Finished watching this the other day. Took me a few days to get through it as the story kind of dragged for me and flashbacks were annoying.
I didn’t find this as entertaining or as stylish as $10,000 For a Massacre.
Personally I love Per 100.000 dollari t’ammazzo/Vengeance is Mine and at present I prefer it to Guerrieri’s 10.000 dollari per un massacro: for me the only problem is that in his next SW Uno di più all’inferno/One More to Hell the director Giovanni Fago has not been able to remain on the same very high level… 
I finally decided to check this little gem because I liked $10.000 Blood Money which I watched about a year ago (both movies have same kind of plot ideas as you all know). Giovanni Fago does good job directing this one and it’s easy to see that Fago had seen all Sergio Leone’s westerns before this because the style of directing reminds me of Leone. Also Nora Orlandi’s soundtrack has that typical Ennio Morricone feeling which actually wasn’t a bad thing at all. I liked Claudio Camaso’s and Gianni Garko’s parts here, they both have strong roles to play and they do solid job too. All in all Vengeance is Mine isn’t a SW masterpiece but it isn’t just an average SW either, it’s something in between. I like these kind of westerns but I also understand why some people don’t like this movie because of the flasbacks etc.
Still it’s solid 3,5 stars out of 5 from me. 8)
One of the spags I still have to watch and I’ve feeling I’m going to like it.
I’ve just seen this one and this is an extraordinary spaghetti western, I must say. Yes, very unusually well written one. There is a lot of depth in two main characters played by Gianni Garko and Claudio Camaso and the whole story is more character-driven and the psychological aspect is much more developed than in case of other genre examples. I wasn’t particularly astonished by action sequences which were apart from being far and few between, rather straight-forwardly done, nothing to get excited about. However, the plot reminds me of a sort of Greek tragedy and the irony seems to be almost everywhere. The son, played by Garko, who turns out to be a bastard is much better than his brother. Also, the retrospections give it a very distinctive look and render it almost a psychologically-tinged western. The direcion by Fago is quite strong one, the rendition is very good. The only thing I can complain about is an excessive utilize of zooms, but fortunately this doesn’t disturb too much. Alternative Top 10 for sure. 7/10
1 Like
^ 7 out of 10 seems a little low after reading your opinion of it. But I guess everybody has different rating systems.
I altered my system of evaluation some time ago and now it’s similar to Stanton’s, that is: 6 - good, 7 - very good, 8 - great, 9 - phenomenal, 10 - masterpiece. I’d give only five or four spaghettis rating 10 out of 10 which is an equivalent of perfection for me.
In a fun factor I’d rate Vengeance Is Mine: 9 or 8.
Not exactly my system, but close. But it’s great to have an influence. 
Between 6 = good and 10 = masterpiece I’m not so sure how to give names to what the numbers exactly mean. Maybe 8 correspondents to very good, but very good is already a great praise. And phenomenal and masterpiece would be different words for the same thing.
The basic idea is still that mediocre means a low quality, and a 5 (which means half as good as a masterpiece) is much too much for a mediocre work.
In the SLWB is a guy for which 7 is already a mediocre film, and every film beneath is close to be unwatchable. That makes it tricky to compare films by ratings.
Interesting, re: ratings system. Very few films I’ve seen ever get below a five. A six is an average, mediocre film. A seven is a good movie. An eight… Now here we have a superbly entertaining film that works on its own level perfectly. A nine is a masterpiece. A ten really only belongs to just over half a dozen or so motion pictures.
Which means you use a rating system with 10 or 11 numbers (if one includes the 0), but only 4 numbers are actually used.
Well that’s because most films are technically competent, even if the content is trash, and thus deserve at least a five out of ten.
I’ve done that in school too, although I used a few more, from 3 to 9 (3 and 9 were extremely rare)
Zero points were only for fraudulent behaviour
For movies I could imagine a 10, for a couple of them. I always liked the four star rating system used by Maltin. His system was/is:
**** = masterpiece
***1/2 = very good
*** = good
**1/2 = above average
** = average
*1/2 = below average
Instead of one star, he uses BOMB.
It was a popular system for quite some time, follwed by magazines and newspapers, but today most use a five star or 1-10 rating system.
The one used by Halliwell is better. (but his taste isn’t)
4 is obviously a masterpiece.
2 is a good one
1 is acceptable
Half of the films in his book are 0, which means he doesn’t bother to differentiate between mediocre and bad. That you can clear for yourself by reading the short critics.
The rating system isn’t described, he only says he gives points for each step of quality, but the above description is what I think what the points stand for.
That’s better than using a 10 point system in which everything beneath 6 is terrible and 6 is already an insult (unless it is for a Fidani).
For me a 4 has still some quality. Not a film to recommend, but one which is entertaining on a low level.
The idea is still if a film is half as good as a true masterpiece, then it ain’t a bad film. So a 5/10 film can still have certain values.
Loser Halliwell 
I think for Halliwell a star is always a sign of appreciation, so * is already something like better than average. ** good, *** very good and **** whatever you wish, masterpiece, unforgettable, excellent.
I have an older copy of Halliwell, but I hardly ever use it, I don’t like his approach, taste etc.
I do not always agree with Maltin, but in its kind, his guide is one of the best there is, and even if do not agree, his writings often makes sense. He doesn’t know much about Sws though, but I’ve got other books for them.
That’s what I said with other words
I have an older copy of Halliwell, but I hardly ever use it, I don't like his approach, taste etc. I do not always agree with Maltin, but in its kind, his guide is one of the best there is, and even if do not agree, his writings often makes sense. He doesn't know much about Sws though, but I've got other books for them.
I use Halliwell for a quick look at credits and runtimes. His ratings are often too mainstream like, too far away from my taste. Maltin is better for that. Mostly check runtimes in his book.
I have fun checking sometimes the ratings, but they are not important. Just one more opinion amongst dozens of others.
I wish thee were such books for every European film too.
Oh yeah …
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:75, topic:1234”]I think for Halliwell a star is always a sign of appreciation, so * is already something like better than average. ** good, *** very good and **** whatever you wish, masterpiece, unforgettable, excellent.
I have an older copy of Halliwell, but I hardly ever use it, I don’t like his approach, taste etc.
I do not always agree with Maltin, but in its kind, his guide is one of the best there is, and even if do not agree, his writings often makes sense. He doesn’t know much about Sws though, but I’ve got other books for them.[/quote]
I agree, Halliwell’s rating system is quite intriguing - his two-star films a usually worht checking out. His taste in movies is pretty orthodox, but that’s no worse than Maltin’s. I find his to be quite on the predictable side (and some of Halliwell’s put-downs are priceless). My favourite film guide is the Time Out Film Guide that has good coverage of just about all films, including documentary’s and experimental art movies (alas, Spaghetti Westerns are sorely uner-represented).
I have that too. A guide from, I think, 2000. They have an interesting site too.
Most films Halliwell gives a low rating I give a higher rating. He just works in reverse as far as my taste in films goes.