Sangue nas Montanhas

Imagine you have all these ingredients to make a dish. You can do it one way or another but at the end you have to end up with a good meal.

Viewing this movie, for me, was like following a recipe where the instructions we're all mix-up in some weird order.

You have all this elements for a Western. A clear protagonist with motivation and a villian who took advantage of him, the little town in trouble, the cheeky partner, the goon with radical methods and, of course, action (Fist fights, gun fights, showdowns,you name it.). But all this are executed in a weird, poorly and mishandle way. Not all is bad, some plot points and action scenes we're well executed with some shots that can be appreciated.

Thomas Hunter did a decent job as the protagonist but he had two moods, angry or calm. He could've make a better job, like Dan Duryea who's role i believe was misuse. Henry Silva, in another hand, steals the movie. Charismatic, hammy and funny, i ending up rooting for him for all the movie.

Personally, it was a decent view. Nothing great but entertaining nonetheless. Do you like westerns and want to see this? Go for it, I hope you end up appreciating this movie more than me. First western? Look for another title, the're better westerns out there.

In The Hills Run Red, two Confederate thieves fleeing on a stagecoach draw cards to see which one will stay on the coach to lead their pursuers away and which one will jump off and hide with their fortune in stolen loot.

Five years later the unlucky loser of that card draw (Thomas Hunter) is released from prison to find his destitute wife deceased and his son sent away by his former partner, breaking the promise the promise to take care of them that the now wealthy rancher made to his friend.

Overall, this is worth viewing despite being saddled with a wooden lead performance by Hunter (cast for his passing resemblance to Clint Eastwood?) and a less than spectacular script.

It's made enjoyable by some gorgeous photography (the canyon bushwhack/stampede scene a standout), an excellent score by an uncredited Ennio Morricone, and good support by Dan Duryea and black-leather clad villain Henry Silva.

I wonder if this was an inspiration for John Woo's A Better Tomorrow.

I'm catching up on old westerns lately. And I must admit I haven't seen many good ones. The John Wayne-"classic" THE SEARCHERS was a real disappointment for example. But this movie is by far the worst I have ever seen in the western-genre. The story is set against the background of the Civil War. Two "buddies" return home with a large amount of stolen money, when they are being caught. One of them(Gazzolo) escapes from the "yankees"(with the money). The other one(Hunter) gets locked away for 5 years. When he is released, he finds out that his "friend" is now the richest and most feared/hated man around. He is also to blame for the death of Hunter's wife. Our hero seeks for revenge, but he stands alone...

The movie is very very bad: the first half might work as a parody, but this is denied by a boring and predictable second half. The acting is really bad, especially by the leads: Hunter is awful as the hero(look out for the scene in which he screams for revenge)and Gazzolo doesn't get much to do either. The only actor I knew in this "film" was Henry Silva and his role(leader of Gazzolo's men) is, to say the least, dynamic, but pointless at the same time. Silva gives an awkward, but often amusing performance. The other performances range (surprisingly) from mediocre to rather good, with Machiavelli as a Catherine Zeta-Jones-lookalike from years ago. Most of the dialogue is dubbed too which can easily be noticed. The music however has some nice moments, but all in all it's by far not enough to cover up for the rest.

If you want a really bad comic(?) western, you might want to see this. Just don't pay any dollari for it. 3/10

I started watching this and thought oh, lord, another howler with every hokey cliché inherent to bad spaghetti westerns. Midway when we see the stunt men grabbing their bellies from feigned gut shots and doing the railing flip to land on their backs on balsa wood saloon tables, one has to wonder if there could be any other way to do it. However the story does develop to reveal some depth to both characters and plot. The clichés endure so don't expect any surprises by the time it's over, but enjoy this period piece as the simple story it was meant to be with a few standouts in the supporting cast roles, if not the lead. There are some memorable items in the soundtrack and the location work cinematography could be called exemplary. The credits state it's a Dino De Laurentis production with much of the shooting done in Rome, which does contradict some of the IMDb data, FWIW. All in all it's the kind of tale that Hollywood had so tired of by the mid sixties they'd have sent it up as a comedy romp with an all star cast cracking one liners- but with admirable humility the spaghetti western production crew delivered this with straight faced sincerity, as if they still believed in what they were doing. Considering that I give it 7 not 6 stars.

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.