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?
