There’s no point arguing, but I disagree with your assessment. I’ll just quickly pick up on your main points:
[ul][li]“There isn’t any brilliance in FtF (nor in any other Sollima film I have seen), but many well made scenes alternating with some weaker material. The beginning and the ending in the desert are the best parts, but in-between the film too often stumbles.”
That’s pretty harsh criticism of Sollima. I rate all three of Sollima’s spaghetti westerns as being some of the best in the genre, and they’re all in this site’s Top 20, so others must agree with me.[/li][/ul]
[ul][li]"The strongest character is of course Brad Fletcher, and here the film is at best in showing him changing. But what had happened to his disease (lung tuberculosis I assume)? From one moment to the next it simply disappears, and this is a big fault for a film with “ambitions”.
I watched a dubbed version, in which his disease was not specified as tuberculosis. It might be different in the Italian version, or possibly there was some intention for the disease to be tuberculosis without it being made overt. I don’t know, but otherwise it could have been something else, like perhaps bronchitis.
However, accepting that it’s intended to be tuberculosis, some sufferers of tuberculosis who do not receive treatment do recover. It’s not so far-fetched as you seem to think, not that I even think it is particularly important to the quality of the film anyway.[/li][/ul]
[ul][li]“Beuregard on the other hand is never shown as the ruthless outlaw he is supposed to be. There is one scene where he tries to shoot Brad after his escape, but why should he? One scene before he doesn’t shoot the other deputies, who represent in their brutish behaviour an unjust law, and are (unlike Brad) for his escape a threat.”
I find this comment quite frustrating. You’re right, Beauregard is not shown as the ruthless outlaw he is supposed to be; we’re shown only glimpses of his bloody past and the attitudes which fuelled it. At the start of the film, when he escapes with Fletcher, he has a nihilistic attitude and that’s about it. Over the rest of the film, his attitude changes as he starts to see the value in human life and develops a moral compass. When he falters and is unable to kill the Mexican child, that is a crucial moment in his development.
This brings me nicely to the next point…[/li][/ul]
[ul][li]“And really, why should Beau shoot Fletcher at the end and spare Siringo? Fletcher didn’t do any bad to him and just was ready to give his live together with Beau in order to save the refugees, while Siringo has betrayed him and is responsible for the death of most of his friends.”
He kills him because it is the right thing to do. Fletcher has committed himself to barbarity and lawlessness, believing Beauregard to be a part of the same creed. Like you, Fletcher cannot understand Beauregard’s actions when he is shot. That’s because he doesn’t understand the moral code which now governs both Beauregard and Siringo.
You say that Siringo betrayed Beauregard, but this isn’t quite right. He’s a Pinkerton doing a job, and his actions are an extension of that. His allegiance is with the Pinkertons and Beauregard understands and respects Siringo’s motives. He did not owe any allegiance to Beauregad, so it wasn’t possible for him to truly betray him.
Siringo’s morality is what makes him risk his life to stop the mob at the end, because he certainly doesn’t owe anything to Beauregard or Fletcher. As the film finishes, Siringo and Beauregard recognise in each other the same set of values, which is why they have to help each other. In my opinion, it’s a beautifullly crafted and poigniant ending to a magnificent film.[/li][/ul]
[ul][li]“And then Beau is never a ruthless killer. He seems just to be a nice and reasonable outcast living amongst a bunch of other outcasts in a bandit hideout. And the community of these outcasts is mostly shown in a more romantic way as a big family, and never as a real thread for anyone.”
I’ve commented on your point about Beauregard not being a ruthless already, but the community of outcasts is simply that. They are just a community and not supposed to be a threat, although they provide Beauregard’s outlaws with a place to lie low. It’s precisely the fact they are harmless which makes the ending all the more tragic.[/li][/ul]