IslandGuru Who payed the critics

TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

angelsunchained Jack Palance is horrible in this film. He gives what I call a "berserk" performance which is so over the top, that it is hard to watch. George Maharis and Christian Roberts are equally as bad in their acting; both sound ridiculous using Southern accents and they also grossly over act their roles as psycho lunatics. However, if you don't take this garbage too seriously, it does provide some late, rainy night, entertainment.

35541m The Desperados is obviously an attempt to up the ante in the violence stakes to rival that of the spaghetti western genre. It was filmed in 1968 in Spain with an American and British cast and an American director. However, the hysterical approach to the material proves counter-productive and the film is appallingly directed and choreographed with actors falling over for no obvious reason or otherwise standing still and waiting for things to happen to them.An example of director Levin's ineptitude is when Palance and his gang raid a Texas town in order to rob the bank. After shooting up the place a while, some of the gang members dismount and enter the bank to rob it. Inside the bank, people are still at tills being served by cashiers as if nothing is happening! The same thing happens in the opening massacre when the Union soldiers are still emerging from their tents (to be easily shot) several minutes after wholesale gunfire has been raging nearby.Matters are not helped by the fact that all prints are heavily censored. The opening massacre (based on Quantrill's massacre of Lawrence, Kansas) suffers from several obvious censor cuts - for example, as Palance is about to shoot a group of men lined up against a building there is an abrupt cutaway and we hear only a single shot dubbed over the face of Vince Edwards - and is extremely choppy as a result. A scene towards the end between Palance and Kate O'Mara is also heavily cut.In the face of this ineptitude, some ripe overacting by Palance and the actor who plays his youngest son is the only thing left to enjoy.

Poseidon-3 What could have been an interesting tale of marauding renegade Confederates out for revenge becomes a slapdash, tawdry mess of a film. Ringleader Palance (a former parson!) and his sons Edwards, Maharis and Roberts, along with a huge gaggle of violent rebels blaze a path across the southwest frontier robbing, raping and burning anything in their midst. It's all because their own loved ones were brutalized when they were out killing Union soldiers on a raid. Finally, Edwards decides he's had enough and he and his wife (Syms) start over in a new town with an assumed name. They also have a son. However, it's only a matter of time before the relentless Palance and his band of un-merry men make their way to this heretofore quiet town. Edwards (his svelte, muscular days as a posing strap model long behind him) gives an exceedingly wooden performance. His character's motivations rarely make sense because of the weak script and because it's never really clear what he's thinking! Outfitted with Elvis-style porkchop sideburns, he mostly stares blankly and expressionless at the events around him (unless constipation can be considered an expression.) At the other end of the spectrum is Palance, who mercilessly overacts with an abandon not likely to be found anywhere outside the movie "Mommie Dearest". His ungodly performance has to be seen to be believed. Inexplicably drawing out certain words and syllables, screaming at the top of his lungs and throwing over-the-top tantrums every few minutes, he is a profound embarrassment. Maharis is given little to do as the middle son, but Roberts, as the youngest son, gives Palance a run for his money in the ham acting department. It is excruciating to watch Roberts mug and cajole incessantly through the film. O'Mara pops up rather briefly as a lame hooker (!) who hobbles around everywhere when she ought to be doing her job. She finally gets a little more to do near the end. Brand turns up as the rotund, but caring Marshall of the town Edwards has settled in. He pays for his friendliness with a sound beating. The lovely and talented Syms is FAR out of place in a movie this crass and tasteless. She provides the one ounce of class that the picture has. The sets look like something that Bonanza would reject as inauthentic, the camerawork is distractingly busy, the editing is choppy to say the least and the music is alternately abysmal and inappropriate. On good thing the film has going for it is a series of pretty decent action sequences. Some of the raiding is arrestingly done and there's a nifty scene onboard a moving train. The dynamic of the son turning against the father and having a fateful reunion could have been a great one, but unfortunately there were too many weak elements involved to sell it properly. Another oddity is the prevalence of British actors in the cast (playing Americans.)

lonniebealeusa I love western movies be they "B" grade or top of the range but this miserable excuse for a movie is a shocker.How Jack Palance and Vince Edwards got involved with this is beyond my imagination.Needless violence ,bad script,bad acting and the worst director of all time.Memo to the director I hope you gave up the business.Made in the hip '60's with '60's mood music and arty camera angles,it just does not come off. I saw this mish mash on the late,late late show where it deserves to stay for all time. John Ford must be rolling in his grave if he knew what happened to western movies and if this is an example of where the movie western was heading then it was time to give western movie making one long rest.