I like that one too (itās like a mission impossible episode in the west). Guess I like them all.
This is a fair point and, in those terms, no, it is not a bad movie. But, in those terms, it is not a great movie either in my opinion. And in particular considering the talent involved I think it could have been better. And often, rightly or wrongly, a film can become judged by how it stacks up against others made by the same people rather than how it compares in the genre as a whole. For example, I recently watched Fedra West, a Marchent film, and was pleasantly surprised and feel genuinely enthused by it. Had the same film been made by Corbucci or Petroni I may have judged it differently and considered it one of their lesser works.
For me, this film is a decent middle of the road 3 star effort that could have been better considering the talent involved. It is also a film which, unlike some others, doesnāt improve with repeated viewings for me. It is, nevertheless, still an enjoyable flick. Would never say I didnāt like it. Just not as much as I used to and not as much as Iād like to. Savalasā death scene is the best bit for me. Worth watching the rest of the film just for that.
On a separate note, is the Wild East release of this the short or long version? Does anyone know? I have the short on VHS and the long on DVDr but was wondering what WE went with. The longer version does add something extra but, like Ennioo, I miss Coburnās voice in it and wind up preferring the shorter version as a result.
Well Stanton I use my old school days classification values from 0 (mostly 1, only an absent student would get a zero) to 5.
3 itās the average, the sufficient, the just enough to make it, the film itās not as bad as for instance Il Bianco, Il Giallo Il Nero, and althought I did recognize itās weakness without a great analytical view, I did follow it to the end, maybe if I do not appreciate the genre I would gave it two stars (I tend to value SW more than other films).I think the worst you can say about the film itās that even if it was done with other less known or not so iconic other than Coburn and Savalas I would still gave a 3 stars classification.
The Wild East one is the long version.
I not with you one that one Phil ;D thatās the one scene that for me itās exemplifies the average status of the all film. Savalas character should be mean as a snake, you get that impression the all film, and do you get in the end, a guy surrenders like some normal coward that waits for mercy, at least some last trick on the sleave, or just something more thriilling than that scene.
[quote=āEl Topo, post:103, topic:468ā]Well Stanton I use my old school days classification values from 0 (mostly 1, only an absent student would get a zero) to 5.
3 itās the average, the sufficient, the just enough to make it, the film itās not as bad as for instance Il Bianco, Il Giallo Il Nero, and althought I did recognize itās weakness without a great analytical view, I did follow it to the end, maybe if I do not appreciate the genre I would gave it two stars (I tend to value SW more than other films).I think the worst you can say about the film itās that even if it was done with other less known or not so iconic other than Coburn and Savalas I would still gave a 3 stars classification.[/quote]
The usual definition problem.
For me 3/5 is a watchable film, or a film of acceptable quality. While an average film is for me already a waste of time.
Average is a negative term for me. For films which are like all the other films, or which are without personality, or a mostly failed attempt to make something better. Average films are forgettable films. In the end it is not important if a film is average or bad or very bad. These films are all mostly boring and I try to avoid them.
Which also means an entertaining film is always at least a 3/5. Or the other way round, the minimum claim for a good film is that it should be an entertaining film.
End of Off Topic Definition Time
Ok a definition, but for me itās different, and itās not just the case of liking films that I know are bad, because theyāre stupidlly funny. have a lot of sleaze and so on, I have a friend that says that what Iām saying does not exist itās bad itās bad, well I donāt agree with him, I can notice that a film have very poor production values, bad acting, a lauzy script, really a bad one, but I can still watch it and find it funny for some reason, how I would classified it, good question I donāt know, maybe my normal criterion analysis would change in such cases. I can live with an average film, if so there wouldnāt be bad or very bad ones, to me bad or very bad films are below average, but like Pereira says itās all subjective.
Anyway for future references thatās my empirical classification
5 very good (masterpiece level) Ex: Django - Sergio Corbucci
4 good (nicely done film) Ex: The Five Man army -?
3 average stuff Ex: A reason to live, a reason to die Tonino Valerii
2 bad film Ex: Il Bianco il giallo Il Nero - Sergio corbucci
1 very bad film Ex; acquasanta joe - Mario gariazzo
0 unwatchable (until 1 i still watch them) Ex: canāt remember one but they exist
Try some Fidani. Ex. Chega Django e Sartana e āĆ© o fim do mundo em cuecasā
I saw a Crea once. Donāt remember the title, but it was a ZERO, CREA CRAP.
Wooo. Must see it!
Try this one:
http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/Sette_del_gruppo_selvaggio,_I
Very, very, very, very, very, very boring, very, very, very badly directed. Occasionally funny, but not by purpose and not enough to watch the whole sloppy thing. Films canāt get much worser.
[quote=āStanton, post:111, topic:468ā]Try this one:
http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/Sette_del_gruppo_selvaggio,_I
Very, very, very, very, very, very boring, very, very, very badly directed. Occasionally funny, but not by purpose and not enough to watch the whole sloppy thing. Films canāt get much worser.[/quote]
Damn, it just been added to my watch list. I think I actually have a torrent file of it.
Seed pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaase ;D ;D ;D
Youāll be PM.
Watch out, people my think. Iāll be Prime Minister ;D ;D
Not a good film at all.
Considering the fact that Valerii got Coburn (through his Leone-connection) it should
have been much better directed. The formula script doesnāt help much of course but
Valerii should have put in more tempo & surprises. Also itās one of the few ābiggerā SWās
I canāt recall the soundtrackā¦
The longer version is better but of course even slower 
This always works to push it onto watch lists.
There was probably one āveryā too much in my recommendation. Mmmh, ā¦ probably not.
[quote=āmike siegel, post:116, topic:468ā]The longer version is better but of course even slower :)[/quote]I prefer the shorter version, I think some of the scenes in longer version are unnecessary and shorter version has Coburns own voice.
Is there a DVD release of the shorter version?
(Talking about the Crea Crap:)
[quote=āStanton, post:111, topic:468ā]Try this one:
http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/Sette_del_gruppo_selvaggio,_I
Very, very, very, very, very, very boring, very, very, very badly directed. Occasionally funny, but not by purpose and not enough to watch the whole sloppy thing. Films canāt get much worser.[/quote]
This was the Crea I was talking about:
http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/Se_t'incontro,_t'ammazzo
I just checked the filmās thread. Bad Lieutenant says Crea has done worse than this. I trust him on this.