Reviews

The movie wasn't funny. It made me angry. So, why such polarized reviews? I think it's a statement about the state of affairs in the US.

The US has always been full of bone-deep anti-intellectuals. Anyone with an education is suspect. We've got a joke of a President because a certain segment were fed up with people with educations telling them to be more respectful of everyone and get over out-dated behaviors. But this goes further. This movie is the cinematic equivalent of the kind of societal failure that whips out of a parking lot in front of you, forcing you to brake heavily to avoid an accident, then drives painfully slow. That's the kind of person that finds this movie funny. The kind of person that will never achieve anything...except they can keep you from getting something done!

So, what's wrong with a movie for people like that? Well, like the aforementioned crowd that worships the orange one, it's cruel! It's not just that aggressive anti-intellectualism is cool, so is being rude and cruel. "What's wrong with pulling the wings off flies, you pointy headed intellectual!" Yeah. It's on that level.

Does that whole phenomenon anger you as well? Well, that's the one useful thing about this movie. Those people like to lie about their feelings and keep their ugliness behind closed doors with their buddies. This movie is a good way to ferret them out. And you can see the denial/projection in the reviews. "Something wrong with you". Just what I said. So, when reviews say, "If you don't find this funny, there's something wrong with you", it's just like all the other things that 1/3 minority is angry about. Someone not being like them. Someone knowing something that they never will. Someone acting like humans aren't naturally cruel and insensitive.

Isn't that hilarious?!?

And if you think there can't be enough people like that to account for the positive reviews, just look at the reviews for any of Tarantino's travesties of cinema. Mindless tribalism and video game ethics rampant.

If the message could have been put more metaphorically, this might have worked. But doing it straight ahead in such a pedantic tone- whilst being just wrong- doesn't cut it. The fact is a gull couldn't do that; humans are one of the few species that could. Pedantic dressed up as cutesy. Lose!

And as far as teaching goes, the main thing it has taught three generations is the grammatically incorrect "seagull". There's no such thing people. They're "gulls". Seagull. Right. As opposed to "landgull"?

I agree with the other reviews on here and wasn't going to write one, but thought there was something I could add. I'm not one of the "so bad it's good" crowd. 90% of the time when I've seen something billed that way I've come away saying, "No, that was just bad". "Petey Wheatstraw" comes to mind.

But this one works. It's more absurdist than parody, though some bits are just inscrutable (why does he dress as Cato whenever he fights Dracula???) It appears that it's only bad when it wants to appear bad. It definitely is a "B-movie", but it's a bit to well thought out to actually be one. Not that that means the screenplay is logical. It isn't. But the moving bits fit together just a bit too well to actually be an inferior effort. If you're in the mood for a "so bad it's good" and one of the crowd doesn't swing that way, but likes martial arts films, you could safely give this one a go.

The fighting is largely karate, with obvious bits of Gung Fu added to make it look kind of like Gung Fu. Is that deliberate? Low budget? Who knows. The karate ain't bad. Bits of Muay Thai and lots of other things. Bruce imitates so many of Lee's mannerisms that it doesn't much matter, but for those that want a bit of serious martial arts, some of the karate choreography isn't bad. Again, revealing that it's not so "B" as it wishes to appear.

So, my verdict is "crazy like a fox". Which isn't to underestimate how crazy it is. Popeye. (Cum theme music and real life versions of his classic animation sequences) Yeah, dudes, you betray that you're thinking more than an Ed Wood would. (And that pun is totally in keeping with this film).

Whether you think this movie was atypical or not, I think, comes down to what you pay attention to. If you're the kind that gets into personal details, you'll likely think that, but if you're looking at the genre top down it's not that different than the standard fare. I felt it was a solid example of the genre and worth watching for genre-philes. It does well with non SW lovers as well, so, a solid entry I say. You could argue that it is very typical in the way it is atypical. The glasses are a good example. Seems an odd touch if you think of it in an absolute sense, but typical "routinely does the highly improbable" in SW terms.

I liked it.

I can't see how anyone could find this movie tedious. It was glorious, life changing and...FUN! It's a great docu-movie, full stop. But I have a thing for eating something appropriate with a movie and that opens the possibility to make this one extra entertaining. You can order online from a well known online marketplace the exact same teas he is tasting in this movie. After his visit a number of the growers he visits formed co-ops and they sell their tea online. I got a pound of really nice oolong at a reasonable price and a 14 year old puer that is un- freakin-believable. It's exactly like the black cakes with the depression in the center in the movie except that they're single serving sized. Man, was that a great combo with the movie!

The rating on this is WAAAAY too low. I can only conclude that there are a lot of anti-intellectuals voting.

Produced by and starring Fouad al-Mohandis, directed by Hassan Hafez and written by Anwar Abdallah, and featuring the popular Egyptian actress Shwikar, the movie tanked at the box office. I can find no information on the director. The movie is pretty much Spaghetti Western comedy/Bollywood...done by Egyptians acting like Mexicans. Fouad el-Mohandes is a legend of the Egyptian screen with a LOT of movies to his credit. Shwikar is his wife (in real life). This was near the end of his career and I get the idea it's a "Hey, I'm going to make my own this time and do it how I want it done". Many, many, many of those kind of projects did much worse than this one did.

And it actually works. Make no mistake, it's very much B-movie fare, but there are very few that take on Spaghetti Westerns as comedy and end up with something that's actually worth watching. It's got a solid story for such a light-weight movie. Pretty good sets, some nice extemporaneous touches a la Touche Pas a la Femme Blanche, and EVERY stereotype you will ever see in a SW.

So, it's one of the more interesting "also rans" of the genre. How often are you going to get the chance to see a SW that's that different...and it pretty much works? From a director that you've never heard of? And those Egyptians don't make bad Mexicans. :-)

I don't know what's available vis a vis releases. It's not easy to find. Mine was in Arabic with French subtitles hard coded. If you're even semi-proficient in French you will have no trouble. It's very simple and straight-forward dialog with the action carrying most of the humor as opposed to arcane puns and such.

I'm giving it a seven because I'm as likely to watch it again as the ones I give a seven to. Your mileage may vary, but for fans of the genre, I can't imagine being disappointed (unless you don't know French :-( ). The 5/10 it has on here is *definitely* too low. On every level it's better than that. I was glad I'd seen it. I'll remember it a lot longer than the n+1th Sartana knock-off.

I watched this wondering about Keoma Rises and am a fan of the director's work. I love any Spaghetti Western that is better than mediocre. So, bottom line, it was a disappointment to watch one that I basically just didn't like.

I think we all agree the soundtrack is awful. But the awful songs can be muted while they're wailing away (I don't know one can really call it singing). But the big problem for me was that it was obvious that the director had been told it was the last SW the studio was doing and he's WAY too conscious of that fact. Also, we watch SWs for what they are, not for how they inspired other genres, creating some kind of weird cinematic echo chamber. Elements of Peckinpaugh and Hong Kong action flicks- but not integrated in any way. Just kind of, "Let's do some of that..."

If you notice the firearms and the year it'll drive you nuts. Obviously supposed to be circa 1870, mostly it's what you'd expect to see immediately after the Civil War. But it's like they ran out of period arms and just grabbed whatever else was around for some scenes. Lots of 1873 Winchester rifles and I thought even saw the odd 1890's model. Ditto the Colt Peacemaker, alongside your standard issue Civil War Colt. I suppose it could be 1874, but were those arms instantly available everywhere??? Given the rest, one thinks they weren't too concerned about it.

Bottom line for me, it was a seriously misguided attempt that is waaaay too conscious of its being what it is, the swan song of the classic pasta western.

The movie is entitled "A Long Line of Crosses" and I suggest watching it in Italian with subtitles to appreciate what it was supposed to be like. American release titles are often 100% marketing in the genre, and have NOTHING to do with the movie or the people that made it. This has to be the most extreme example. I don't think it counts as a spoiler to note that a) There is no Django in this, and b) there is no hanging. There's no long line of crosses for that matter, but it's an apt title.

For me, there are four major classes in the genre. First, those that are great movies outside the genre, second, those that are not as good as that but better than the average example, those that are fair to middling and those that are below par. For me, this was a solid example of the second class.

It's slightly over the top in terms of self-consciousness of the genre, but that's OK for lovers of Spaghetti Westerns. Yeah, we can see The Preacher is obviously an imitation of Klaus Kinski in The Great Silence and lots of other over the top flourishes, but they never detract from the flow. I enjoyed it.

Many of the genre were social commentaries on American's place and actions in the world and issues of concern to progressives in the 1960s. This one does that solidly, but gets so much right about US/Mexico border issues that it is still relevant as I write this in 2016. I would have given this 7/10, but that raises it a point in my estimation.

Meal pairing suggestion: Camarones a la Diabola with rice and refried beans and flour tortillas.

The reviews on this one seem to be love it/hate it. I think that's down to Gandolfini's role. I think it attracts a lot of the "bada-bing" crowd that really believes that whole load of dog excrement. If, however, you're moderately intelligent and know what a crock that stuff is, you will say, "Finally, a mob film that is pretty darn realistic and no doubt much, much closer to the truth".

I found some of the extended dialogue sequences a bit tedious. It didn't ruin it though. Good performances all around. Could have done without some of the artsy fartsy sequences, but that didn't ruin it either. Great Louisiana backdrop.

It was just the thing to watch with dirty rice and cajun roast duck and a nice cab.

During field tests with a local corn seed supplier I had to work on site and the work was based out of Pontiac, IL. People didn't revel in their small town status. They hated it and left as soon as they could, if they could. It was horrible. Everything. Try getting a decent meal out when the locals are actually afraid of spices. Not, "I prefer blander food" or such, but true horror at the thought that they might accidentally get slipped something cooked with the appropriate spices. I don't mean hot, I mean anything other than salt and pepper. And pepper's considered pretty darn exotic.

Jamie Lee used to show up at the bar I used to frequent after work, during the shoot. That didn't even make it interesting. In fact, she was a bloody nuisance. Real attention seeker. First time I saw her I'd been in there about 10 minutes and a roadie walked in and she flashed her breasts at him and said, "How do you like these sets?"

I suppose the movie does capture the grinding nothingness of it all. I found the plot insipid and the acting pretty bad. Patrick Swayze was just irritating. Surely you have something better to do than to watch this movie. I guess those that rated it highly are engaging in a kind of rationalization. Trapped in someplace like Fairbury, IL they convince themselves that they love small town Americana. Maybe they're afraid to leave. I mean, if spices scare you, the world might seem pretty terrifying. I guarantee it won't intrude on you in central Illinois!

Italian cinema is usually pretty allegorical, so I had to check out a Damiano Damiani movie that was actually about Italian history. It's really a kind of euro-crime movie, set in Mussolini's Rome. The Italian title literally means "Girolimoni, The Monster of Rome". Besides the elements of a euro-crime movie it also serves as a vehicle to think about how things work in a totalitarian society. It's been said of such societies that the more they impose rigid order on the surface, the more they breed chaos below the surface. This movie dramatizes that well. It's worth watching, now late in 2015, as the US moves towards outright fascism with some of the POTUS candidates. It's good to remember what life is like when appearance is very important and facts count for very little. Fascism has come to mean Nazism, and people forget that the first fascist, Mussolini, defined it as "the union of corporate and state interests". It wasn't about racism. If you think that mindset is far from America, just look at the obverse of a Mercury dime coin. That's a Roman fasces, they symbol from which Mussolini took the name of his movement.

I'm beginning to think that the biggest haters of Spaghetti Westerns are the fans of Hollywood Westerns. It would explain the mediocre reviews on this one. I'm just the reverse, and really enjoyed this movie.

An early "talkie", there's no soundtrack as that concept didn't exist yet. Bogart's fifth full length movie, I liked his character in this one much more than usual. I'm not a fan of Bogie movies. Having him as the villain of the piece and a nasty one at that fits him much more, imho. He's constantly rejected by his love interest, not swooned over. Much better!

I would argue that this movie shows that the Spaghetti Western style of Western was the natural progression, but that was derailed by the Hollywood Production Code and those in Hollywood that thought they had to be the conservative moral saviors of the country. It's not so much the cinematography and there's no musical score, it's more the way common Western elements are handled. I got a DVD with some Spaghetti Westerns on it the other day and an insert had some classic Western characters on it with the caption, "My heroes have always been cowboys". That made me realize how that's so Hollywood and very much the opposite of the Spaghetti genre. Bogart plays a SW type cowboy, not a Hollywood styled one. Revenge and mystery are the plot drivers, so, I really don't think it's a stretch to compare it to the Italian variety.

The plot is solid and moves the action along. The acting is good. Being 85 years old it's interesting just to look at things from the point of view of a picture that was totally contemporary at the time.

I'm not a huge fan of Demofilo Fidani, but I think this is his best, and I'm writing this mainly to refute the rubbish in some of the other reviews of this one that I've seen.

Can you imagine someone watching an Ed Wood movie, because it's an Ed Wood movie, and complaining about the sets being cheap??? That's pretty much what I'm seeing, absurd as it is. That and people that don't know anything about the genre. Hey, people, Spaghetti Westerns existed before that useless twerp Tarantino decided to rip them off. He ripped off the blood squibs and such from Hong Kong action cinema, not from SWs. They've never been big into that. Hand waving is good when you're doing it deliberately and you know you are. It's irritating when it's supposed to work as logic, but when you just want to say, "and then that happens" it works in a B movie. Klaus Kinski is great as ever.

Simonetta Vitelli (as Simone Blondell) has to be one of the most gorgeous women that has ever walked the planet. Cheap shots about her looks??? Definitely from someone whose taste is limited to their lingual epithelium.

People who aren't a fan of the genre could well give "Miles Deem" a miss. Those that love it and don't want to be disappointed by one of his would do well to watch this one, imho. It's just slip-shod enough to be Fidani, but not so Fidani that it gets in the way of being a decent spaghetti western. People that love the genre will know there's a long ways between the best and worst. Anyone comparing it with the top 10 obviously has seen about 3 of the genre.

I don't understand that ratings on this one. The titles rave...and they give it 5 or 6 out of 10. Did someone convert the scale? This is definitely in the top 15% of the genre.

What an enjoyable "Zapatista" Spaghetti Western! Yeah, I know it's not Zapata's era, but that's the style of the movie. So many great little inventive bits that are so Spaghetti Western. New to it all or an addict, I think this one would satisfy anyone that isn't an avowed hater of the genre.

I suppose a lot of the negative reviews come from people that believe the title and posters. Yeah, it's not really of the Sabata filone. But just forget the hype and watch it for what it is and I think you'll certainly enjoy it.

I'm beginning to think that if a movie is not in wide distribution that you can take one point off the IMDb rating. Look at the reviews for this one. One six and everyone else giving it a 7 or 8, but the IMDb rating is 6.3. That's the only reason I'm writing this. It's better than 6.3. lol Not that my "7" really expresses that, but we have to use integers. I'd give it 7.5, and there's LOTS of the genre between 6.3 and 7.5.

I loved the music score, it's a solid story and there's a great edginess about everyone and everything. Sets are good, gun play is solid. I think fans of the genre will want to see it.

I can't see the current rating among users of the site giving it 6.3. It's a solid "8". You can tell Tomas Milian is a method actor. He's great acting a bit over the top, batsh*t crazy. I wasn't aware of this performance, but would now definitely include it with Almost Human and Four of the Apocalypse.

Perhaps low ratings come from the fact this is hard to find and people may be getting crappy overdubs and translations. The English dubbed version mis-translates lots of the Italian. Good subtitles are hard to come by. Haven't seen the Koch Media version, only the original VHS. That's all relevant because the only real irritation about this one- the gratuitous use of Django when it isn't and has nothing to do with the plot- is totally absent in the Italian original. He's "Cash", not Django.

A very solid pasta western, I wish the director had done more of them. But I think it's not only for genre fans but for fans of 20th century Italian cinema. It has elements of all their genres, most notably the giallos. There's even a whiff of pepla about it. For that reason, I can't imagine anyone that likes any type of movie not liking this one to some extent.

I was really surprised at how well constructed this one was, but not overly so, as I'm a fan of the director's other Spaghetti Westerns. Great plot without twists and turns for their own sake; simple yet compelling, it drives the action along. A fan of the Zapatista subgenre, I really enjoyed watching this.

And then I had to wonder about why it's not rated higher. Bottom line, I think it's a lot like recipe sites. Many simple, really tasty recipes are overlooked because snooty types see certain elements- or are offended that certain elements aren't just the way the book says they should be- without ever evaluating the bottom line; "Does it work? Is it tasty? Is it good cooking?" That's too bad, because they rob themselves of so much doing that.

Fans of the genre won't want to miss it. Casual observers of the genre will enjoy it. The snooty will always find a way to make themselves bored and miserable.

Fans of Carlo Lizzani will recognize many subtexts in this film. An interesting take on the sub-sub-genre of Spaghetti Western with a Civil War revenge theme, attempting to reincorporate traditional Hollywood elements, it doesn't lose sight of its Italian inspired roots.

The sets are a little slap dash, but the score and direction make up for it. The current rating on here of 5.6 is way too low. It deserves at least a 7-8 on the all time Spaghetti Western scale.

The sets are a little slap dash, but the score and direction make up for it. The current rating on here of 5.6 is way too low. It deserves at least a 7-8 on the all time Spaghetti Western scale.

At this writing the masses are rating it 6.6/10, which is just too low. 80% of those that took the time to write a review are giving it 8/10. That's more like it.

I'm glad that it ended when it did. Da Brooklyn a Corleone would make a nice sequel, but not all in one movie!

There's not a lot you can say in a review of this particular movie without a spoiler cropping up, so I guess I could say in that regard that it's extremely plot-driven. The characters are drawn in a much more believable way than the current crop of mafia orientated movies that suffer from way too much badda-bingness.

I can't find a subtitles file for this anywhere, so I had to watch in English, which was OK for the Brooklyn scenes. If I ever get my hands on one, I would LOVE to create a version of this movie where the scenes in Sicily are done in Italian with English subtitles, and the scenes in Brooklyn are done in English. The script actually lends itself to that, with one of the locals in NY asking what a particular word is in Italian. That has to be in English, but the scenes in Sicily obviously weren't. Of course the elephant in the room is that real Sicilian wouldn't sound much like standard Italian, but, hey, close enough. That would be a truly awesome improvement to what is already a really solid flick. If someone PM's me with a subtitle file, I will share the result. I promise, it will be awesome. Well, it is already. My copy already has English/Italian sound tracks, so the project is very doable.

The comments largely have it right, though not always the right conclusion. Many said, "not the usual revenge flick", and a few of the less sentient commentators dissed Franco Nero's performance. Put it all together and that's precisely why this gets 8/10 from me. MUCH better than anything Charles Bronson did, and I think better than a lot of the Spaghetti Western "revenge" movies. Nero's character isn't invincible. He's not even very good at it. But that gives it a realism that owes more to Italian horror films than to the westerns. Perhaps that's why Barbara Bach is in it. Could have changed her name...

Very much a period piece, if it seems a bit much at times, you need to read up on what Italian society was like when this was filmed. A strike every other day, a bombing on the off days, petty crime rampant, sex drugs and rock 'n roll everywhere, police on the take, mafia shakedowns about anywhere, kidnappings, extortion... If you're not going to make a primo revenge flick in that milieu, I guess you never will. The Italian title is more descriptive. "A Citizen who Rebels".

If you're a fan of the Zapatista sub-genre of Spaghetti Westerns, you will not want to miss this one. Chock full o' all the good Italian Marxist/Zapatista staples, it is not preachy but highly contemplative, ultimately leaving the viewer to choose their stance. Nice pacing, it never drags. A very considered and well executed Zapatista SW.

If you're simply a fan of Spaghetti Westerns I think you'd give it between 6-7, rather than the 8-9 that I'm giving it since I really love that sub-genre. I can't see how a straight SW fan would be disappointed though.

The only audience that I think might be put off by it is the "pat answers", "everything tied up with a bow on it" crowd. Throughout, it just refused to do that. That's tasty from where I sit, though.

This movie must be pretty rare. Few votes one way or the other on sites like this, and it is never mentioned in Austin Fischer's go-to reference on the genre, "Radical Frontiers in the Spaghetti Western". I have to think he's not familiar with it, because it makes many of his points better than the examples he gives. If you like studying that sort of thing, this one will let you get away from the feeling that the best examples of the sub-genre are pretty much written in stone. Here's one that has stayed below the radar waiting for your own personal discovery. I watched an original Italian wide screen version with English subtitles. I don't know where/how it has been released, but I really liked it that way as opposed to dubbed or whatever. Actually, I'm remembering now that I did my own subtitles file for it, so I'm not sure what's actually available.

I don't think this counts as a spoiler, because you never are told this in the movie, but the bandito's name is quite tongue in cheek. He has a sort of Brillo pad kind of hair, and his name translates as "Evil Hair", or "Bad Hair".

I like most all Spaghetti Westerns and love most all the "Zapatista" political ones. I think this is my favorite of the lot, though. It's not a fun movie, but it's just so...fun! Only the best, most critical to the genre, can I watch more than once in a six month period and this one I can watch anytime anyone suggests it.

I'm not going to go into all the ways it's arguably the best because this would be a very, very long review, but it's not lacking in any department. The underlying politics is thick and serious and contemporary to its time. The cast is...did I say fun...not to mention extremely talented actors doing some of their best work. That theme has to be the ear worm from hell, though not unpleasantly so, for an ear worm.

I give this one 10/10.

Food pairing: Venison Enchiladas Rojo with Beans and Rice and Negra Modelo

I'm not sure I agree this is a classic example of the '70s Italian crime film genre, but it certainly is a solid example of one. Personally, I felt that the classic examples, the best of the genre, were put together better. I agree with the comment that said it was a bit slap-dash. Has an odd combination of interesting plot twists and real agonizing drawn out "you know xyz is going to happen". The latter are pretty trite and that's not something I'm used to seeing in the genre and I think it's weak that way. But for all the other reasons you watch one of these, it's a solid example, so I'm giving it 6/10. The scenes of Naples are fun and stitch the whole thing together.

Food suggestion: pizza margherita and a cheeky red wine

I think this one has to get an award for putting all the classic Spaghetti Western elements together seamlessly into one movie. It's very 1966 and Franco Nero is obviously trying to adopt an Eastwood mannerism. For those that love these, it's an interesting transitional piece by a director that didn't do this filone. I think he did a great job and it's well worth seeing. It transcends the "must see" label because you will actually remember it, imho.

Consumer warning: If you play the "have a shot of tequila when they do" game watching these, this one will waste you. They fire it down pretty regularly. It's a killer. I've never seen so many tequila and whiskey slugs in one movie. lol Maybe that's the message. "Shots not slugs!"

Food pairing: Bison Swiss Cheese Burgers with Fries