2510 meters is the film length verified in October 1964 (the production declared 2550 m), consequently there is no doubt about it.
I broadly agree with scherpschutter, in addition the camera does not move back and on the âhappinessâ of the original ending it is also important to take account of what I explained on Replies 144 and 147. See also Reply 128.
I wasnât sure, wanted to check it, but couldnât find my copy 
Interesting point since I suppose that would be expected. Iâll have to go check my copy too!
Still havenât located my copy, but I found an upload on Dailymotion. Mediocre quality, but no, the camera doesnât move back
(I removed the link, because it kept playing)
The camera moves a little bit.
I have the ending on the German DVD from a VHS copy. It is different than this one, as the image freezes after she cries âSomebody help meâ, and then a longer title sequence follows over the frozen image.
Whatever, it is still obvious that Clay is supposed to be dead. I also doubt that otherwise a shorter unhappy end version would have been released anywhere.
There seem to be more than two different endings, even the âunhappy endingâ exists in different versions. At least thatâs the idea I get from all this; question is of course: whoâs responsible for these different versions? At what time were they created exactly?
I read somewhere that Corbucci wanted to do Django, and somewhat abandoned Johnny Oro ( if you look at the ending, itâs nowhere near as enjoyable as the first half) and the rest of course is history.
The screenplay ( Done by Adriano Bolzoni and Franco Rossetti) is too the point, and Iâm rather depressed when I think of Johnny Oro, because I think of Corbucci would have stuck around, this film could easily beat out Django in every way, shape, and form.
Really?
Apart from the first scene I donât see much (or maybe anything) in Johnny Oro, which could rival the most parts of Django. For me it is a lesser film in any respect, and Minnesota Clay shows more of Corbucciâs potential.
And if it is true that Corbucci shot only 80 % of Johnny Oro, then we still donât know which parts that could be, as films are rarely shot chronological.
What exactly indicates that there are more than 2 endings? The unhappy ending on my disc only differs for the different end credits. Changing credit sequences was nothing uncommon, and does not change the film itself.
This gave me that idea:
Ok, than it is basically the same.
Donât trust this always confusing Stanton guy âŚ
Johnny Oro is not perfect, but I think it goes unnoticed amongst Corubcciâs other works. I also think Mark Damon is a bit undervalued. It is an early entry for Corbucci, which I think adds to itâs uniqueness. This film got the Corbucci all rolling ( so to speak). We have a anti-hero, motivated by greed, dressed in an all black outfit. We also have some cool duels, and explosive sceneâs. We have a good, catchy score. Typical Corbucci, but I like Mark Damonâs acting in this. He is sometimes fierce, sometimes funny, but never dull. The film also stars Ettore Manni who is excellent as the sheriff. I really wish Corbucci didnât abandon this for Django, because I think Corbucci was on to something here. Had he stuck with this, I think Johnny Oro would have been a genre icon much like Sartana and Sabata.
I doubt that the film would have been much different if Corbucci had ended it.
Damon looks very strange here, not to say odd.
And heâs not an anti-hero, SWs rarely have anti-heroes, only a different kind of hero. Only few, very few genre films have a real anti-hero. You donât sell films with an anti-hero.
Just watched this one for the first time and I actually really enjoyed it. It had a surprisingly engaging script, which despite containing a lot of characters never felt too convoluted, Cameron Mitchell was good as Clay, the final gunfight was well staged and above all, it was great and refreshing to see Corbucci, probably the darkest of all spaghetti western directors, do a more Hollywood-esque western for once.
Does anybody know where I can see the extended âhappyâ ending? I watched the version Scherp gave us a link to above and it was the shorter of the two.
Is it really Hollywood-esque?
I think it is already a typical SW, it only needed a younger and cooler hero, not that old father guy. With Gemma Corbucci would have had probably a hit.
In Johnny Oro is more stuff which looks âHollywood-esqueâ, despite it also being mostly a real Spag.
And it wouldnât be a problem to change the script a bit so that a young actor would work.
Possibly a bit flawed. Damon shows us heroic qualityâs, intentions, and strengths but also is not willing to help anyone else unless theirs something in it for him. This type of character would show up in many of Corbucciâs later films. The filmâs plot has an unusual darkness to it, and certainly has more in common with the spaghetti western genre then it does with a John Ford western. Overall, itâs an entertaining spaghetti.
Of course it is largely a typical Spag, but Johnny Oro still has a pretty nice Sheriff and his even nicer wife and his Iwanttostranglehim-supernice son. Such stuff, which by the way you hardly find in US westerns of that year, did not appear in later Corbucci westerns. But these characters are typical for the early phase of Spags, the pre-Django phase.
No doubt, Minnesota Clay is a better film then Johnny Oro. But I am glad an older man (Cameron Mitchell) is cast in this as the main protagonist and it is NOT someone like Giuliano Gemma ( or any other young actor) A younger protagonist may not have gone blind, and also may have not suffered the same fate. The film featuring an older actor as a protagonist works well. We do see Gemma do a similar role in Long Days of Vengeance.
He could easily have become blind by an bullet injury. No big deal in a Spag âŚ