Quando l'alba si tinge di rosso

a western. with the ambition to be more than one of ordinaries examples of genre. and this desire is far to be extravagant. because it propose a seductive story of lost, friendship, form of fatherhood and spirit of youth. and the great surprise remains Anthony Franciosa who has the best occasion to do a role in which the nuances are real important. Michael Sarrazin gives , more than a credible character, a lovely portrait of an age. it is a special story. about success and grow up, about love and seduction, about illusions and lost causes, about heroism and about ...women and the force who defines the words. short, more than a good western. because the classic story has deep roots. and an inspired director.

A watered- down remake of 1955's "Man Without a Star." And this one lacks the 'star' power (Kirk Douglas) of the original. The routine stroy of mentor and young tender-foot seems just that-routine. Franciosa lacks the 'chutzpa' to bring this one off...watch the original instead.

This movie is like a lot of others made at the height of the Vietnam War - I swear Hollywood was chucking out really bad movies just to take people's minds off the war (check out Burt Lancaster in "The Swimmer" some time.) Number 1: bad songs. This is a trademark of movies made between '65 and '71. Number 2 (or 1b): use of the harpsichord. Again, a key instrument in American movies made between 65 and 71. Then, there's the anti-hero (or two of them here.) I guess by 1968 / 1969, all the good western stories had been done. (Until Josey Wales, Dances with Wolves, and Unforgiven, that is.)

This movie's writer and director must have said to themselves, "let's take the worst of the 1960's and put those characters in the 1880's." Let's imagine the Woodstock generation faced with a range war.

I won't say it's a bad western but what is useful to produce this remake? It looks like a tV western, especially if you see it in pan and f...scan. This is boring, cheesy, not crap but so useless. This is a bad late sixties - early seventies stuff. I expected some kind of gloomy, brutal, downbeat movie, not this kind at least. Cast seems OK but the characters bland, not convincing at all. I hardly fought against sleep till the end of this oater. The King Vidor's version also hardly interested me. OK, I admit that the relationship, the psycholigical link between Franciosa and Sarrazin can be a bit worth the view. But ONLY THIS. Not that bad ending too.

This is a remake of "Man Without A Star", which packed a lot more star power, and a much better story. In fact, the biggest star in this version may be Western favorite John Anderson.

It is about a man (gee, could his name be Gannon?) who takes on a naive young man as his protégé. Unlike the original, both these guys are not credible characters. They have too much of the modern cinema touch in them, the desire to kill, kill, kill. They are more like a dork's comic book version of the original.

Neither character is likable, and the movie is much like a spaghetti western in that it tries to make you hate one less than another, which is how to choose who you like.

That sort of "director and writer" control freak format not only destroys the art and story of what they concoct, but it takes us out of the story, and makes us realize we're just watching. We're no longer into the story. Instead, we're just keenly aware of the presence of the director, writer, and others. They may as well just let the film crew walk around in the background. That would be less humiliating to them, as it would at least be honest.

A look at this film, and one wonders why the two leads don't just conquer the world in one day, since the movie makes them such supermen, and also makes them totally unidentifiable.

Every scene just fails compared to the original, which makes it even sadder, because the original wasn't a "great" movie, but compared to this, it looks like the Seven Samurai.