I recently watched this film, one of the first spaghetti by Sergio Corbucci. Not bad, it has interesting details, you can see elements of the director that he will perfected in later works: that almost random use of the zoom, that particular way of putting the camera, those moments of obscene violence and that ability, that âje ne sais quoiâ that Corbucci had to create shocking images âŚit has a good start and, above all, a denouement with lots of action, quite spectacular in terms of graphic violence and budget.
It reminded me a bit of Django, not only because of the violence and Corbucciâs intention to define a character with very particular traits and to manage the narrative around him, but also because he suffers from the same flaw that, for me, Django has: there is a good beggining and denouement, but it gets lost in the middle of the film and it makes the interest go down and it harms the whole movie a lot. Unfortunately, Johnny Oro doesnât have the strength of Djangoâs images neither the charisma of his protagonist (where, in my opinion, Django has THE differentiating value), and at the end, we just have some good moments that will surely only be appreciated by fans of the genre.
Finally, it seems to me that the final duel has been influenced directly from the one in For a Fistful of Dollars: the protagonist advances impassively in front of the villain while the latter shoots him with a rifle, and although there is no metal plate here, just as in Leoneâs film, the protagonist uses a trick to get out of the situation.
As I say, itâs a minor work that lays the foundations for what Corbucci will later do (better) in Django, Navajo Joe or The Specialist, so just for that, I think itâs interesting enough for those who want to dive a little deeper into the genre.
Well, Iâm sorry for the âoff-topicâ but I donât agree with you on that point⌠I think The Hellbenders clearly has Corbucciâs seal, maybe it doesnât have the same level of graphic violence as other of his works, but it shares with others Corbucciâs films an oppressive pessimism, a strong level of other kind of violence (verbal, moral, I canât explain) and a critical, almost cynical point of view about the building of the United States. I saw it a few years ago, so I donât remember very well the way it was directed (I remember a beautiful ending, full of lyricism) but I think itâs a 100% Corbucci work that fits perfectly between Django and The Great Silence. Talking about style: we are talking about a man who is capable of directing The Mercenary,
What Am I Doing in the Middle of a Revolution? or Il bianco, il giallo, il nero, that three are at the antipodes of the works mentioned beforeâŚ
Django was released in April 1966, Johnny Oro was released in July 1966. The two films are visually, to me miles apart. Oro has does have the cynical attitude to violence and morally ambiguous protagonist but is presented without the comic book violence of Django. It like Silence and all his other Corbucci films looks at the morality of the Gunslinger.
Yes, but Johnny Oro was shot in 1965, before Django.
In fact Corbucci left the set of Johnny Oro for Django before the shooting was completed. Maybe up to 20% of the film was then shot by someone else.
It would be nice to have a well researched book (like the one by Frayling about Leone) about Corbucci, at least about the phase in which he made his westerns.
Corbucci himself said e.g. that he shot only a few scenes as a hired hand for Massacre at Grand Canyon, a film on which he worked with Albert Band, for whom he directed later I crudeli. It would be interesting to know more about his decisions why he chose the films he directed in the end, and which projects he did not make instead.
Oh yes I agree, I would would enjoy reading that! I enjoyed reading Fraylingâs book although sometimes it seems sycophantic.
I would like to know more about Corbucci and how he developed his view of the wild west.
One clue for which films Corbucci cared and for which not is maybe his screenplay contribution. Of the 4 Spags he made in quick succession in 1965 and 1966 Django is the only one for which he got credit. And he was also credited for the earlier Minnesota Clay.
Yes. Of course church and bell tower were not present in 1965 and in the next few years. There was also a peripheral church that we can see in Beyond the Law.
Corbucci directed I crudeli in a more typical SW style, while Band directed his similar themed The Tramplers in the naive early Euro Western style (see I donât call this US Western style ), quite similar to Massacre at Grand Canyon.
Now it gets tricky.
The Tramplers is the more coherent film, cause style and plot are in unison, and I crudeli rarely finds a balance between style and content. Also I crudeli would have needed better actors and more complex portraits of its protagonists, while in The Tramplers the acting fits the simplicity of the film. But I crudeli is still the slightly better film for me, due to Corbucciâs directing, even if it often seemed wrong for the film.
Apart from all that is Corbucciâs directing for me here less inspired than in Navajo Joe and Django. The experience of Johnny Oro probably helped to shape the far superior Django, which then led to his masterpieces Il grande Silenzio and Il merceanrio, but I crudeli was only a superfluous step back. He should have directed something like Black Jack instead.
Never really could make my mind up about The Hellbenders. The opening massacre is strong and itâs one of the large-scale action scenes in spaghetti westerns that really work. Even Leone wasnât very good at large-scale action. I also like the sudden ending of The Hellbenders, but in-between thereâs too much that simply doesnât work. I donât think the actors are a great problem, the problem is the characters, I find them very hard to relate to. You need to have some kind of connection to characters (love them, hate them, whatever), and in this movie I have none, they simply leave me cold and therefore, in the end, the film leaves me cold as well. But maybe I should rewatch it. I think I only saw it once or twice.
The characters are too simple and, yes, uninteresting to make the intended drama work, but sometimes actors can give such characters a deeper impact, one which is not to in the screenplay, but none of that happens here.
And thanks to it being a Corbucci Spag I watched the film far more often then necessary âŚ
Not a great SW, but it kicks some ass here and there, and I enjoyed it a lot, especially the extended violence that wraps things up. I thought the âIndiansâ were pretty bad-ass, especially for a SW.
), quite similar to Massacre at Grand Canyon.