this one, which predates the Deadwood series by eight years or so. Coming from Walter Hill, the man behind the Warriors and The Long Riders, there is no way that Wild Bill should have been this sloppy.

His portrayal of the life and death of James Butler Hickok results in a motion picture that self-destructs in spectacular fashion. It is vastly underwritten, poorly acted, edited as if it were a labyrinth of jungle vines to be cut down by a machete, and on top of that the movie is also severely anti-climactic.

All that Hill gets right is that parts of the movie are well shot, and he is able to capture the look of the times on screen, but on the pages, it is a different matter. The opening twenty minutes (give or take) are especially excruciating. What we see is almost a joke, totally amateurish and more oriented towards obnoxious gunplay than character illumination. I felt like I was watching kiddies play cowboys and Indians on the street with little wooden pistols.

Jeff Bridges portrayal of Hickok is devoid of talent and humanity. It is so obviously a performance, with hammy delivery, poor timing, and failure to capture Bill's misery and self loathing and his love for Calamity Jane.

When all is said and done, Wild Bill is a dud. It is clumsy and careless, and is easily one of the worst westerns I have ever seen.

After The Long Riders and Geronimo: An American Legend, Walter Hill came back to the western genre with Wild Bill, being the director and writer for the project. Having seen the show, Deadwood, and read about the historical figures of Wild Bill and Calamity Jane, this film has been on my radar for quite a while. The film is based on the 1978 stage play Fathers and Sons by Thomas Babe and the 1986 novel Deadwood by Pete Dexter (the novel I own but haven't read). It stars Jeff Bridges as Wild Bill Hickok, Ellen Barkin as Calamity Jane, John Hurt as Charley Prince, Diane Lane as Susannah Moore, Keith Carradine as as William Frederick "Buffalo Bill" Cody, and David Arquette as Jack McCall, along with other actors in the supporting cast.

The early career of legendary lawman Wild Bill Hickock is telescoped and culminates in his relocation in Deadwood and a reunion with Calamity Jane.

Walter Hill is a special kind of director, an auteur of sorts, yet his movies aren't for everyone. But one thing he's always great at is the camera work, how he uses the camera and the medium shots he often uses, letting the audience see a lot. There's always a lot going on in his shots, from extras to actors, his mise-en-scene is quite great I must add. For the first act I have to admit I really found the editing to be great, I'm pretty sure Walter Hill supervised Freeman A. Davies who edited the film. Lloyd Ahern II served as cinematographer, truly magnificent work and cooperation, something they would continue to do for the mini series Broken Trail. Although I'm praising the film a lot, I think the pacing is too fast as the film never slows down to dig deeper into who James Butler "Wild Bill" Hickok were, and with the runtime of solely 98 minutes you just wish it was a little longer. The plot could have been better, as the film has a great first act, then it stumbles before coming to a good final act. Better pacing and removal of the dream sequences would have improved the film I believe. The whole plot with Jack McCall thinking Wild Bill is his father, is by the playwright himself a big lie, so having that in this film was just off, an interesting idea on paper but didn't work at all. It does bring suspension and tension to the film, having McCall serve as a bigger antagonist/villain than he was, McCall was nothing but a coward whom sought nothing but fame to be the man who killed Wild Bill Hickok. I would have liked if the plot focused more on the characters of Deadwood whom Bill surrounded himself with. Roger Ebert gave the film two stars out of four, criticizing its pacing and plot. He recognized the film's ambition, aiming for "elegy" and "poetry" in its final act, but ultimately described it as flawed, writing, "We can see where it's headed, although it doesn't get there." I think for example the dream sequence could have been removed and something else like more backstory or other important aspects of his life, who Wild Bill was. The voiceover of John Hurt's character, Charley Prince, helps the film tell more of Wild Bill's story but as the saying goes "Show, don't tell". Yet, the voiceover works thanks to the screenplay. John Hurt is absolutely brilliant in the role, many in the film are great, but it's Jeff Bridges and John Hurt who deserves most of the praise. I believe Jeff Bridges nailed the role. I think Jeff Bridges had chemistry with everyone, especially with John Hurt and Ellen Barkin and Keith Carradine (who played Wild Bill Hickok in the tv series Deadwood). Bruce Fretts of Entertainment Weekly wrote that the movie "succeeds as a character study of a man whose idiosyncratic code of justice eventually catches up with him", and complimented Jeff Bridges' acting as vital to the film's success.

Who was James Butler "Wild Bill" Hickok? In this film we see him as a lawman, gunman, actor and a western legend. Various friendships get explored like with Martha Jane "Calamity Jane" Cannary, Charley Prince and William Frederick "Buffalo Bill" Cody. There is much information about him but how much is true? I'm sure this take on him is quite correct. The eye sickness is something I completely buy, yet I have no idea if its true of not. Just seem true if you think about it, this western legend comes to Deadwood to almost solely drink and gamble. That's something anyone in that age with his status would get depressed about. I think Walter Hill did the legend justice. Walter Hill does something interesting, showing once again the native americans and americans of other ethnicity like Chinese and African-Americans, everyone is three dimensional and these scenes might not have happened in reality but as dramatic license, works well and adds depth. Walter Hill's Wild Bill has ambition and could have been a great western, it just doesn't get there, it's also unfortunate how the film bombed at the box office. I watched that trailer Walter Hill spoke badly about, it's truly a different movie they marketed. The film aims for elegant and philosophical storytelling, Roger Ebert wrote of how Walter Hill aimed for elegy and poetry, this was a passion project of some kind of Hill's and his personal reflection of the sudden murder of a western legend. This film is absolutely worth your time, but bear in mind, it might not be to your liking. I thought it was a good western though, I hope you do too.

Out of every movie i have ever seen based on a legendary old west figure this movie was the largest pile of horse s**T i have ever seen.There is not 1/100 of fact base in this film i have spent 25 years of my life researching legendary western figures from Wyatt Earp to the back shooter Pat Garret and believe me they have made some stinkers but this is no doubt the worst pile of lies and misleads i ever saw. I WISH THERE WAS A RATING LESS THEN 1 BECAUSE THIS MOVIE WOULD RATE A - 10.Not to mention very bad acting from second rate actors.Walter Hill directed my favorite movie of all times the 1979 cult classic THE WARRIORS {in which he also used James Remar }so i expected better from him.This movie is a disgrace to a otherwise great director.

I wasn't expecting much from this one, but Walter Hill's direction credit during the opening title sequence sucked me in - and I was glad it did.

A very capable cast and an interesting cinematic style gave this film a unique flavor, although some of the characters bordered on unbelievable at times.

Loved the interaction between Wild Bill and Calamity Jane on the saloon table, although the conversation seemed too modern for the late 1800s. But overall, the film was a great way to spend a Sunday afternoon, especially when compared with some of the lesser films available at the time.

This one one of Walter Hill's lesser films and a major disappointment right after Geronimo, which was a great western. Hill just went downhill with this film and his films have just sucked after this one. It's hard to believe this is from the same guy who directed The Long Riders. The movie starts out with Wild Bill's death in 1876 at age 39. Their are several flashbacks of Bill shooting dead a lot of people over the years and the movie winds up showing Bill's last days in Deadwood. Bill is slowly losing his eyesight and he has a few friends with Calamnity Jane, played by Ellen Barkin and an Englishman, played by John Hurt. David Arquette is a young kid who wants to kill Bill but doesn't have the guts so he hires some gunmen to do it for him. The movie is a major disappointment and you should stay away from it.

I first saw this in the theater and found it forgettable. But I thought I'd watch again since it pops up a lot on cable. Now I believe it's too awful to be forgettable. This is a criminally bad film, easily the worst of director Walter Hill's spotty career, although it does seem to have pointed him towards the cable series Deadwood. That's another crime for another day, however. Except for some few expertly staged fight scenes and the performances of Jeff Bridges and Diane Lane, this is a low point in several usually reliable actor's careers. John Hurt is simply a windy fool, ditto James Gammon. Bruce Dern yells (yawn). And Ellen Barkin's Calamity Jane makes me long for Abby Dalton's performance in The Plainsman. Loud, broad, witless, with the worst Southern accent in the long history of bad Southern accents on film, this represents the nadir of her career. It's the only bad performance I've ever seen her give and I still can't imagine what she was thinking. Possibly the only way to enjoy this film is to turn it on, leave the room and, when you hear the sound of raised voices and gunfire, rush back in. Or you could just rent The Plainsman.