I just watched this one again.
If someone could update the main page: Vamos a matar, compañeros
At least some of the “filming locations” were set at:
Alcala De Henares
Colmenar Viejo
El Argamasón
Navas Del Rey
Pelayos De La Presa
San Martín de Valdeiglesias
Tabernas
Thanks,
This is great:
It’s a pity they never dubbed that line, always made me laugh, but the uncut version doesn’t really add enough for me that would make me choose that over the export cut. The differences are very minor.
I always watch the shorter one aswell. This film thankfully didn’t suffer much from export cuts at all. Compared to The Big Gundown and Tepepa etc. Compañeros really got off lightly.
as long as Iris’ big topless show is still in there?
Its twin The Mercenary is probably better directed but now I very much prefer Companeros. Why? Both Nero and Milian are much more likeable/relatable in Companeros than Nero and Musante in The Mercenary. It is also more comedy like than The Mercenary.
Companeros also has something to say (about pacifism, education, friendship, life values…) while The Mercenary is basically just an action movie with no message. Moreover Companeros has always amazing Fernidando Rey and very catchy music. 5/5
great movie with Franco Nero and Tomas Miliàn, I have just ordered the remasterised version in DVD
Just rewatched this one and “The Mercenary” back to back. I always favored this film over The Mercenary. This is essentially that movie but done better, its much more polished, more balanced, the comedy bits work better, the sets are better, the pacing is better and the cast is better… it might have less explosions and a smaller body count but it’s a much better film overall, and the final set piece might be the best action sequence in any spaghetti western.
The Mercenary is a perfect example of a movie that is weaker than the sum of it’s parts. The character development, the casting, the action scenes, the filming locations are all amazing but the horrible pacing, questionable comedy bits and major historical inaccuracies bring down the film a lot. Still enjoyable of course but I think its very overrated. Companeros is a much better film imo.
Haven’t seen the film in a while, what were the “major historical inaccuracies” in TM ?
post-ww1 guns and ww1 bomber planes that throw bombs like ww2 bomber planes.
But we talked about this before.
TM is set somewhere in 1910 to 1920, it’s supposed to have this modern stuff.
TM is not set in the 1800s.
Don’t remember WW2 bombs, maybe that was a stretch.
Yes we did lol, and I think we’ve already established that post-ww1 guns and ww2 tech do not make sense in a movie set during the Mexican Revolution.
If you want to get into the details, the Astra 400 pistol carried by nero did not exist before 1921 and planes did not drop bombs until late ww1 where they were dropped by hand… not to mention how bomber planes were never used in the mexican revolution.
Don’t remember WW2 bombs, maybe that was a stretch.
no it’s not, bombs were dropped by hand in ww1, they started being dropped by the plane in ww2.
These are not minor insignificant inaccuracies that only nerds will notice, they are blatant and readily apparent and negatively impact the film greatly imo (but far from the film’s only problem).
But there were automatic pistols, planes and cars, and so on during this period TM is set. You don’t have to be nitpicking.
In Duck You Sucker they have a MG42 machine gun, that is way too modern for the film, but the regular viewer probably don’t know.
… and these are movies, not documentaries. How is this relevant again? 
But there were automatic pistols, planes and cars, and so on during this period TM is set. You don’t have to be nitpicking.
Yes, but not those pistols and planes. It’s not nitpicking at all. It’s like having a modern AR-15 in a vietnam movie, or a modern ferrarri in a movie set in the 70s.
also DYS is just as bad at this, i agree.
So you’re saying you would be fine with it if blondie used an M-16 in The Good The Bad and The Ugly? 
There’s still a degree of realism that is reasonable to expect, its not about realism itself but moreso about immersion and aesthetics.
Both TM and DYS feel like alternate history movies and not mexican revolution films because they use the tech and weaponry that only existed well after the mexican revolution.
well they’re not actual history movies, they’re works of fiction set in some degree of real historical setting, made by folks who were laymen historians at best, and the target audience even less so. Sloppy? sure. But aside from that, aside from a few nerd historians or gun experts nobody ever noticed probably.
I have like 0 knowledge of history but i noticed immediately, when you see a cold war looking gun in a spaghetti western it just looks out of place… and then you have ww2 bomber planes… its too obvious, and just ruins the otherwise very good aesthetic of the film. I don’t really care for historical accuracy for the sake of it but when it turns the movie into a ww2 film aesthetically, then i start to make the historical accuracy argument as its overly blatant.
Yeah agreed, but it takes more than average knowledge to discern these plane and gun tech backgrounds. most people watch this on a level of “cars in a western? these Italians were nuts, oh wait it takes place after the turn of the century, ok whatever”