Angeli del west

I think this movie was EXTREMELY slow and boring, It might be because there was no music in the backround.

The film is made in the manner of a dark brooding Scandinavian melodrama and is more of a slice of the darker side of prostitution. I saw it on video by Sterling and they should be shot for the box promotion which indicated more of a sensual sexual randy tale: "Expert in the pleasures of the flesh, these women...put the wild in the west." Obviously the person writing this did not bother to watch the film. On the video cover three saloon dressed typed women were added (none of whom were in the movie) further adding to the false advertising of the film. Yes it is slow and even boring and hardly uplifting, but it is a tale of women trapped in a degrading 'lifestyle.' The nudity in this film is about as titilating as the nudity in Jennifer Connelly's "Requiem for a Dream".

It simply doesn't. I agree that the title "Wicked Wicked West" is not a good one for what this film is. It's actually a terrible title. But the film itself is a noble effort at realistically portraying something that most Westerns don't really give a crap about, the women of "easy virtue". In many movies set in this time and place, the prostitute characters (often barely qualifying as full characters) are just taken for granted: jolly, good fun, not really are they problematic, but seen more the context of innocent male back-slapping fun. No harm done, right? Well, this is more like what it really was. I visited Tombstone, Arizona a while ago and between the touristy things there was also a small exhibit about what the lives of prostitutes were like. It is the saddest thing ever. The women as in this film are on the lucky end the the spectrum, as they themselves realize and often say. There were many, many women in this line of work in the old West, and the hopelessness of their situation was just beyond belief. Diseases, abortions, laudanum abuse. And all of it is real, real, real historical documented real.

So yeah, as one reviewer commented, they make sex look boring. You know why? Because it *was* boring. Without intimacy, without love, fraught with the danger of disease and pregnancy (without modern medicine!)... given these conditions, isn't that the best it could be? The film itself was a bit boring in parts, but I liked the interactions of the characters. As far as historical fiction in film goes, there has been lots worse. And this is nowhere near the worst movie anybody has seen--- I mean it, the other reviewers are being a bit disingenuous here! To make a point, I suppose, that this is not their cup of tea. Fine, but it's still tolerably good stuff.

This film shows the real thing, how it probably was working at a small-town bordello during late 19th century. Nothing fancy at all. This is what it really was like. I liked the unusual structure of the film, the status quo-feeling that is so much more real compared to the basic -beginning-build up-the hero's back on top- structure. This is a great film! Unfortunately, it's an acquired taste.

Makes "Unforgiven" look like "Oklahoma"- horribly real. Fricker is like Thatcher - the only heroes in the end are the survivors - rings true don't you think? Feels like history instead of John Wayne. Pity the whole story isn't there.