Question to SD:
You dislike/hate Comedies, OK, why not. All comedies, or only the SW comedies?
What about the Trinity films? Do you also think they are bad, or only not in the field of your interest?
[quote=“stanton, post:81, topic:576”]Question to SD:
You dislike/hate Comedies, OK, why not. All comedies, or only the SW comedies?
What about the Trinity films? Do you also think they are bad, or only not in the field of your interest?[/quote]
Haven’t you noticed, Stanton ?
SARTANA DJANGO HATES TRINITY !!!
(Good title for a spaghetti western)
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:82, topic:576”]Haven’t you noticed, Stanton ?
SARTANA DJANGO HATES TRINITY !!!
(Good title for a spaghetti western)[/quote][quote=“stanton, post:81, topic:576”]Question to SD:
You dislike/hate Comedies, OK, why not. All comedies, or only the SW comedies?
What about the Trinity films? Do you also think they are bad, or only not in the field of your interest?[/quote]
Scherpy well thought out title, you witty fellow ! 
Stanton that is a good question you ask, because I have been very critical of comedies
My honest reply is that I particularly DISLIKE 100% comedy in SWS and Giallos.
Films like Trinity with Hill and Spencer are deliberately made for pure comedy and
there is nothing of the real SW elements in them left. The SW is contaminated then.
SWS as nearly all Forumites seem to think should be Violent/cruel/revengeful/nihilistic
and only very very occasionally a little touch of “comedy” is appropriate or none at all.
When I hear a SW described as comedy/slapstick/spoof that SW goes in the GARBAGE
I am not a hater of “comedy” just I detest it in SW or other serious films that must
remain serious/violent/mean to be effective/great. Its a SW or a “comedy” not both !
A “comedy” like the CARRY ON films or the UK Tv series 1971-1985 THE COMEDIANS.
Both those I like and laugh at them for what they are 100% comedies not a mixture.
Similar to your “elite/pretentious” or “arty/farty” dramas from foreign directors I am
not saying they are all bad/sad/mad/rotten 
but that the cinema should be about
ESCAPISM to take the viewer away from our daily reality of life. We all see enough
neurotic wives, husbands who drink / cheat, divorces, hooligan criminal kids etc
WE DONT NEED TO GO TO THE CINEMA and see all these lurid dramas over again :’( :-X
Good post SD. Yes I agree Cinema is a form of escapism. The real historical wild west was rather dull compared to the wild west depicted in westerns and SW’s.
Thanks COL. DM , I think great minds think alike in our case 
Spaghetti westerns are just great escapism ;).
[quote=“SARTANA DJANGO, post:83, topic:576”]Stanton that is a good question you ask, because I have been very critical of comedies
My honest reply is that I particularly DISLIKE 100% comedy in SWS and Giallos.
Films like Trinity with Hill and Spencer are deliberately made for pure comedy and
there is nothing of the real SW elements in them left. The SW is contaminated then.
SWS as nearly all Forumites seem to think should be Violent/cruel/revengeful/nihilistic
and only very very occasionally a little touch of “comedy” is appropriate or none at all.
When I hear a SW described as comedy/slapstick/spoof that SW goes in the GARBAGE
I am not a hater of “comedy” just I detest it in SW or other serious films that must
remain serious/violent/mean to be effective/great. Its a SW or a “comedy” not both !
A “comedy” like the CARRY ON films or the UK Tv series 1971-1985 THE COMEDIANS.
Both those I like and laugh at them for what they are 100% comedies not a mixture.[/quote]
OK. OK.
As I stated elsewhere, I also find it difficult to compare “serious films” with pure comedies. I never viewed comedies by Buster Keaton, The Marx Brothers, Bob Hope, Martin/Lewis or Mel Brooks as westerns, only as comedies using or parodying western elements.
I’m also setting the 4 Clucher films apart from the dramatic SWs, because they are mainly comedies and only in a 2nd respect they are also viewed by me as westerns. As pure comedies they are also set apart from the SWs which incorporate comedy elements (like most of the Carnimeo SWs), these films, which are mixing dramatic and comedy elements, I’m mainly viewing as belonging to the genre.
But the Clucher’s or Carnimeo’s Tresette films are slightly beyond the edge.
So, why not ignore them, instead of hating them?
Why actually hating films?
For me there are only films I’m interested in (call them entertaining films), and films I’m not interested in (boring films). The first group I watch, the second I’m trying to avoid.
[quote=“SARTANA DJANGO, post:83, topic:576”]Similar to your “elite/pretentious” or “arty/farty” dramas from foreign directors I am
not saying they are all bad/sad/mad/rotten but that the cinema should be about
ESCAPISM to take the viewer away from our daily reality of life. We all see enough
neurotic wives, husbands who drink / cheat, divorces, hooligan criminal kids etc
WE DONT NEED TO GO TO THE CINEMA and see all these lurid dramas over again :’( :-X[/quote]
That’s the one thing you probably don’t understand.
Only very, very few people watch films not for entertaining purposes. Nearly nobody wants to see the “real life” in cinema.
What you call “dull” or “lurid” is dull or lurid for you, for other people it’s also only entertainment, but on an other level.
These films you dislike (and it’s ok to dislike them) are mainly also escapism, but an “intellectual” one. These films have there own cliches (not only plot- but also visually cliches), but different ones from the cliches which are used by mainstream films.
The main point is, these films are entertaining for many people (but surely not for a majority). But you need to understand them, at least on an emotional level, to have fun with them. And they are fun, colossal fun.
I don’t know why you are thinking you have to make a crusade against everything you dislike.
Maybe you don’t understand these type of films, maybe you understand them too well.
@ Stanton ;D
Interesting analysis/reply to my postings on “comedy” ruining SWs/Giallos.
I have to correct you slightly that I said I “dislike 100%” not hate Hill/Spencer “silly fun” :’(
I explained in detail on the forum that because sick/twisted critics like Loser Deadwell
contaminate books, websites, TV shows with their abysmal /malicious reviews. I FIGHT
You simply ignore and concentrate on what pleases you , I feel stronger about matters.
Well its amusing ;D what I call “pretentious, dull dramas” you call “intellectual, fun” :o !
I am nor saying these Talky, arty dramas are impossible to like or never "entertainment"
but you can see my point when repellent films get Oscars for Streep/Wooden Allen etc
and all they are showing on screen is a lurid drama claiming to show “real life” URGH
My condemnation of SWs ruined by “comedy” is mainly focused on Hill/Fat Spencer.
I can enjoy other SWs with occasional humour like GEORGE HILTON, Hallelujah or
the MAGNIFICENT SABATA films with Lee Van Cleef/Yul Brynner/Dean Reed.
Anyway stanton we better keep on topic Terence hill here.
Any more talk on “comedy” let us do it on the “comedy westerns” thread ;D
I’m not a film-enthusiast the same way as Stanton, and I don’t know what “intellectual escapism” he is talking about. Maybe pure experimental art-films? I don’t know.
But unlike SD I have nothing against films set in everyday life.
An interesting drama or romantic film can be great!
The only thing I can’t stand is conventional mainstream, most often from Hollywood of course, with the same boring mega stars in the cast.
Has anybody here seen the recent This is England ?
Not seen it myself yet, but it seems good.
Yes, I saw it a couple of months ago but unfortunately missed the end. Up to what I saw it was pretty good.
[quote=“Lindberg, post:90, topic:576”]I’m not a film-enthusiast the same way as Stanton, and I don’t know what “intellectual escapism” he is talking about. Maybe pure experimental art-films? I don’t know.
But unlike SD I have nothing against films set in everyday life.
An interesting drama or romantic film can be great!
The only thing I can’t stand is conventional mainstream, most often from Hollywood of course, with the same boring mega stars in the cast.[/quote]
I’m not interested in experimental films or documentary films.
I prefer narrative films, films which have to tell a story (even if I couldn’t tell you the story like in Inland Empire).
Intellectual escapism could be everything I like, e.g. Fellini, Leone, Peckinpah, Kusturica, Scorsese, Bergman, Hitchcock etc. it’s not that different from non intellectual escapism e.g. Casablanca, Don Siegel, Fuller etc. I don’t know, films are mirroring the “real world”, but they are often different from the “real world”, often also the “realistic looking” ones.
Hmmm …
Arggh, why explaining? Enjoying is what counts!
Films set in every day life can of course be very entertaining and exciting, thrilling, gripping (e.g. Mike Leigh). Depends on how they are done. Same goes for e.g. interesting dramas, romantic films, comedies, SWs. It’s always how they are done that sets them apart from the boring films.
And so it’s the mainstream, the conventional films, the films in which everything happens as in 1000 films before, which are the boring ones. Strangely enough many of these have success and are even labeled by contemporary critics as “entertaining”.
I think the fun starts for me often there, were it ends by the so called “typical” audience.
[quote=“SARTANA DJANGO, post:89, topic:576”]My condemnation of SWs ruined by “comedy” is mainly focused on Hill/Fat Spencer.
I can enjoy other SWs with occasional humour like GEORGE HILTON, Hallelujah[/quote]
Interesting. I consider the George Hilton slapstick spaghetti westerns the worst of its kind and really hard to sit through. Perhaps not the Hallelujah-movies, but his Tresette-movies are hard to swallow in my opinion.
Interesting that only some spaghetti comedies are “stupid” in your opinion, SD, doesn’t seem to make sense if you’re after the sub-genre as a whole?
NO AvatarDk I think from watching 100s of SWs that there is nothing worse or more dull
or more unfunny/ irritating than Terence Hill/Fat Bud Spencer behaving like 2 idiotic,
dull overgrown babies on their Trinity and similar “comedy” SWs :’( :-
GEORGE HILTON has for me some occasional clever , intelligent “humour” but he is actually
a very imposing, tall, attractive leading man of SWs/Giallos and many other super films.
But the Tresette are really worse and totally unfunny. Hard to sit through.
Carnimeo’s Spirito Santo film is also partly ruined by some superfluous fistfights in the Spencer/Hill style.
A great part of the raid on the mexican fort at the end contains unbloody brawling, which is ridiculous.
In the 1st Hallelujah the mix works very well. But afterwards the comedy elements took over in his films.
And the Tresette films are pure (but unfunny) comedies.
Well, for the SW comedy section, I prefer the 4 Clucher films. They all are well enough done to be entertaining and there are always some really funny jokes and running gags along the way.
??? Dear me I see that there are far too many SWs with silly comedy/slapstick :-\
I appreciate your analysis Stanton and would say that the WORST “comedy” is Hill/Spencer , but I concede that GEORGE HILTON has been a little “naughty” also.
A SERIOUS/VIOLENT/REVENGE SWs I will PREFER any day to all these SWs comedies
I will still watch Sws like Tresette, Hallelujah but it will never match a REVENGE great SW 
Oh yes ;).
[quote=“SARTANA DJANGO, post:94, topic:576”]GEORGE HILTON has for me some occasional clever , intelligent “humour” but he is actually
a very imposing, tall, attractive leading man of SWs/Giallos and many other super films. :D[/quote]
Intelligent humour? Doesn’t sound like you’ve seen his Tresette-movies then. If you can’t stand the Trinity-movies I have a hard time understanding that you can watch the Tresette-ones as they are actually far more idiotic would be your word
Pick up X-rated Dicke Luft in Sacramento which is one of the Tresette-movies and tell me if you like George Hilton after that one. I would think not
It’s true that he has been in some nice gialli, but that has nothing to do with his spaghetti westerns. Different deal.
TERENCE HILL or MARIO GIROTTI ( name Under which his BEST FILMS were made):’( He made some enjoyable serious/Violent SWs and then totally ruined any claims to being a top “leading man” with abysmal/unfunny so called SWs “comedies” or “slapstick stupidity” :’( 99% of these "comedies"I vote 3 out 20 at most very abysmal) :’(
BEST MARIO GIROTTI / TERENCE HILL TOP 20 FIlms in Order of Preference SD
- OLD SUREHAND / FLAMING FRONTIER 1964 Stewart Granger
- FRONTIER HELLCAT / AMONG VULTURES 1964 Stewart Granger
- DER OLPRINZ / RAMPAGE AT APACHE WELLS 1965 Stewart Granger
- WHOM GODS WISH TO DESTROY/Nibelungen 1966 Karin Dor
- DUEL AT SUNDOWN 1965 Peter Van Eyck
- VIVA DJANGO 1967 Horst Frank
- TRINITY SEES RED/ WIND’S ANGER 1970 Mario Pardo
- GOD FORGIVES I DONT 1967 Frank Wolff
- MY NAME IS NOBODY 1974 Henry Fonda
- ACE HIGH 1968 Eli Wallach
- SEVEN SEAS TO CALAIS 1962 Rod Taylor
- BARBAGIA 1968 Frank Wolff
- HASSLED HOOKER 1972 Martin Balsam
- BLACK PIRATE 1971 Silvia Monti
- CARTHAGE IN FLAMES 1960 Anne Heywood
- BOOT HILL 1969 Bud Spencer
- JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHRN 1960 Belinda Lee
- RITA NEL WEST 1967 Rita Pavone
- RUF DER WALDER 1965 Hans Jurgen Baumler
- MARCH OR DIE 1977 Gene Hackman
Plus many excellent SWORD AND SANDAL 1957-1963 as Mario Girotti.
The Terence Hill “comedies” with Bud Spencer I find unfunny, tiresome, crappy :’(
Reply to AvatarDk:
AvatarDk I hope you are not having a fit or frothing at the mouth :o !!
You keep insisting that somehow I should “compare” GEORGE HILTON to Terence Hill.
Your assertion is that George Hilton has done TRESETTE “comedy” SWs + Hallelujah.
There is NO COMPARISON and nothing for you to get "excited " about because :
GEORGE HILTON is my Number 8 In MY All Time SW Leading Men
GEORGE HILTON He has made 19 SWs, as leading man , 2nd to A.STEFFEN only.
15 out of GEORGE HILTON’s SWs are serious/violent/revengeful CLASSIC GREATS
that is leaving out his 2 Hallelujah and his 2 Tresette Films 71-74.
That is 15 out of 19 GREAT George Hilton SWs or 78.95 % I LIKE His SW
PLUS numerous Magnificent/outstanding George Hilton Giallos/Police/Horror etc.
TERENCE HILL is my Joint Number 20 In MY All Time SW Leading men
TERENCE HILL He has made 13 SWs as leading man ( 2 are poor 91 & 94 stuff)
6 out of TERENCE HILL’s SWs are serious/violent/revengeful well made "fairly classic"
That is leaving out his Trinity, Un Genio, Lucky Luke, Botte Natale :’( 70-94 .
That is 6 out of 13 GOOD Terence Hill SWs or 46.15 % I LIKE His SW
Added of course his Excellent high quality WINNETOU and other films as Mario Girotti.
Comparing George Hilton’s “comedy” SWs ONLY 4 with Terence Hill’s 7 “comedy” SWs
as I stated George Hilton’s 4 Films Hallelujah/Tresette are more SW orientated/quality
Terence Hill has Double the trouble/idiocy/stupidity because he has Fat Bud Spencer
with him to make the SWs twice as bad/awful, whereas George Hilton is by himself
After that complete FACTUAL Analysis I suggest you accept that
GEORGE HILTON is the BETTER of the 2 and it is totally obvious as shown above.
That is MY OPINION based on the above facts/analysis.
I like Terence Hill of course , but much more as MARIO GIROTTI see TOP 20 above.
SWs GEORGE HILTON SD LIKES 78.95 % Of His SWs.
SWs TERENCE HILL SD LIKES 46.15 % Of His SWs.
You had said all that about TH already, some pages ago!