Who knows maybe there will be a Koch Media release of this one as well ?
It was planned, a few years ago. But the rights were too expensive or something like this. After all it was cancelled. I think Tepepa was also announced as future Koch release in the book from the Sollima Box, but …
I watched this one for the first time today and must say that I found it interresting.
I wouldn’t call it great though 3/5 stars from me.
A good break fro the mainstream but for me it also has the Shoot the Living… syndrome. Somtimes I am in the mood, or not.
Just added a review with my thoughts on this one to my blog page.
I like the film but, for me, Canevari doesn’t get the mix quite right. For my money, if he was going for the whacky approach he could have gone further. If he wanted to keep it tight he wasn’t disciplined enough. Either way, the boomerangs were a mistake!
I guess you’re right about this Charles Manson reference, hadn’t really thought about it, but it fits, in those days Manson was still thought of as some kind of ‘genius gone mad’, a Van Gogh who cut of other people’s ears, so to speak (not to mention some of his other cuts)
Don’t know if it was intentional but I certainly couldn’t help but see it.
i hope a (decent) german label (koch, haha) will release this. i really want to watch this flick!
Good review Philip! As always
But I wonder about some of it. You say the film seems like it never fully invests itself into the bizarre but you say the boomerangs are a bridge to far. Didn’t you want the film to go far?
When I first viewed this one I was expecting a few people to be using boomerangs…boomerang duels perhaps.
[quote=“korano, post:89, topic:201”]Good review Philip! As always
But I wonder about some of it. You say the film seems like it never fully invests itself into the bizarre but you say the boomerangs are a bridge to far. Didn’t you want the film to go far?[/quote]
The boomerangs, for me, were just silly rather than weird or trippy. A bridge too far in the wrong direction maybe. I could happily have taken something a bit more in tune with the psychadelic feel. If ever a western was crying out for a peyote scene it was this one!
I see your point. Again, great review
Yes good review
The boomerangs may be a bit silly in themselves, however I really like the crane shots in this scene, so it’s pretty cool nonetheless
The whole intro of this movie until Bart rides away with the bandits is awesome
The use of the Fistful of Dollars town later in the film is a nice touch
And the score is fantastic
One amazing movie…
The music, directing, style, atmosphere, action all splendid, just a very satisfying gem with kickass antiheroes and boomerangs…Hard to express my enjoyment of this film so I’ll end it there…
Apart from the dust devil bit and a few other interesting visual moments…I don’t really like this film.
As Phil mentions in his great review, MATALO! is a remake of KILL THE WICKED(S)–which I much prefer, personally.
The hippie touches just don’t work for me (and that includes the psychedelic musical score). But, what do you expect from an ex-Punk Rock musician that spent most of his teenage years reacting against the whole hippie thing? ha ha!
I can safely say that I do not hate it as much as our old amigo, Tom Betts, hates it–but, it is definitely not a favorite of mine. Tom’s hatred of this film is so legendary that Wild East dedicated their DVD release of it to him as a sarcastic, inside joke.
But, if you read Phil’s review, you knew that already!
[quote=“Rififii, post:94, topic:201”]One amazing movie…
The music, directing, style, atmosphere, action all splendid, just a very satisfying gem with kickass antiheroes and boomerangs…Hard to express my enjoyment of this film so I’ll end it there…[/quote]
Yes, I really enjoyed this one aswell.
Thanks to someone I finally watched this flick.
I think you have to like the unique style of this one. If not you have no chance if finishing it.
I personally liked the style and therefore quite liked the film. I gave it a 4.
What was the intent of Canevari and company when they made Matalo? Were they attempting art? Were they trying to say something with this western? Or were they simply attempting to make as entertaining a film as possible with very limited resources?
At once the jerky in and out of focus camera caused me to think of Lars Von Trier. Von Trier uses this technique counterintuitively. One would think this would distance the viewer but it is intended to do the opposite – to pull the viewer into the action. Von Trier considers perfectly composed images a distraction. He wants to suck you into his world and pummel you with emotion. And he manages to do it. The same was true for me of Matalo, it pulled me in.
While far from being the most violent of spaghetti westerns it FELT very violent as I watched it. Emotionally violent or disturbing. Matalo is sadistic to it’s characters and to it’s audience.
Was this Canevari’s intent?
Bart (Corrado Pani) is a guru of death. He almost casts a spell over those he meets. In the opening a widow (it’s implied that Bart murdered her husband) commits suicide over his rejection. Bart massacres the gang who free him from death. Mary (Claudia Gravy) gives her body and her life for him.
Bart creates a cycle of continuing violence in his wake. Mary (Claduia Gravy) sleeps with Phil (Luis Davia) in order to gain his trust with the intent to betray and kill him for Bart. But she also mercilessly sexually teases Ted (Antonio Salines) simply because she can. Just as she tortures the stranger Ray (Lou Castel) with a knife. And Mary’s prick teasing of Ted is so intense that it drives him to insanely torture the innocent stranger.
But there is disturbing inconsistency too. The ending comes out of nowhere. It doesn’t mesh with the scheme of the rest of the film content-wise of sylistically, plus the boomerang stuff in filmed in an inept way and just looks silly. Similarly the opening is stylistically very different from the remainder of the film. It’s the jarring disparity between the three sections of the film which make it feel thrown together and incompletely prepared or thought out.
I was certainly never bored by the movie. But apart from the great opening I didn’t have FUN watching it. Even if there are supposed to be messages, metaphors, symbols, and the lot in a film (or none of the above) isn’t it supposed to be fun?
It held my attention. It made me think. But I don’t look forward to watching it again any time soon.
Sorry if this post is incomplete or incoherent, but that’s the nature of writing of the top of one’s head.
I rated it 3/5.
"I was certainly never bored by the movie. But apart from the great opening I didn’t have FUN watching it. "
Amigo, that is largely my take on this film, too.
I could never give this one the 3 stars you gave it, though. I would be hard pressed to give it 1 or 2.
I have given this film three chances. The first time I saw it, I was somewhat intrigued but, like you said, I didn’t have fun watching it.
The second time, I was outright bored. The third time, I was highly irritated!
No more viewings of this one for me.
[quote=“Mortimer, post:98, topic:201”]What was the intent of Canevari and company when they made Matalo? Were they attempting art? Were they trying to say something with this western? Or were they simply attempting to make as entertaining a film as possible with very limited resources?
At once the jerky in and out of focus camera caused me to think of Lars Von Trier. Von Trier uses this technique counterintuitively. One would think this would distance the viewer but it is intended to do the opposite – to pull the viewer into the action. Von Trier considers perfectly composed images a distraction. He wants to suck you into his world and pummel you with emotion. And he manages to do it. The same was true for me of Matalo, it pulled me in.
While far from being the most violent of spaghetti westerns it FELT very violent as I watched it. Emotionally violent or disturbing. Matalo is sadistic to it’s characters and to it’s audience.
Was this Canevari’s intent?
Bart (Corrado Pani) is a guru of death. He almost casts a spell over those he meets. In the opening a widow (it’s implied that Bart murdered her husband) commits suicide over his rejection. Bart massacres the gang who free him from death. Mary (Claudia Gravy) gives her body and her life for him.
Bart creates a cycle of continuing violence in his wake. Mary (Claduia Gravy) sleeps with Phil (Luis Davia) in order to gain his trust with the intent to betray and kill him for Bart. But she also mercilessly sexually teases Ted (Antonio Salines) simply because she can. Just as she tortures the stranger Ray (Lou Castel) with a knife. And Mary’s prick teasing of Ted is so intense that it drives him to insanely torture the innocent stranger.
But there is disturbing inconsistency too. The ending comes out of nowhere. It doesn’t mesh with the scheme of the rest of the film content-wise of sylistically, plus the boomerang stuff in filmed in an inept way and just looks silly. Similarly the opening is stylistically very different from the remainder of the film. It’s the jarring disparity between the three sections of the film which make it feel thrown together and incompletely prepared or thought out.
I was certainly never bored by the movie. But apart from the great opening I didn’t have FUN watching it. Even if there are supposed to be messages, metaphors, symbols, and the lot in a film (or none of the above) isn’t it supposed to be fun?
It held my attention. It made me think. But I don’t look forward to watching it again any time soon.
Sorry if this post is incomplete or incoherent, but that’s the nature of writing of the top of one’s head.
I rated it 3/5.[/quote]
Pretty much sums up my feelings on it too! I don’t know if he was trying to make any statements so much as just making a pisstake/parody as with the case of Django Kill. I do like the soundtrack but like you i’m in no great hurry to watch it again…much prefer Kill The Wicked! Maybe i’ll hang on to it for a few more years then put it on the Amazon Marketplace for a ridiculous price 