Simple and effective story with a running time which did not overstay its welcome. Liked the way the head bad guy planned things with little violence at times. Gordon Mitchell is a standout. Martin is a little average but I liked his character. The machine gun part at the end was what I wanted, as was getting a little pissed off with the bad guys at this point myself.
Koch disc has nice strong colours but would have set out the english subtitles a little different. Would have made the subtitles a touch smaller and lowered them so they were all set on the lower widescreen bar, as find them easier to read against a black background.
Has your player no option to put these subtitles where you want them? Most modern players have one. You can re-position the subs to, for instance postion -10 or -20; If you have a DVD-recorder, you probably donât have the option. Stand alone players have more playing options, simply because they donât have to make recordings.
Interesting thanks for the informationâŚdid not know about this. Still using the same stand alone player from 2003 and no does not have this option. Surprised it still works with all the films I view.
Time to go shopping soon for a more modern player.
Yesterday looked at the Koch Media DVD.
I had watched the film several years ago on television.
I had not great memories. Now I know why.
It is very average. Nothing special.
One can see why Zurli had not made many spaghetti westerns.
But ok. It is good that Koch Media also released this film.
4 / 10
For me, Shango is the best of the four new films by Koch.
Zurli says in the interview (Bonus on the Koch DVD) that the film had been successful.
It would have recorded the cost of production.
Since when the break-even point is a success ?
Hopefully the man has made more successful films.
Enjoyed this one more than I expected to.
As Ennioo said, itâs running time means it doesnât outstay its welcome and there is enough along the way to keep me going. I always like Martin and Mitchellâs cameo uses him perfectly. Also enjoyed Bodalo as the drunk but educated judge. And nice to see a female lead who isnât reduced to a simpering romantic prop.
Donât expect a masterpiece and there is fun to be had here.
I do wish Koch would put English subs with their extras though. So frustrating.
In the movie description (in digipack) is written, the film is a satire of Django.
And there are certain similarities: the mysterious box with the machine gun. The injured hands. The village is cut off from the outside world.
As for the extras on the Koch Media DVD.
I think that one of the last interviews given by Guido Zurli and director of photography, Franco Villa.
Both died shortly after. Relatively quickly.
Hopefully this was not a bad omen.
[quote=âThe Stranger, post:28, topic:1433â]In the movie description (in digipack) is written, the film is a satire of Django.
And there are certain similarities: the mysterious box with the machine gun. The injured hands. The village is cut off from the outside world.[/quote]
Interesting parallels which I hadnât noticed. I find it difficult to see it as a satire of Django however. Or a satire of anything to be honest. Quite enjoyable flick for me though.
All but one of the famous generals named as the portraits in the Pentagon gallery are wrong. Amazingly they get Sheridan right. I guess they looked that one up to be sure. The others are all hopelessly inaccurate. They clearly just put up some random Civil War personnel pictures and then used the names theyâd heard of. For example, the one supposedly of General Grant was clearly of Jeb Stuart, a Confederate :o
For those interested they went like this:
General Sherman - This was actually a portrait of General McLellan, leader of the Union army in the early stage of the war.
General Grant - as stated above this was Confederate Cavalry officer General Jeb Stuart
General Beaurigard - Wrong again. Itâs actually General Joseph Johnston, another confederate bigwig. (To be fair I had to look this one up myself)
General Sheridan - Yes! One out of four. Not bad for the Italians when you think of the other historical and geographical fantasies in their westerns. 8)
Oh yes, and the last portrait goes un named but it would have been wrong for sure because that actually is General Sherman and theyâve already used him up.
And yes, before you ask, I do have too much time on my hands.
[quote=âPhil H, post:32, topic:1433â]And of course completely inaccurate. ;D
All but one of the famous generals named as the portraits in the Pentagon gallery are wrong. Amazingly they get Sheridan right. I guess they looked that one up to be sure. The others are all hopelessly inaccurate. They clearly just put up some random Civil War personnel pictures and then used the names theyâd heard of. For example, the one supposedly of General Grant was clearly of Jeb Stuart, a Confederate :o
For those interested they went like this:
General Sherman - This was actually a portrait of General McLellan, leader of the Union army in the early stage of the war.
General Grant - as stated above this was Confederate Cavalry officer General Jeb Stuart
General Beaurigard - Wrong again. Itâs actually General Joseph Johnston, another confederate bigwig. (To be fair I had to look this one up myself)
General Sheridan - Yes! One out of four. Not bad for the Italians when you think of the other historical and geographical fantasies in their westerns. 8)
Oh yes, and the last portrait goes un named but it would have been wrong for sure because that actually is General Sherman and theyâve already used him up.
And yes, before you ask, I do have too much time on my hands.[/quote]
You are right, for a spaghetti western, the historical realities very detailed.
Thanks for the information.
You could be a teacher of American history.
However, I must also agree that the end is a bit confusing.
It robs the film something of his identity.
In fact there is no historical base to anything in the film despite the modern day ending suggesting this to be the case.
Thompson was no more than a toddler when the civil war began so certainly never could have offered his gun to Sheridan unless he was in some kind of kindergarten army. ;D Also, his machine gun was a 20th century invention and looks more like a rifle with a round magazine attachment than a crank handled gatling gun affair. In fact the gun in the film reminded me more of George Hiltonâs âsewing machineâ gun than anything. ;D Thompsonâs gun is more at home in a 1920s Chicago gangster setting than a western at any rate.
Of course, as always, we should never be surprised by the inaccuracies in our favourite genre but I canât help but wonder why they even bothered trying to link this into a real life characterâs story.
[quote=âPhil H, post:34, topic:1433â]In fact there is no historical base to anything in the film despite the modern day ending suggesting this to be the case.
Thompson was no more than a toddler when the civil war began so certainly never could have offered his gun to Sheridan unless he was in some kind of kindergarten army. ;D Also, his machine gun was a 20th century invention and looks more like a rifle with a round magazine attachment than a crank handled gatling gun affair. In fact the gun in the film reminded me more of George Hiltonâs âsewing machineâ gun than anything. ;D Thompsonâs gun is more at home in a 1920s Chicago gangster setting than a western at any rate.
Of course, as always, we should never be surprised by the inaccuracies in our favourite genre but I canât help but wonder why they even bothered trying to link this into a real life characterâs story.[/quote]
Zurli says in the interview that this machine gun was from Enzo Gicca Palli (write the story )designed. He had other ideas. But Palli was a weapons expert, because he had fought in the war. ???
Moreover Zurli claims to have been the first to have had the idea with a machine gun in a spaghetti western. The others have copied this idea only. :o :o :o :o
