Who wants to see some boobs? Some really average, grainy, unfocused, overexposed, distant boobs? Who doesn’t, am I right? I mean, really, there’s no other conscious reason as to why would someone subject to this movie in any way shape or form nowadays, except if you’re doing a feature on obscure westerns and you find one that it’s so obscure that it doesn’t even have a page in the Letterboxd movie site. So, what I’m going to talk about in this installment of your favorite western series going on right now (not) so you could get ahold of the strange yet at the same time offensive and tame elements that are inside of the frames of this picture, well I could make some comparisons and show you some scenes and tell you why I think that, but I’m really drawing a blank here, we’re talking about a film directed by the infamous director Al Adamson, famous for its schlock pictures, as well for the bad quality of practically every film that he ever made, remember that he was the one responsible behind such films as ‘Horror of the Blood Monsters’ (1970) and another film of him that I had the (dis)pleasure to watch a couple of years ago called ‘Dracula vs Frankenstein’ (1971) and you think to yourself, how could he possibly fuck that up? Well, he did, as he did with the concept of this film.
As it’s a custom already, I remind you that we’re rating these obscure westerns with our own method of western-y things, four possible scores that are pretty self-explanatory in the diagram that I’ll put right now (thanks as always to Bob Clark for the design of this):
So, it’s already pretty obvious what rating I’m going to finally place upon this film, as a red hot iron mark on the back of a cow, but as I already knew that I was going into something that didn’t have the best reputation (as little known as it is, I managed to find one review in the internet and some mentions of its release in New York and Spain, but not much else), I still didn’t expect it to be this awful and almost an insult to the film legacy that it places on top of. This is an after-the-fact western, made in the 70’s when it was already declining as the preferred choice of entertainment for a vast majority of the people in the world, though there were still some filmmakers who thought that they could fool some international audiences by making a cheap movie that they could sell quickly and just fill up some screens and receive big bucks, they only had to have some kind of hook for them to be sold… and I really don’t get how they sold this one, it’s an odd one because it has no stars, no big action sequences, it doesn’t even look good, and the nudity is scarce and really doesn’t pay the price of the ticket. Anyway, however you managed to do it, I bow my hat to you Mr. Adamson, you pulled up some stunt here by making the dullest western ever. I mean, remember the first western we had in this series? That was bad, but at least it had some kind of artistic or directorial flare (because the director was drunk when he made it, but that’s something else), but here there’s nothing.
For some reason this movie comes like an ancestor of one of the most famous exploitation films ever made, ‘Day of the Woman’ (1978), better known as ‘I Spit in Your Grave’, as the film follows some of its structure. This western starts with a mormon couple after marriage, they are happy and jolly and they just want to get home, but oh no, they get ambushed by the ugliest band of outlaws that you could ever encounter in this patch of land. They not only rob them, they also kill the husband and repeatedly rape the woman, names Jessi, and leave her to die, or so they think, because she survives and she’s out for revenge, just like in the movie that would come out 3 years later. She also uses some of the same techniques that the exploitation would exploit in the upcoming years for ripoffs, sequels and tantalizing homages to the so called ‘worst movie ever made’ according to Roger Ebert (I assure you that whenever I get the chance to see ‘Day of the Woman’ (1978) I’ll bet anyone that it’ll be so much better than this piece of dreck), she starts to seduce them and even have sex with them once again. What a nice film! She gets raped and she then has sex, her revenge is really not working specially because she forgives and has sex with half of the gang and kills the other half (oops spoilers, who fucking cares) with the help of a gang of girls who are also looking for revenge, most of them prostitutes… who actually had no chance but to accept the fate that they had coming but… whatever, I’m not getting into muddy situations.
The film is just unimaginative and offensive, because if at least she used the romantic inclinations with the bad guys to then kill them, I’d have no problem with that, but then that isn’t true, is it. The film looks like it was shot by a 5 year old, with no sense of framing, it’s edited in a really confusing manner and the music… OH MY GOD, the MUSIC, it’s awful! It’s the same track repeated one and over and over again, and by the 20th time it’s used for different situations you can’t actually believe that you’re hearing it again and again and again. This obviously deserves the noose and the obscurity in it was shrouded, and I wish I never unearthed it in the first place. And you know what’s worse? When I was getting some information on the film I came up with the most devilish thing that could happen to me: getting stuck with a song, and now, Rick Springfield, I damn you to hell, because you made one of the helliest catchiest tunes ever recorded. Peace Out.