Well I certainly donāt dislike it. I just think it could have been better considering the folk involved. Itās still an entertaining 3 star Spag for me. I guess it suffers from being judged by higher standards than most. If Brescia or Mauri had made it we would probably consider it their masterpiece. In fact, never mind those guys, for most of the second tier directors (Garrone, Mulargia, Caiano etc) it would be considered one of their best.
I also think that, despite its having a seemingly stellar cast, the big names arenāt used as much as they could be. Coburn is prominant but, in actuality, Bud Spencer gets far more screen time. Especially in the longer cut. And Telly Savalas, although memorable when on screen does something of a Kinski-esque āleast amount of work for maximum payā drive by performance. I suspect he was only on set for a week, maybe two, maximum. Also, for all its pyrotechnics at the finale it is, for the most part, pretty low on action.
All that being said, I do actually quite like this film. Probably more than a lot of others. It does have some good stuff in it and , if judging by the genre as a whole rather than against what I would have liked it to have been, it rates pretty high really.
Pretty much my thoughts on the film. You have saved me thinking about my thoughts . Savalas sort of plays the same character or himself in most of his films for me, guess thats why I like him. Comes across as a Bud film in the longer cut like you pointed out. Coburn seemed to like making westerns in the 70ās on a fairly regular basis, well at least to around the mid 70ās whether it be U.S or Italian ones. Intrigues me that about U.S actors who starred in U.S and Italian westerns around the same period.
Yes i think the last couple of assesments are pretty close and hits the nail right on the headā¦hopefully a few more will pass comment whether good or bad or indifferentā¦this is what great about the forumā¦gives us all a chance like or moan about the spaghetti,s
Iāve said it before but I prefer the short cut, not just because of Coburnās voice but I think the longer cut is too slow moving and has unnecessary scenes.
got no knowledge of the buying and selling sagaā¦but there is always someone slinging the mudā¦but it is annoying if genuine people are cought up in tittle tattleā¦
I donāt think so.
Imo they all made much better films (except Mauri whose films I havenāt seen), especially Mulargia, who was a much better director than Valerii, and his El puro is much, much better than any of the other 3 Valerii westerns. (In fact Mulargia did only one which is a similar turkey)
But it is true, even for a solid but mostly not very inspired director like Valerii this is a surprisingly weak film.
Itās a lot fairer than most reviews Iāve seen of the film, but I still maintain itās a mistunderstood Spag, and a comparitive highpoint for the decade :).
Scherp, the theatrical German version also ran 96 min, but is supposed to be lost.
The shorter version was one of many film which were prepared to cash in on the popularity of Spencer in the late 70s and early 80s. This version has a newly prepared fun dub (and a new and idiotic title), so that it could be sold as another Bud Spencer comedy.
But meanwhile for TV the longer version was also shown and for that occasion it got a third dub, now straight again. It also runs 113 min in Pal. But does not contain the first scene you mention, the one which is set after the final.
[quote=āStanton, post:174, topic:468ā]Scherp, the theatrical German version also ran 96 min, but is supposed to be lost.
The shorter version was one of many film which were prepared to cash in on the popularity of Spencer in the late 70s and early 80s. This version has a newly prepared fun dub (and a new and idiotic title), so that it could be sold as another Bud Spencer comedy.
But meanwhile for TV the longer version was also shown and for that occasion it got a third dub, now straight again. It also runs 113 min in Pal. But does not contain the first scene you mention, the one which is set after the final.[/quote]
Iāll change the text tonight. I didnāt remember the running time of the German version I saw on television. It wasnāt a fun (Klamauk) version, but it was a lot shorter than the version I saw this time.
Bad thing is that for this shorter (96 m) version they cut the first half and let the (much weaker) second half virtually intact.
Now you have at least half-a-good-movie; I think it works also better with tis āend sceneā brought to the beginning (with the written text rolling over it)
If it wasnāt the 113 min version (Pal), which wasnāt aired the last years, then it was the Klamauk version. Only these 2 versions are available, as the original theatrical version and its dub is considered as lost.
The Klamauk version is still an action film, but there are lots of would be funny dialogues, often also when there is nothing said in the original. It was on TV only last week.
Bad thing is that for this shorter (96 m) version they cut the first half and let the (much weaker) second half virtually intact.
Now you have at least half-a-good-movie; I think it works also better with tis āend sceneā brought to the beginning (with the written text rolling over it)
[/quote]
The second half is indeed terrible, but the first half has already great rhythmical problems. This beginning, which then gives away the end, is at least a rare glimpse of intelligence in this dull film.
Would make the first 10 or 20 min look promising, or at least not that hopeless. (John will disagree completely)
The problems of the film are beginning for me immediately after they leave the fort.
Unless I saw it on French instead of German television (Iām a bit in doubt now, but Iām sure it was on TV, not on VHS or DVD), I must have seen the Klamauk version then.
Anyway, to me this longer version was a real improvement. I cover some middle ground here, so it seems. I thought after 45 minutes or so: Wow, I was completely wrong, this is a good movie! But then it all collapsed.
. Savalas sort of plays the same character or himself in most of his films for me, guess thats why I like him. Comes across as a Bud film in the longer cut like you pointed out. Coburn seemed to like making westerns in the 70ās on a fairly regular basis, well at least to around the mid 70ās whether it be U.S or Italian ones. Intrigues me that about U.S actors who starred in U.S and Italian westerns around the same period.