I enjoy this film, I’ve only seen the Wild East DVD, but I plan on getting the Arrow Blu ray in the future.
One thing that makes no sense to me and maybe someone smarter than man could explain it to me. Why does Philp shoot Clayton’s hat off in the final duel? Clayton ends up getting shot and then Philip asks some stupid ass question like “Did they get ya?!” Very odd moment that to me seemed very out of place.
1 Like
That bit always confuses me too. My guess is that it’s to get him to start the duel by making him think one of the brothers shot first?
2 Likes
That’s where my brain went, but taking his attention off the brothers very well could have gotten Van Cleef killed. The whole movie is odd, which isn’t a bad thing, but I can’t wrap my head around this part.
2 Likes
It is a nice movie with a memorable intro which is simply the best part of the movie. I liked the actors very much. The acrobatic stuff is awesome and it makes it somewhat special. The locations and its luckluster atmosphere show the decline of the genre though.
It is still the second best SW of 1972 after Thunder Over El Paso which is miles ahead of anything else produced that year and at the same time it is the best Lee’s SW of 1970s.
Strong 3/5.
2 Likes
Well, in my book Ben & Charlie is miles ahead of Thunder over El Paso, even though it’s lightweight. 
1 Like
Sure, Lupo was a good director. If you like Gemma and Eastman and don’t mind the movie doesn’t really have any story or a coherent script then it is a good choice. I prefer when a movie is written before it is shot.
1 Like
Albeit well directed all around, I thought Ben and Charlie was derivative and boring as heck.
According to SWDB review Eastman wrote an original screenplay but it was rewritten and not even him liked the movie in the end…
Rewatched this one today… nothing special but well made and somewhat underrated. It’s better than many of the lesser spaghetti westerns in the essential top 20 like the return of ringo and death rides a horse.
However, Lee Van Cleef has aged quite a bit and as much as i hate to say it, he lost a good deal of his charm and charisma along with it. A lot of the distinctive facial features that made him special to begin with have been… watered down… and the 60s sensibilities are long gone here… a fun film regardless.
After another rewatch I give this one now a 6/10
I still see the elements I disliked, the film has its weak parts, but now they seem less important compared to the good parts. And these I enjoyed more than before.
5 Likes