Film review

Wild Wild West

1999 · Directed by Barry Sonnenfeld · 1h 46m · MPA PG-13

In a sentenceWill Smith and Kevin Kline, surrounded by inventions and short of anything funny to say

ActionAdventureComedyScience Fiction

Capt. James West (Will Smith) and U.S. Marshal Artemus Gordon (Kevin Kline) form an uneasy partnership in a West crowded with science-fiction machinery. Their opponent is Dr. Arliss Loveless (Kenneth Branagh), whose elaborate inventions complicate the business of stopping him. Rita Escobar (Salma Hayek Pinault) is also caught up in the adventure, with General ‘Bloodbath’ McGrath (Ted Levine) among its military figures and Kevin Kline also playing President Grant. West and Gordon must work together against Loveless, despite having little natural inclination to make each other’s lives easier.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

Barry Sonnenfeld’s gadget-heavy western gives Will Smith and Kevin Kline little comic rhythm and too few good lines. Bo Welch’s inventive production design provides something to admire, but this is a poor use of capable people.

Barry Sonnenfeld’s Wild Wild West is a poor comedy with some enjoyable machinery. Putting science-fiction gadgets into a western gives it plenty to play with, and we can see the appeal of inventions that nobody expects us to take seriously. The trouble is getting people to be funny around them. Here the job falls to Will Smith and Kevin Kline.

Will Smith plays Capt. James West, with Kevin Kline as U.S. Marshal Artemus Gordon, and both seem equipped for a lighter, quicker film. Will Smith retains enough charm to make individual moments bearable, but the performances never settle into an enjoyable rhythm together. We were bored by their exchanges: the one-liners are weak, and the partnership gives us little reason to wait for the next one. Much of the comedy depends on putting these two men together.

The screenplay is credited to S.S. Wilson, Peter S. Seaman, Jeffrey Price and Brent Maddock, with a story by Jim Thomas and John Thomas. That is no explanation of what went wrong, but it does make the shortage of usable jokes harder to accept. The smut is particularly wearying because it asks for a laugh before doing anything funny. Jim Miller’s editing cannot create an easy conversational pace from material that keeps struggling to reach a punchline.

Bo Welch’s production design is the strongest reason to keep watching. The gadgets are elaborate and peculiar, and the film is worth an occasional pause simply to inspect them. Michael Ballhaus’s cinematography gives the machinery a handsome finish, making it possible to enjoy looking at a scene that otherwise holds little interest. The problem comes when displaying another device takes priority over giving the actors something worth doing, which happens often enough to wear down our appreciation of the work.

Kenneth Branagh has a better time as Dr. Arliss Loveless, offering a broad villainous performance that at least belongs in this extravagant setting. His excess occasionally supplies the silliness that the central partnership lacks. Elmer Bernstein’s score gives the action a welcome sense of occasion, though it cannot make a cumbersome sequence feel nimble. As the effects take over, the music becomes another element urging us to enjoy something that has not earned the enthusiasm.

Against the basic demands of a buddy comedy, the failure is simple: spending time with the pair should be part of the pleasure. Barry Sonnenfeld managed that in Men in Black, which makes the strained company here especially disappointing. There is nothing inherently unworkable about the mixture of genres, nor any need for the gadgets to obey sensible rules. What we need is some pleasure in watching West and Gordon deal with each other, and the film keeps giving us another invention instead.

At 106 minutes, this ought to be a manageable diversion, yet the extended climax makes it feel longer. Most critics have little patience with it, and we share their frustration, while allowing some credit for the ingenuity of the design. A fondness for elaborate mechanical nonsense might sustain interest, but we would not recommend it for the comedy or the company. If the gadgets are enough, be prepared to wait through the jokes.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

31
Positive
0
Mixed
2
Negative
11

Most critics find Wild Wild West a laboured action comedy whose gadgets overwhelm a weak script. The reviews repeatedly describe spectacle taking precedence over storytelling, with jokes that fail to land and elaborate effects that do little to sustain interest. Will Smith’s charisma attracts the most consistent praise, even from critics who dislike the film. There is also some admiration for the production design and its eccentric retro science-fiction machinery, though little agreement that these compensate for the writing.

The differences are largely a matter of how much pleasure survives the muddle: none of the reviews is positive, and only two are mixed. Sight and Sound finds some compensation in the visual style and Smith’s likeability, while Radio Times still sees good-natured fun in the gadgetry. Harsher reviews find the spectacle exhausting or boring, and several identify the lack of chemistry between Smith and Kevin Kline as a central failure.

Empire
1 January 2000 · Andrew Collins
55*

The critic finds the film a flashy but uneven gadget-driven comedy that falls short of its Men in Black ambitions, with dazzling effects and contraptions undermined by a weak script and uneven performances.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
1 September 1999 · Andrew O'Hehir
55*

The film gets by on sheer visual style and Will Smith's likeability but feels laboured due to a weak script with six credited writers. Production design successfully captures the quirky Jules Verne sci-fi aesthetic of the original TV series.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★ · Alan Jones
40

Superficial and predictable with bloated special effects, the film remains good-natured fun thanks to Will Smith's charisma and inventive gadgetry. The smutty script, below-average one-liners and endlessly drawn-out climax are offset by the gizmos.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
30 June 1999 · Janet Maslin
40*

The movie is a big, lavish production with no there there, ruled by ghoulish special effects that leave storytelling arbitrary. Will Smith's presence is noted as its greatest asset amid the flimsiness.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
5 July 1999 · David Denby
35*

The hugely expensive action-spoof has all the wrong kind of energy and works over the audience rather than entertaining it. Will Smith stands out as a movie star, but the film is unlikely to be a major commercial success.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
30 June 1999 · Kenneth Turan
30*

The film gets its proportions wrong, sacrificing playfulness and humor for a relentless display of ho-hum gadgets. Capable co-stars Smith and Kline are underutilized in this top-heavy production.

Read the full review →

Cast

Stills

If you liked this, try…

The Great Race poster

The Great Race

1965 · Elaborate contraptions and broad performances in a comedy that enjoys being ridiculous.

The Rocketeer poster

The Rocketeer

1991 · Period adventure with a flying gadget and people worth worrying about.

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen poster

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen

1988 · Extravagant inventions serve a fantasy with more wit and stranger ambitions.

The Good, the Bad, the Weird poster

The Good, the Bad, the Weird

2008 · A Korean western whose competing personalities keep the elaborate action moving.

Castle in the Sky poster

Castle in the Sky

1986 · Flying machinery and an appetite for adventure, with tenderness beneath the engineering.