Bad movies are made all the time. Some are made by amateurs, while others are made by the highest of production companies. Along with that, some films even have a solid cast and still messed it up somehow. It should make viewers wonder to themselves what the heck possessed these actors to take part in such strange concoctions. In this mid 1960s film, Roger Corman, the man best known for The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) is in the director's chair. Starring in the film is a young Peter Fonda and Nancy Sinatra. Together, these two actors head a biker gang known as "The Wild Angels" (based on an actual biker group "Hell's Angels").It's after the rolling intro credits where the narrative is lost. Credited as the so-called writer to this movie is Charles B. Griffith, a man who has produced several other works with Corman. Why didn't Corman see how bad the screenplay was? There is literally no part of the plot that is engaging enough for any audience. The only thing that is presented is the behavior of this gang, which doesn't help. The behavior of the gang is reckless, brash and even stupid. In one scene, a bunch of bonehead bikers hop on their bikes to chase a rabbit. A rabbit.The mentality of this gang is to be "free" and ride their machines without having to answer to "the man". You know, the basic 60s perspective of most rebels. Roger Corman may have been trying to get this message across, but it is done in such a way that is so late in the running time, that by the time the topic is brought up, the audience will already be asleep. It's almost like he was just trying to capitalize on the craze at the time. Let's also not forget the symbol of "The Wild Angels" - the Swastika? Yeah, just how exactly is portraying this in any film other it being about Nazis or Charles Manson sound like a good idea? Point being, it isn't. No one should be proud to represent that symbol. How is that Peter Fonda, Nancy Sinatra and others found it to be a wise career choice?The dialog isn't anything special either. The characters have no meat to them. Plus, there are little to any characterizations among the leads that are presented to the viewers. Peter Fonda's character says "Shut Up" way too often. Nancy Sinatra's character keeps asking if Fonda's character still loves her (and he can't make up his mind). Nothing is explained to why the characters act the way they do on a personal level. The sole activities that matter to this group of neanderthals is riding their bikes, getting high, getting laid and having meaningless brawls. None of it is appealing, all the way up to the very last minute of the film. Michael J. Pollard best known for his role in Tango & Cash (1989) as Owen even has a role and can't help lift the entertainment level. Forget background music, nowhere close to being on target with the tone of the film. No wonder the real "Hell's Angels" filed a lawsuit!A story barely exists here. The characters are as transparent as glass, the music is irrelevant and the events that take place are meaningless.

I thought the movie was OK, but just that. Nothing special. I understand why they chose Nancy Sinatra and Peter Fonda; they were bankable. But the rest of the cast, including that overweight middle-aged woman biker Mama Monahan- the way she looked was completely wrong for a biker chick. Good camera work, though. Good job for most of the extras. They looked, acted, and sounded authentic, for the time. Can figure out why a laid-back beach town like Venie would have a Hell's Angel's chapter...Rent it for a good time at home when you can do something else while watching it.

I have recently had awful luck with picking out good movies to watch. Movies like The Wolfman remake, The Thing With Two Heads, and Reptilicus are just three of my unfortunate viewing choices, and they really make me wonder why I even continue to collect DVDs. Sadly, this movie, "The Wild Angels" is just the most recent in the string of trash I have unwittingly subjected myself to. It is simplistic and stupid, and can be summarized in one short paragraph. Ready? Here we go! (SPOILERS!!!) Peter Fonda and a gang of idiotic bikers are riding around Mexico or somewhere, and along the way, one of them gets shot. He is taken to the hospital. Peter and his pals take him away from the hospital and he later dies. At his funeral, Peter and friends trash the church and have a party. Later at the burial, a small boy throws a rock at one of the bikers. Everyone gets mad and attacks the crowd of townspeople. The police come and all of Peter's chums run away, and Peter is left alone to bury his friend. The end. Was that short enough? Anyway, the characters were all obnoxious punks that I couldn't possibly root for. Fonda looks atrocious in his biker punk get up, and the whole film is less interesting than watching an old lady knit for 86 minutes. This is the worst film I've seen in quite some time, and that's saying a lot from me, considering the stuff I watch.

This is a good, old biker trash drive -in flick that you can enjoy if you just sit down with a 12 pack and look thru the BS. The old school Motorcycles are nice, and the Southern California scenery is really cool. Bruce Dern does a pretty good job, but Peter Fonda is really cheesy. I felt the same way about Marlin Brando and Lee Marvin in the Wild Ones. As a Biker myself, I can relate because the ideas haven't changed much. As Fonda states in this movie, we "just want to be free to do what we want and we want to get loaded". Don't take it too seriously, just sit down and get loaded and enjoy the movie. its fun to watch.