Rating: 
Summary: A wonderful DVD
Review: If you're into old B movie biker movies, I highly Recommend Wild Angels. It's a pretty fun romp of a movie and I'd suggest that you be akin to bikers to want to own this, as it's sure fun to put on during parties and watch the "Wild Angels" play with dead people, tear down churches, etc. This is nostalgic from when the actual Hells Angels were consulting the movie industry for a fee $$$, but nevertheless, it's highly entertaining and fun to watch.
Rating: 
Summary: the wild angels
Review: it is a very good movie sinatra & fonda are great it is about a motor cycle gangs buy it yours love it
Rating: 
Summary: Pure Kitsch
Review: It's nice to see that Peter Fonda has redeemed himself in recent years ("Ulee's Gold", "The Limey", "The Passion of Ayn Rand" et al.), and even has a couple of Golden Globes and an Oscar Nomination to show for it. But he certainly wouldn't want to be remembered for this awful piece of drive-in drivel (although "Easy Rider" will probably be marked on his gravestone). I gave it three stars for kitsch value. Otherwise, it doesn't deserve any. This movie is bad, but in a very amusing way."The Wild Angels" is "Easy Rider" written by Fred Durst. The plot is pretty weak, juvenile, and has plenty of holes in it. The actions the characters make echo the song "Break Stuff"; at the beginning of the film, when Loser's (Bruce Dern) Boss ask Heavenly Blues (Fonda)if he's "one of those dumb angels", Blues replies snidely and restrains him needlessly. And the dialogue is mediocre and poorly executed. If you're looking for compelling drama, look elsewhere. If you're looking to amuse yourself, then by all means take the plunge!
Rating:
Summary: Pure Kitsch
Review: It's nice to see that Peter Fonda has redeemed himself in recent years ("Ulee's Gold", "The Limey", "The Passion of Ayn Rand" et al.), and even has a couple of Golden Globes and an Oscar Nomination to show for it. But he certainly wouldn't want to be remembered for this awful piece of drive-in drivel (although "Easy Rider" will probably be marked on his gravestone). I gave it three stars for kitsch value. Otherwise, it doesn't deserve any. This movie is bad, but in a very amusing way. "The Wild Angels" is "Easy Rider" written by Fred Durst. The plot is pretty weak, juvenile, and has plenty of holes in it. The actions the characters make echo the song "Break Stuff"; at the beginning of the film, when Loser's (Bruce Dern) Boss ask Heavenly Blues (Fonda)if he's "one of those dumb angels", Blues replies snidely and restrains him needlessly. And the dialogue is mediocre and poorly executed. If you're looking for compelling drama, look elsewhere. If you're looking to amuse yourself, then by all means take the plunge!
Rating: 
Summary: The Preacher was right.
Review: Like most people I've seen "Easy Rider" (1969), Peter Fonda's infamous drug-culture biker flick, but I haven't seen any of the other biker films from the '60s. Since "The Wild Angels" was available cheap I decided to enlighten myself to this Grade B film genre.
The first 30 minutes or so is quite good. The Southern California locations and cinematography are great and the story is compelling. In fact, the film's worth owning for these elements alone. The last 55 minutes are tedious, however, not to mention morally reprehensible. This latter portion of the film involves the death of Fonda's best friend, "The Loser," and his funeral & burial. The movie really bogs down during these segments wherein the only thing that catches your attention (or wakes you up) is the utterly mean-spirited and criminal behavior of the "Angels."
I'm a big Marlon Brando fan so I've seen "The Wild One" from 1954, the original biker flick; but the worst that Brando & his gang do is brawl, drink and chew gum (gasp!). This may be "wild" perhaps but certainly not mean-spirited or criminal.
"The Wild Angels" was filmed only 12 years later, so I'm thinking 'How "wild" can they be?' Surprise, surprise as Fonda's gang members are WAY beyond merely wild & free (which is how they're depicted in the first half hour), they're totally wicked imbeciles (although Fonda himself, I should point out, doesn't really do anything that bad and is merely portrayed as the epitome of 'cool').
Want proof? The Angels break into the hospital to "free" the Loser and he ends up dying for lack of proper medical care for his critical wounds. They make sure to get him high before he dies though. While breaking into the hospital one Angel savagely attempts to rape a nurse. And guess what kind of thanks the Angels give to the minister who kindly perfoms The Losers' funeral? They beat him up and trash his sanctuary. Guess what kind of comfort two Angels offer to The Loser's mourning girlfriend? They cruelly rape her. To top it all off they outrageously abuse The Loser's corpse at the funeral party(!!).
As you can see, the Angels aren't just anti-heroes in this film, they're the SCUM OF THE EARTH. Not only that, but they're a bunch of LOSERS who, as Fonda points out, just "want to get loaded." Hey, everyone needs to let loose and celebrate now and then (God even commands it in the bible -- Deuteronomy 14:26), but if the whole purpose of your life is to just "get loaded" you're not gonna look very good when you hit 35 (the Angels in the movie are all in their 20s), and you're certainly not going to have any energy, drive or charisma. Yeah, the "party animal" life gets old real quick, and then ya gotta grow up (every one grows older but not everyone grows up!).
Regardless of the screenwriter's (term used loosely) moral confusion, I would give this film a better rating if the last hour of the story was remotely compelling, but it's not -- it's dreadfully soporific. Not to mention Fonda's deeply philisophical speech regarding his answer to life ("We just wanna get loaded") is laughable and awkward.
Despite what other reviewers say, Nancy Sinatra does a fine job; she would later renounce the film due to it's twisted immorality, however (smart girl).
In my teens I went through a "party animal" phase and "partied" with real bikers on quite a few occasions (the Outlaws). These were some bad dudes, to be sure, but they were generally pleasant and fun-spirited; I never experienced anything that remotely resembles the Angel's heinous conduct in this flick. So I very seriously doubt the realism of the film. In other words, knowing that controversy sells, Roger Corman made the film this way for the simple sake of shock value. Most people, I'm sure, realize this.
FINAL ANALYSIS: "The Wild Angels" is only worthwhile as a period-piece and as an oddity. If taken seriously (which it shouldn't be) the film is actually encouraging! It reveals that our culture hasn't degenerated in the last 40 years as some bemoan; we've actually evolved quite well as a species and as a society in these past four decades. After all, they don't make moral garbage like "The Wild Angels" anymore.
Oh, what did the preacher say in the movie that was so right? "Woe to those who say good is evil and evil is good."
Rating:
Summary: Disturbing, yet interesting
Review: Oddly, though the characters in this movie are all dispicable individuals, in some ways, I could still find myself sympathizing with their rebellion against "the man". This movie definitely has more of a '70's feel to it than the '60's, and holds up well today. I will admit, I did find the use of the swastikas and iron crosses to be offensive. But, I think such individuals in the '60's used them more to shock those who tried to control them, than as a support of what they truly represented...and to have realism, they had to be included. One technical aspect to the movie...and two to the DVD on which I need to comment: 1. Did the movie always end so abruptly, with no closing credits or even a "The End" caption? Or is this poor editing? As for the DVD... 2. The print from which this movie was taken was in terrible condition. At some points the picture is beautiful. But others show dirt, hair, and sprocket marks. Worst of all is a tear in the film, patched with tape, which is readily visible. This occurs in the scene in which Sinatra has just entered the door of the hospital, and the camera is panning over to the nurse's station. 3. There also seem to be some areas of the film which are out of focus. I primarily noticed this when Nancy and Peter are talking alone on the boat before leaving for the funeral. All in all, this picture can be viewed more as a snapshot of an era than as pure entertainment. If taken as such, it proves somewhat interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Disturbing, yet interesting
Review: Oddly, though the characters in this movie are all dispicable individuals, in some ways, I could still find myself sympathizing with their rebellion against "the man". This movie definitely has more of a '70's feel to it than the '60's, and holds up well today. I will admit, I did find the use of the swastikas and iron crosses to be offensive. But, I think such individuals in the '60's used them more to shock those who tried to control them, than as a support of what they truly represented...and to have realism, they had to be included. One technical aspect to the movie...and two to the DVD on which I need to comment: 1. Did the movie always end so abruptly, with no closing credits or even a "The End" caption? Or is this poor editing? As for the DVD... 2. The print from which this movie was taken was in terrible condition. At some points the picture is beautiful. But others show dirt, hair, and sprocket marks. Worst of all is a tear in the film, patched with tape, which is readily visible. This occurs in the scene in which Sinatra has just entered the door of the hospital, and the camera is panning over to the nurse's station. 3. There also seem to be some areas of the film which are out of focus. I primarily noticed this when Nancy and Peter are talking alone on the boat before leaving for the funeral. All in all, this picture can be viewed more as a snapshot of an era than as pure entertainment. If taken as such, it proves somewhat interesting.
Rating:
Summary: First Real Outlaw Biker Flick
Review: Some folks consider "The Wild One" the first movie about outlaw bikers; it's not. "The Wild One" is about 50s beatniks who happen to tool around on British bikes (except Lee Marvin, the best thing about the movie). If you want the real thing, Hells Angels on Harleys, then "The Wild Angels" is the one. This is the movie that started the genre, so most of the cliches seen in subsequent drive in picture show biker features started here.
Rating:
Summary: Motor Sensation: What a Bad Vibration!
Review: The initial motorbike flick, directed by Roger Corman, features two of Hollywood's papa's bad children (Peter Fonda and Nancy Sinatra), in a gross, tasteless showcase of sensationalism, that it has, however, a merit for its audacy, that both disgusted and attracted audiences at its time.
It has some interest as a time capsule and for its attractive stars, but The Wild Angels is not even a good-bad movie. Today it looks as a piece of old-fashioned trash, so ugly as terribly boring.
If you like this kind of films, when everybody is sexist, violent and ultimately silly, as a certain (and wronged) notion of nihilism, it's all right, but you're warned.
Rating:
Summary: This one should be re-released pronto!
Review: This Roger Corman (director) film is a mid-60s camp classic that features Peter Fonda in pre-Easy Rider mode as a reluctant outlaw biker. Even better is the massively talented Nancy Sinatra as his girlfriend who gets to deliver the classic line: "Does anyone have a straight cigarette?" She really does look like a waitress in a pizza joint in this one. Joe Bob Briggs should show this one on Monstervision -- he'd have a field day!
|
