3 Bullets for Ringo / 3 colpi di Winchester per Ringo (Emimmo Salvi, 1966)

Database page: 3 colpi di Winchester per Ringo - The Spaghetti Western Database

This was entertaining enough but falls down in lots of areas really. Hargitay and Mitchell are never going to win any acting awards, the whole blind hero thing could have been handled a lot better and despite a decent theme tune the overall music score is pretty poor I think.

I like Ivano Staccioli in the villain role though. He has that slimy, Franco Ressel thing going on which I always enjoy.

So, on the whole, not a big winner for me, but passed the time ok.

Anyone else like it better than I did?

Never seen it, but I do like that black & white poster

If they had shown it to me without the title, I would have never said it was a SW poster

Standard stuff for me…nothing special, and agree with you 100% on this one Phil :).

I’m pretty much with you on this one, too, Phil.
I like some of the film’s quirkiness (interesting that they try to work in the Santa Sangrias into this film via the strange dance number)–but, it is just a decent time passer.


I finally got around to watching this and it took about three times to figure out what is going on with it. The first time through I didn’t like it much, the film seems to take itself way too seriously but doesn’t really come together at all. The second time I started to listen to the music more, or rather the soundtrack, and realized how much of a horror movie thing is going on for much of it. The third time through I figured out that it’s a Peplum film essentially with Mickey Hargitay and Gordon Mitchell dressed up like cowboys instead of Hercules. If you watch some of the scenes in the caves in particular they look like leftover sets from a Hercules movie with the same kind of goofy colorful lighting hiding the fact that the walls are just formed paper mache & plaster. I like how most of it is shot on these sets that are so garishly designed and overlit that you can’t possibly miss the decor, which makes sense once you discover than Emmino Salvi was a production designer and 2nd unit director on Pepla before he started writing and eventually directing. This is his first of two spaghettis and something tells me that midway through 1965 somebody read his script idea for a Peplum he was making and suggested a re-write to change the Greco/Roman setting into a western instead. They even kept the veil dance scene and the bit where they try to pull the kid into the fire reminded me of one of those “ordeal” sequences from a Hercules movie.

I’ll agree it’s not a particularly strong or even memorable effort but it represents an interesting bridge between the Peplum and spaghetti years where they were still establishing the plot conventions that would become the classic form. If you compare it with THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY it’s actually somewhat of a throwback and has little in common with Leone’s more sprawling vision: This reminds me more of a “potboiler” approach, which was more indicative of the Peplum fad. Eventually the arty approach that defines the classic spaghetti western form would take over but this still has the edgy freshness of a genre in it’s infancy. It doesn’t have the particular zing that would become the norm for the genre but like listening to early Beatles it’s fascinating to look at and think about how much more the genre matured in even just the one year between this film’s release and something like DEATH RIDES A HORSE, which is a much more mature and thoughtful film.

I’d even go so far as to say that what appeals to me about THREE BULLETS FOR RINGO is how cheap and artificial it looks. The cowboys are all wearing color coordinated costumes, everybody looks freshly shaved, the sets are all hyper designed to the point of being surreal, they use a lot of colored lighting to blend in the otherwise sparse backgrounds, there isn’t much extensive location work, most of it looks like it was shot on closed sets on a very tight schedule – it reminds me more of watching an old episode of “Star Trek” than anything else, and has the feel of kids playing a sick game of cowboys & Mesquilleros than an attempt to conjure up the Old West.

And I kind of like that approach, it’s different at any rate, with lots of horror movie moments (crashing thunder, howling wolves, screaming people, flickering fireplaces) though I would agree that Mickey Hargitay looks a little lost or confused, or maybe his pants were just too tight. Gordon Mitchell looks like he was having a ball though, and I’d love to find more of his very early westerns like this one. The Wild East DVD is dirt cheap too, I got mine for about $12 and it will definitely be one I put on again. I’m mostly interested in the experimental year spaghettis of say 1964 - 1968, so maybe I’m just partial to this one for that matter. I’d give it a five out of ten rating, neutral, with the understanding that some if not many will find it a bit bland.

Great review! You know, this is one SW that i tended to think i would probably never get unless i had just about every other one i wanted but your comments have changed that view and made me think i might actually quite like it. Since i’ll be treating myself to a bunch of films soon, i may pick up a copy :slight_smile:

This one was better than expected and with a better actor than Hargitay in the lead it might even have been a very good SW.
And I actually think that Gordon Mitchell is way better in this one than he usually is, on the other hand that doesn’t say very much.

Just rewatched this movie. Not as bad as I remembered it to be but still not very good. Gordon gives one of his better SW performances while Hargitay is pretty far from that (as usual). The plot isn’t that bad and has some nice ideas to offer but Salvi could’ve done a better job with them.

I’ve seen a lot worse. So I’d say this is 2.3/5

Hmm not sure what I should think about that? :o
They tried to make an unique SW with a lot of ideas. I got the feeling the scriptwriter (or whoever) tried to put as much as possible into the story and the director had certain ideas. Some scenes are hilarious and some are good. The same I must say about the music. I liked the opening credit and the supporting actors/actresses were good enough. Cannot say the same about Mitchell and Hargitay. But the movie kept my attention and I was entertained enough. 8)

How long is the runtime and is Hargitay really double on the cover ?

No Hargitay isn’t twice on the Cover! :slight_smile: The names on the Cover are Gordon Mitchell, Mickey Hargitay and Milla Sannoner.
The exact runtime of the KochMedia Release is 01:27:13 .

Then the runtime is almost identical with the Arcade tape

I just watched this one… man, what a film.

Have you ever seen a SW that used so many standard ideas of plot?

Mexican Gangs, Civil War, Revenge, Land War, Love and Jealousy. Everything is in there. usially we have one or two of these scenarios in a SW and they are enough to fill the flick, but 3 Bullets wastes it all. So many scenarios and so boring.

At least we got plenty od unwillingly comic scenes, that make the flick halfway enjoyable…

What did you think of Gordon Mitchell in it ?

This man is a lunatic, at least he looks like one. Especially when he kills folks and in the final showdown, when Ringo’s wife supplies her husband with the Winchester (You have to have a look at Mitchells eyes in that scene).

True. He makes me laugh alot of the time. Like his role in Born To Kill as such a confident character.

I liked his performance in this one Fidani Sartana, where he plays cards against himself.

[quote=“Dillinger, post:14, topic:1029”]Mexican Gangs, Civil War, Revenge, Land War, Love and Jealousy. Everything is in there. usially we have one or two of these scenarios in a SW and they are enough to fill the flick, but 3 Bullets wastes it all. So many scenarios and so boring.[/quote]And then there’s the blinding of the hero which could have been used to make interesting film but no, it’s also just one thing thrown into the mix of sw scenatios.

Yea, I forgot that! Mick’s great blindman!