God’s Gun / Diamante Lobo (Gianfranco Parolini, 1976)


(Yodlaf Peterson) #101

Cheers for clearing that up everyone.


(egrorian) #102

Perhaps not the ideal first post on this forum but I rather like God’s Gun and have watched it 3 or 4 times in as many years. LvC is dubbed yes, but it actually sounds very like him. I love the music and think it’s a solidly entertaining movie, which I certainly enjoy it much more than the “serious” and highly acclaimed Four of the Apocalypse for example.


(sartana1968) #103

[quote=“Col. Douglas Mortimer, post:13, topic:346”]Oops I got this movie mixed up with Bad Mans river.

Actually I have seen this movie. The one with Jack Palance right?[/quote]
bad man river it’s a million times better!


(autephex) #104

Agreed! I’m a Fulci freak, and I still like God’s Gun better than FoTA


(El Topo) #105

Not with you in than one mate
I must say that I’m not a particular fan of both movies but while Bad Man’s River it’s more on the Sartana side of Lee (a weaker Sartana with Lee but without Sartana) God’s Gun seems to me a more perfect match for Lee van Cleed as an actor, and in the overall a better film.


(TheBad7) #106

Hello Ya’all–
This is my first post here at sw.net, and ordinarily, I don’t like to post on long dead threads, but I did want to comment on this film. First off, Lee Van Cleef is my favorite film actor of all time, and he’s very underrated as an actor; fortuitously, a great cult following has developed around his films. I did want to comment on this because it’s definitely an enigma in his canon.

GOD’S GUN could have been a magnificent Western had there been competent personnel behind the scenes. Personally, I like the story, and I like the parts being played by both LVC and Jack Palance. Unfortunately, this film was an early Golan-Globus vehicle–an outfit well known for their prolific '80s B movie/exploitation/grindhouse output–and Menahem Golem and his partner weren’t known for keeping their words or honoring their contracts. This film has been the subject of discussion at an LVC blog/board recently because opinions are so divided on this film. Most people hate it–and with good reason. One of the members at this board is a long-time LVC fan, and he read about this film in VARIETY magazine back in 1976 when the film was released. Gianfranco Parolini–operating under the pseudonym Frank Kramer-- was brought in after the original director had made “a complete mess” of the picture. Parolini is credited in the opening credits with story rewrites as the script was twisted up rather badly. Richard Boone only appears in a handful of scenes–which appear disjointed–and this occurred because the original director had so infuriated Boone with his incompetence that Boone had cursed him out on set and quit on the spot. Parolini was brought in to salvage what he could, and apparently, the producers were so upset with the final product that the film almost didn’t see the light of day, but they ended up released it on a double bill with Van Cleef’s final Western, KID VENGEANCE, in 1977.

Boone later trashed the film in interviews, and called GOD’S GUN “the biggest piece of trash.” I know that Lee Van Cleef didn’t come back to do his voice parts, and that was very surprising as he had said in a 1970 interview that he would always make himself available to do the voice work on his European films because he felt it very important for American audiences to hear him, his voice, when they see him onscreen. LVC felt that without his voice to go with his appearances on film would distract his audiences–and he was right about that. GOD’S GUN was the only exception to this general rule, and I imagine it was because of his friend Richard Boone’s sordid treatment by the original director of the film. Obviously, LVC is dubbed; so is Richard Boone. I don’t know if Palance did his voice work–I want to say that he did because he sounds like his “normal” self in the film.

For what they have to work with, Palance and Van Cleef are great in their roles. It was cool to see LVC in dual roles–as a priest and as a gunslinger. I watch the film a good bit because, despite its flaws, it is entertaining. The only problem that I do have is the fact that LVC’s voice is dubbed. That bothers me especially as I always thought LVC had a wonderful voice.

TB7


(I love you M.E. Kay) #107

[quote=“TheBad7, post:106, topic:346”]Hello Ya’all–
This is my first post here at sw.net, and ordinarily, I don’t like to post on long dead threads, but I did want to comment on this film.[/quote]

Hello and welcome! Don’t worry about resurrecting “dead threads”, from my experience it’s not something that bothers anybody here (right?), especially not on the “Spaghetti Western” board where we do it all the time. You’ve just seen a certain spagh and want to comment on it, well dig up the thread and post!

He’s not my favorite actor of all time (that would be Kurt Russell!), but I agree that he is an underrated actor, he was capable of some great performances and you’ll find many people on this site who think similarly.

I didn’t know the details about the whole debacle behind the making of the film, maybe the results would have been better if Parolini directed from the start. Thanks for the info!


(Stanton) #108

The film’s threads are never dead. Never …

On the contrary it is desired that everyone who wants to comment on a particular film, or has some new infos on a film, revives such a thread.


(sartana1968) #109

even voice from lee van cleef was dubbed in this one, no words can describe it how much crap was!


(YourPallbearer) #110

About 3 years ago I interviewed lloyd Battista on his Westerns. He claimed to have dubbed Lee Van Cleef in one of his oaters but couldn’t remember which one. The only one that Van Cleef is surely dubbed in is of course GOD’S GUN. So what we’re listening to is probably Battista’s best Van Cleef impression (which isn’t half bad).

Battista also dubbed Luigi Pistilli in The Good, The Bad and the Ugly.


(El Topo) #111

The first time I remember watching this film was when I got access to a Spanish VHS copy of it, it was a bad film in a bad copy I just thought at the time.
No I had the chance to watch the film with an excellent image quality, and yes still a bad film, but with this friendlier to the eyes version, apart from bad it also looks weird.

The story does have potential, the twin’s revenge story is always a sure thing, but the production values spoil the all thing, the Israeli team was still too green for SW with Palance and Lee Van Cleef.

The main difference between these bad SW of the late 70’s with the ones from 10 years before, is that at least this last one looked like if they made to be watch in the cinema, while works like this had that nasty cheap TV made feeling .
It does have big names for such a crappy film, LVC is pretty cool in two roles, but somewhere in the film is lack of interest for it really showed. I was surprised to see Richard Boone in this one, and couldn’t understand his part, was he the sheriff? Even the priest was better than him.
Palace seems to be having a good time, practicing in actor’s studio style, the man was really having a ball.

While watching the film sometimes It reminded me one of those studio live series, or a TV live theatre play, cause of the bad sets and uninspired camera work, in the studio they can only film in one way.
Sometimes the all thing was so bad, like for instance the bad guys , all fo them looked a bunch of caricatures or clowns but in a bad way, one of them wears a pink scarf around the neck, not a cool thing for a thug to wear.

Ok bad pretty bad, but still we have the duty to watch all this bad ones and tell the story.


(tomas) #112

i like some scenes from this one, also music and Palance - actually i quite liked it at all (but not that much)


(John Welles) #113

I rather enjoyed it myself; perhaps having low expectations for it helped.


(Mickey13) #114

Probably one of the most amateurish sw I’ve seen.
Story, actors and music are quite good, but executing by Parolini…
Yuk!
I’d give this one 3 or 4/10 for some good ideas, but that’s all. :-\


(sartana1968) #115

[quote=“Mickey13, post:114, topic:346”]Probably one of the most amateurish sw I’ve seen.
Story, actors and music are quite good, but executing by Parolini…
Yuk!
I’d give this one 3 or 4/10 for some good ideas, but that’s all. :-[/quote]
4/10??? you give a lot!!!
i give 0/10


(Mickey13) #116

The acting (Lee Van Cleef and Palance are great, but the rest - horrible…), story(interesting) and music is all right.
After a reconsideration, I’d give 3/10 but no less.


(Stanton) #117

Palance is horrible too.

I felt sorry for him in this film.


(Mickey13) #118

I found him quite good, but I watched it about two months ago and I might have mistaken his performance with some else…
But if I remember correctly he wasn’t that bad…


(Bill san Antonio) #119

Rewatched this yesterday. I had only seen bad public domain fullscreen version before, now I watched the UK dvd which looks like a good release. There was even finnish subtitles.

It’s not a good film for sure but not complete disaster either. Lee van Cleef is always a pleasure to see and the last 20 minutes are actually pretty good. And what’s really surprising that Leif Garret didn’t annoy me at all. Good thing they made him mute for the most of the film.
But as already mentioned, there’s too much disadvantages: bad directing, cheap tv-look, some bad acting etc.

My rating: 4 or 5 out of 10


(Mickey13) #120

[quote=“Bill san Antonio, post:119, topic:346”]Rewatched this yesterday. I had only seen bad public domain fullscreen version before, now I watched the UK dvd which looks like a good release. There was even finnish subtitles.

It’s not a good film for sure but not complete disaster either. Lee van Cleef is always a pleasure to see and the last 20 minutes are actually pretty good. And what’s really surprising that Leif Garret didn’t annoy me at all. Good thing they made him mute for the most of the film.
But as already mentioned, there’s too much disadvantages: bad directing, cheap tv-look, some bad acting etc.

My rating: 4 or 5 out of 10[/quote]
Almost a complete disaster, but yes… it has its tiny benefits and that’s why I wouldn’t give 1 star for this.
Parolini’s directing was simply awful, from the beginning I couldn’t believe it’s reality…
Not because of surreality of course but the atrocious executing!
Yuck! :-\