The Savage Guns / Tierra brutal (Michael Carreras, 1961)

(scherpschutter) #1

http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2042322921cd2.jpg

If there was already a thread, I couldn’t find it
So I thought I might as well write a review:

http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/Tierra_Brutal_/_The_Savage_Guns_Review

(Phil H) #2

Considering this is a Brit production you would have thought there might be a release here … but no such luck.
I live in hope.

(Phil H) #3

Forgot to mention…nice review Scherps with some really interesting back info.
Cheers

(scherpschutter) #4

[quote=“Phil H, post:2, topic:1520”]Considering this is a Brit production you would have thought there might be a release here … but no such luck.
I live in hope.[/quote]

The funny thing is that it is listed in several places (including our site, but I have already corrected it) as an Spanish-American western. I have checked and double-checked this: it is positively a Spanish-British production, with only some financial backing from across the ocean.

Poor Michael, some Gods are not worshipped at home …

But his problem of course was that it took a Sergio and a Clint to get the entire world interested. He did a fine job, but he was no Leone and Basehart wasn’t an Eastwood either)

(Stanton) #5

Very interesting Scherp, but why a landmark movie? As a flop Savage Guns couldn’t have any influence on the later following SW boom.

I have missed the beginning, but wasn’t disappointed by missing it.
At first I also thought that it was a completely forgetable film, which was also how I remembered the film from a former watching long ago. But then there were a few interesting moments, which also set Savage Guns a bit apart from naive american westerns of the 50s, which this film otherwise mainly resembles.

The few nods towards the forthcoming SWs are, apart from the noticeable exchanged dress code, some remarkable shoot-outs towards the end of the film, in which Basehart breaks the unwritten good guy rules by shooting people in the back and starting the fight by shooting first and trying to kill thereby the leader of his enemies. These shoot-outs came as a surprise to me, because the film had looked before very traditional and seemed not to contain any surprises.
And apart from these surprises this more boring than exciting film was indeed done in an uninspired and foreseeable way.

I don’t know if Carreras (spanish sounding name btw) was a good Horror film director, for which he has a reputation, but his western skills were limited.

For the nicely shot locations it can get a 4/10 on a good day.

One spoiler question:

When Basehart shoots 3 of Nicol’s henchman in the back, why didn’t he shoot also their leader Nicol (or even better only shoot Nicol, who deserved it most)? This is rather unlogical as he later tries first to kill Ortega in the final battle. Or have I missed something?

(scherpschutter) #6

I mean a landmark movie in the sense that it was the first western to be shot in Almeria and also the first with a certain spahetti western feel, not in the sense that it influenced many films to come. It clearly was an overlooked film.
I don’t think ‘landmark movie’ necessarily includes the meaning of ‘influential’, but maybe the native speakers will say differently

You’re right.
I could have stated this more clearly
I’ll change the text later today

I guess this is simply a matter of saving best things for the film’s finale
Carreras needed Nicol for the final scene, so he wasn’t shot earlier
Reminds me of an anecdote I heard once about John Ford and Stagecoach
A critic said: The Indians would’ve shot the horses
Ford said: Yes, and I wouldn’t have had a movie!

(Stanton) #7

[quote=“scherpschutter, post:6, topic:1520”]I guess this is simply a matter of saving best things for the film’s finale
Carreras needed Nicol for the final scene, so he wasn’t shot earlier
Reminds me of an anecdote I heard once about John Ford and Stagecoach
A critic said: The Indians would’ve shot the horses
Ford said: Yes, and I wouldn’t have had a movie![/quote]

Yeah, that was also my idea. The finale is well enough made.

(ENNIOO) #8

Talky a little to much at times. Like the look of the film. The gundown of the three mexicans surprised me…caught me off guard. Liked Nicol the best. Curiosity piece for me more than anything else, but glad I finally managed to get to see this one.

(davidf) #9

this is a spaghetti western i really want to see, it being the first. thought i got it once as was advertised starring Alex Nichol and Richard Basehart but turned out to be Fidini’s " Savage Guns" quite liked that though.

(Phil H) #10

Interesting film for its place as a ‘pre spaghetti’ western. Much of the film is a little stiff but wakes up on occasion to surprise you. Great to see Jose Manuel Martin in a role he would come to make his stock in trade over the next 10 years or so. Not a classic by any means but well worth seeing imo.

(davidf) #11

managed to see this at last tonight and i must say i liked it. yes it’s a bit slow and shoddy at first, and i’d agree with scherp on two points in his review it is obviously influenced by " Shane" in fact for most of the time it’s pretty much a remake.also agree that the romance between basehart and the younger sister is not believable, he looks much too old. both women are pretty. there are several pointers to things to come in the spaghetti western and a couple of the shootouts are surprising not for their violence but the " Dirty" tricks used.an interesting film, much better than i thought it would be. 7/10

(scherpschutter) #12

You’re absolutely right about this
Stanton pointed this out too, and I promised to change the review ‘in his favour’, but apparently forgot to do so, and now I don’t remember exactly what dirty tricks were used by Basehart

I definitely have to rewatch it

EDIT: Stanton’s remarks are on this page, a few posts back
I promised to change the text the same day …

I feel deeply ashamed

(ENNIOO) #13

Not to worry…there is always another day :wink: .

(scherpschutter) #14

I’ve added a few lines to the review.

The text can be found at the end of the 4th paragraph (I’ll remove the asterisks tomorrow)

(I love you M.E. Kay) #15

Quite a pleasant movie, there is a little je-ne-sais-quoi that I liked about it. And for such a traditional western I was surprised about how much I actually cared about the story and the characters, the saga of Sonora kept me interested through all of the film. Alex Nicol made for a very good villain and María Granada was very lovely (I think I’m in love ;D ). I’m not a big fan of the soundtrack though, very bombastic and generic. Overall, a decent old-fashioned movie that is more memorable for it’s historical importance than what happens on the screen.

(p.pereira) #16

I was curious about this one, so I’ve watched this weekend with my girlfriend. I actually dislike the classic western formula but surprisingly I’ve enjoyed this one.
The first sequence in which we get to see the ocean (sea) is remarkable.

(Chris_Casey) #17

I agree with this assessment of the film!
Not a great movie; but, one I enjoy.

#18

Being a fan of Richard Basehart, thought i’de give this early Eurowestern a watch. Not bad, familiar story yes, but it had enough action to keep me interested to the very ending and the scenery was quite nice too.

(scherpschutter) #19

Time for me to give that a rewatch.
I’ve forgotten most of it and got hold of a better copy

#20

Watched Michael Carreras’s Tierra brutal some months ago, and it pleasantly surprised me. Quite well-made, very early Euro-Western, not without flaws but entertaining enough.