El regreso de Sabata

The third and last film in the Sabata-series is only slightly better than ADIÓS, SABATA. Lee Van Cleef is back as Sabata and his presence by itself is enough to make this a better movie than the second one with Yul Brynner. Still, Van Cleef can't entirely make up for the awful script and the attempts for comedy. The "gags" in this film are total misfires. Sometimes, Van Cleef is even required to act like a clown. His clothing too isn't as cool as it was in the superior first SABATA. And, excuse me, Sabata as a circus act????????

This all reminded me a bit of the SCREAM-trilogy, with the exception that the second film there was much better than here. The superior first one and the weak third one are however very similar in both series. Why all those unnecessary sequels? Why not leave people with the memory of a good film and not with that of some bad sequels? 4/10

Return of Sabata casts Lee Van Cleef back as the cunning and ruthless sharpshooter, Sabata. Similarities between the first Sabata movie where Van Cleef also played the same role are more than abundant: acrobats, comical sidekicks, greedy villains, double-crossing allies, Sabata shooting off with his cool 4-barreled Derringer and so forth. Lee Van Cleef rocks. He's as cool as ever, and all the other actors do at least fairly decent jobs supporting him.

Everything seems to be as well as in the first movie. Except that this time the plot is more complicated and filled with twists and turns (and plot holes). Unfortunately this is not entirely good thing: in time you lose track of the plot twists and begin to wonder the motives and the logic behind some of the characters behavior. Why did he do that? Wouldn't it been more logical to behave or act some other way? Much like Ocean's 12 or any other snotty "cleverer-than-thou" sequel, Return of Sabata drowns you with twists and turns just for the sake of confusing. This leads to the point that you actually have to watch Return of Sabata at least couple of times before the main plot fully unravels. Of course you do get the big picture in the end of the movie after the first watch, but in order to get all the nuances and small details in place you might want to give it another go. Not that the main plot would magically turn out to be any better: it just rewards you a little bit more since the second time you have a small grasp *why* somebody did something that seemed illogical or strange before. This time you know what's in that characters mind and you also know something about his motives. Then again, I strongly believe that these kind of character traits should have been portrayed clearer in the script (or acting) so you would have realized them during the first view time already.

In short? Return of Sabata offers great characters, but lousy and confusing plot. Still, it's worth a watch. Or two.

After Yul Brunner became Sabata for Indio Black, Lee Van Cleef reprises his original role in this final entry in the Sabata saga. Unfortunately it's also the lesser one, although probably the most expensive.

I've seen many a nonsensical spaghetti western in my life, but Return of Sabata takes the cake. There's probably some semblance of plot underneath all the twists and turns but one hour in and I was completely lost. No matter, it's still entertaining enough to pass the time. The action scenes are all that matters here, there are plenty of gunfights, goofy acrobatics and explosions. Good production values make it easy on the eyes, the sets, costumes and cinematography are all on pretty high standards to the point where this is probably one of the most expensive spaghetti westerns made, this side of Leone. The humour is mostly silly and flat, the acting is average and I've heard better (and worse) dubbings. Lee Van Cleef's usual charming and charismatic persona is another big plus. Watchable but by no means essential.

Of the three "Sabata" films, "Return of Sabata" is the weakest entry. It was included in the notorious book "The 50 Worst Films of All Time", though I don't think the movie, despite its problems, deserved that dubious honor. I've seen much worse spaghetti westerns. Though I didn't think the movie was all that great. The movie does have a few positive attributes. Lee Van Cleef still makes for an effective anti hero (though who convinced him to wear that awful hairpiece?), the musical score is spirited, and the action sequences have energy and punch. But someone should have sent the screenplay back for a major rewrite before filming stared. To put it bluntly, the movie pretty much makes no sense at all. Though I wasn't really bored at any moment, I simply couldn't understand what was going on. Also, Van Cleef's Sabata character seems in some aspects to be different than the Sabata character he played in the first film; I wouldn't be surprised if the screenplay was originally written to not be a Sabata film. While I guess the movie is essential viewing for spaghetti western fans and collectors, I think even they will find it tough going at times.

The plot of this film has to do with the town of Hobsonville where McIntock, a now prosperous miner and town over seer is taxing the people in order to get the money to build up their fair town into something special. Enter Sabata, who is following a trail that led him from a murder in a traveling circus to the town. Clearly there is a great deal of money at stake and Sabata smells something a miss as well as sensing that there is a buck to be made.

This is a rambling, often seemingly plot less, (comedic) western. You're a good way into the film before you realize what exactly is going on. There a good number of characters who are two timing or three timing each other and we get dragged into their machinations, and it seems that there really isn't a central story (or real villain), or at least a reason why Sabata is in the town, until the movie is about half over. Its not bad as such but towards the end of the first half you really do begin to wonder why you're watching the film.

The reason you're watching it is Lee Van Cleef. Van Cleef as Sabata is pure smart mouthed hero. He can't be beat and he knows it. He is a hero we'd all like to be, even if his motivations are questionable. Van Cleef goes along with the nonsense on screen and in the process makes it somehow okay to go along too.

Worth a look for western fans, others may want to take a pass unless they are in an undemanding mood.