[quote=“ENNIOO, post:7240, topic:141”]Rio Conchos.
Seemed as film was made a little later than it was.[/quote]
Very true. Haven’t seen it in a while, and didn’t remember the year of making
Guessed it was made in 1968 or 1969
Checked things, and oops, 196[size=14pt]4[/size]
Funny is that the novel Rio Conchos is completely different from the movie, even if the author Clair Huffaker is also the screenplay writer. Even more funny is that the novel is pretty bad, and none of the film’s good ideas are taken from it.
Koch Media is intending to release Rio Conchos later this year.
A very rare western here in Germany. I have also only seen a bad fullscreen copy with English audio.
But Rio Conchos clearly shows that the US Western didn’t need to be influenced by SWs to become more violent in the 60s.
[quote=“Stanton, post:7242, topic:141”]Funny is that the novel Rio Conchos is completely different from the movie, even if the author Clair Huffaker is also the screenplay writer. Even more funny is that the novel is pretty bad, and none of the film’s good ideas are taken from it.
Koch Media is intending to release Rio Conchos later this year.
A very rare western here in Germany. I have also only seen a bad fullscreen copy with English audio.
But Rio Conchos clearly shows that the US Western didn’t need to be influenced by SWs to become more violent in the 60s.[/quote]
Didn’t know it was based upon a novel. I saw the film on television once, quite a long time ago, don’t even remember if it was British, Dutch or French television. It was quite violent if I’m not mistaken, and starred Jim Brown, all elements that made me think it was from the late sixties.
A long Ride from Hell (Vivo per la tua Morte - 1968, Camillo Bazzoni)
Not a great film, but a lot better than I thought it would be
Above average SW, with two great shortcomings: a lead (muscle man Steve Reeves) who clearly doesn’t belong in a western, and a second half that is far less exciting and interesting than the first (the other way around always feels much better)
Review coming up
I thought Reeves was not that bad for a role which demands not much.
And the first half was not that great either.
Well, the first half is gritty and violent, with a lot of shootouts and the nice sequence in a prison camp, with Nello Pazzafini as a sadistic warden. That was much more than I had expexted for this movie, which is pulvarized by Giusti. But the second half is rather predictable (except for the final scene, in which Reeves decides not to kill Preston). Reeves is a typical muscle man for me, impressive torso, flat face.
Yes, flat face, no actor.
But strangely, somehow I hadn’t so far any problems with these muscle guys in SWs. At least they weren’t as annoying as Peter Lee Lawrence often, or even Anthony Steffen sometimes was.
I always expected them to be pretty bad, but they weren’t.
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:7244, topic:141”]A long Ride from Hell (Vivo per la tua Morte - 1968, Camillo Bazzoni)
Not a great film, but a lot better than I thought it would be
Above average SW, with two great shortcomings: a lead (muscle man Steve Reeves) who clearly doesn’t belong in a western, and a second half that is far less exciting and interesting than the first (the other way around always feels much better)
Review coming up[/quote]
I agree with you, amigo.
Personally, I really like this one just because it has my favorite SW gal in it, Silvana Bacci! 
But, I also agree with Stanton that the Muscle Men in SW’s usually do a decent job in their parts. I have never had much trouble accepting them in the Western roles.
[quote=“Stanton, post:7242, topic:141”]Funny is that the novel Rio Conchos is completely different from the movie, even if the author Clair Huffaker is also the screenplay writer. Even more funny is that the novel is pretty bad, and none of the film’s good ideas are taken from it.
Koch Media is intending to release Rio Conchos later this year.
A very rare western here in Germany. I have also only seen a bad fullscreen copy with English audio.
But Rio Conchos clearly shows that the US Western didn’t need to be influenced by SWs to become more violent in the 60s.[/quote]I have heard before that Rio Conchos was a remake of Michael Curtiz’s The Comancheros. The 2 stories are very similar and both star Stuart Whitman.
I’d like to see Rio Conchos, because it’s directed by Gordon Douglas, who I think is pretty underrated.
No, it’s not a remake. But The Comancheros was also co-written by Huffaker, but is based on a novel from someone else.
All 3 are about gun-running, and apart from that are extremely different.
One example: the Edmond O’ Brien role of the megalomaniac southern officer who wants to start the civil war again is a character not to find in the novel Rio Conchos.
Rio Conchos is clearly his best, and all his 60s western were decent or good (except the stupid Stagecoach remake). But all his 50s westerns are mediocre or at best slightly above average,
[quote=“Stanton, post:7251, topic:141”]No, it’s not a remake. But The Comancheros was also co-written by Huffaker, but is based on a novel from someone else.
All 3 are about gun-running, and apart from that are extremely different.
One example: the Edmond O’ Brien role of the megalomaniac southern officer who wants to start the civil war again is a character not to find in the novel Rio Conchos.[/quote]Maybe not a remake but they do have strong similarities. The both involve gun running as you say, and they both end up with our heroes trapped in the stronghold of a madman with an army of outlaws. But they do also have differences. Especially with Tony Franciosa’s character.
In The Comancheros it is not a madman, as far as I remember.
Anyway, not enough similarities imo even to call it a loose remake. They only vary a similar basic story. Characters and motivations are completely different.
Also between novel and film Rio Conchos. So different that the term “based on the novel” shouldn’t be used. And I waited 10 years to read the novel (which I bought second hand for a few cents), cause I wanted to see the film first. It wasn’t worth the wait.
They certainley do go into their own seperate directions, I guess. I liked Rio Conchos but felt it could have been better. I feel that The Comancheros succeeded where Cocnhos didn’t. But Conchos has probably better action scenes.
Yes, the bigger action scenes in Comancheros are extremely old fashioned, but it is a highly enjoyable film with Wayne at his best.
Rio Conchos is grim and violent.
I watched The War Wagon… I just love the look of the film and some nice action scenes, probably my favourite non-Ford John Wayne movie (though I haven’t seen many).
I just watched “The Missouri Breaks” with Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando and thought its was pretty good.
Indeed, not bad, but with this director and this cast you expect more, it’s not the classic it was supposed to be
Still puzzles me why the film got such a bad reception (only for the above mentioned reasons?)
Watched Colizzi Boot Hill, and I’m half on Un genio, due compari, un pollo from Damiano Damiani.
I will write something later on the respective threads, but I can say that without no shadow of a doubt the second one it’s much better (and I’ve seen Boot Hill before), also surpreised to see Miou Miou without Gerard or Depardieu near by (and not speaking french)