I guess I’m even tougher with my stars. 5 stars are only for the really exceptional. Maybe a handful qualify. No more. 4 stars are the very good. Essentially the rest of my top 20. 3 stars covers an awful lot of ground. From the very solid to the passable. 2 stars the very poor. Don’t think I’ve ever given a 1 star.
Consequently a film like DTLK fits in that wide open mid ground, although at it’s upper end.
Book? Which book?!
My book
Poesiealbum?
Sounds right to me, Phil.
I really enjoyed DJANGO THE LAST KILLER on all levels.
If it were possible I would give it 3.5 stars.
I gave it a 4/5 myself. I understand where the Rev is coming from in his post. There are a lot of SWs I’ve watched that struck a particular chord with me, despite the fact that they are not the “classics” of the genre. It’s my enjoyment of the film that gives it a higher rating than it ordinarily “should” because of it’s particular elements.
Filet mignon might be somewhat universally recognized as a delicacy however in the right frame of mind perhaps a meatball submarine sandwich is as welcome. 
Nicely said, amigo!
I, too, think that these ratings should be done based upon one’s enjoyment of the film, regardless of the film’s cinematic importance, or what have you.
As most people here probably already know, THE GOOD THE BAD & THE UGLY isn’t in my Top 20 of favorite SW’s.
I know it is a great film and all, but I only gave it 4 out of 5 stars, because I just don’t enjoy it as much as I do other SW’s.
And I like your filet mignon comparison…dead on!
I definitely rate films on an enjoyment level, rather than technical merits. I’ll leave that to the film scholars, and i’m gettin’ hungry. ;D
Enjoyment has something to do with quality for me. I can enjoy a badly made film if it has a good story, or maybe good acting, or some well made action in an otherwise poor film. But it’s not a too great pleasure then.
Technical merits sounds a bit too “technical” to me. It’s in the end a context thing. “Well made” is also a term which changes from film to film. What’s good in one film can be bad in another (like e.g. a complicated camera movement).
A film must work in it’s own context.
In the end what I define as good directing is something I directly enjoy. In the best case a film or at least a scene is so well made that I can directly feel it. Like a shiver going down the spine. I enjoy films very similar to the way I enjoy music. I have to “feel” them. And the best ones I’m feeling with body and mind.
So “good directing” and “visual ideas” have a lot to do with enjoying a film for me.
That’s about it for me too. And, I think, is the same in my appreciation of all art forms. It’s that ‘feeling’ you talk about which sets apart the wheat from the chaff. And then I can enjoy exploring how that ‘feeling’ has been triggered. This is where the skill of the artist can be identified and celebrated. But there is still, often, something intangible about the work in question. Clever technique is often not nearly enough. As an example for me the films of Peter Greenaway leave me cold. I can acknowledge his skill at creating striking visual compositions but these are nowhere enough to make a good film and in those terms he fails to engage me at all.
I’ve always regarded this as a poor mans version of Day of Anger, although I still enjoyed it.
Well, this little low budget SW is far from being top notch but still quite entertaining anyway. The beginning is a bit weak but when Ghidra enters the story that changes and he saves the film. I especially like his performance and think he never failed to deliver in his spags.
Ghidra is called in the featurette a “poor man’s van Cleef”.
Completely wrong. Ghidra was a big star in his home country, a minor star in SWs, and apart from that unknown to everybody else. But I think he was in contrast to LvC a “real” actor (a German expression is" Vollblutschauspieler") who could have played everything. And he gives his SW characters a depth rarely seen in the genre.
But Van Cleef was limited to a certain type of roles, in which he could be very good, if he was well casted.
Ghidra was an unusual actor for SWs, while LvC was a perfect actor for many SWs.
I wished Ghidra had made more SWs and LvC had made different ones after 67.
100% agreed.
You are so right about that, Stanton !
Absolutely agree with this, Stanton!
Ghidra is great!
Not totally agree with Stanton Comment about the quality of the direction.
There are certain flaws like to put big George Eastman on a little Mule. Not to forget where suddenly dissapears the little Mule? Sorry but the opening scene in which a physical strong person like Eastman can be beaten so easily isn’t very believable.
For me it’s a movie which is getting better and better with every minute. The highlight is Anthony Ghidra as old Killer. He is a charismatic and unique actor in the same category as Enrico Maria Salerno or Horst Frank. I’m a bit of a fan of those teacher/pupil western tales.
My favourite rule to be a good Killer is of course the one that you need to be shaved before going to a duel. ;D
Where’s the problem with the little mule? I thought this looks great with Eastman legs nearly grinding on the ground. It says a lot about him without any words.
Yes, the mule disappears. Never noticed it before I read the booklet. But such things happen even in more expensive films.
There seems to be something missing as when they start shooting Eastman is on the back of the mule, but the bullets hit the ground when Eastman is already on his own feet.
Let’s call it a brilliant and daring cut which spares unnecessary screentime. 
But as I said the film really comes to its own after 10 or 20 min. Then the directing is very precise.
Maybe there is a short scene missing in which we can see Eastman falling from the mule. 
Quite interesting they made the movie in Sardinia.