Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

classicsoncall There's only one reason to catch this Western, and that's to see just how far over the top Jack Palance can take it. There are times though when even he gets to be too embarrassing, as in a scene late in the picture when he does a drunken jag while holding his grandson hostage. He's just totally crazed and manic at that point, which makes me wonder now whether he was really on a drunken jag while filming. I guess we'll never know, but man, he was really out there.If one has any sense of America's Civil War history, you'll probably recognize elements of the Quantrill Raider legacy in this story of Josiah Gant (Palance), leader of a vicious band of rebels even the Confederacy doesn't care to acknowledge. The opening scene is reminiscent of the Quantrill raid on Lawrence, Kansas in 1863, but in this case the location is given as St. Thomas, Kansas, and the marauding gang is nowhere near the size of Quantrill's bunch. When it occurs, Galt's oldest son Davey (Vince Edwards) has an epiphany of sorts; he begins to realize just how vile and dangerous his family is. The father's murderous nature extends to David's brothers Jacob (George Maharis) and Adam (Christian Roberts).A quick flashback scene of Davey's dying mother telegraphs the finale, but even though her vision of the future calls for the family members to destroy each other, one wouldn't expect the ending to be as final as it was for all concerned. However it did leave a question mark over the fate of Jacob, a quick cutaway of the fight between him and Davey aboard a train left his fate inconclusive. But if you go with the premise, all the Galt's were goners.Keep an eye on the scene when Jacob and Adam are in jail fully expecting Davey to bust them out. When Davey skips out, the bars of the jail cell actually move when Jacob shakes them. They probably could have walked out any time they wanted.There must be something about the word 'desperado' to assign the kiss of death to movie Westerns. A 1943 film titled 'The Desperadoes" (with an 'e') starring Randolph Scott and Glenn Ford also comes up short in the way of telling a story. But that was twenty five years earlier than this one, so you can cut it some slack for the writing. Not only that, but it's a little shocking to see Neville Brand in this film as a federal marshal - I've never seen him so fat!

35541m The Desperados is obviously an attempt to up the ante in the violence stakes to rival that of the spaghetti western genre. It was filmed in 1968 in Spain with an American and British cast and an American director. However, the hysterical approach to the material proves counter-productive and the film is appallingly directed and choreographed with actors falling over for no obvious reason or otherwise standing still and waiting for things to happen to them.An example of director Levin's ineptitude is when Palance and his gang raid a Texas town in order to rob the bank. After shooting up the place a while, some of the gang members dismount and enter the bank to rob it. Inside the bank, people are still at tills being served by cashiers as if nothing is happening! The same thing happens in the opening massacre when the Union soldiers are still emerging from their tents (to be easily shot) several minutes after wholesale gunfire has been raging nearby.Matters are not helped by the fact that all prints are heavily censored. The opening massacre (based on Quantrill's massacre of Lawrence, Kansas) suffers from several obvious censor cuts - for example, as Palance is about to shoot a group of men lined up against a building there is an abrupt cutaway and we hear only a single shot dubbed over the face of Vince Edwards - and is extremely choppy as a result. A scene towards the end between Palance and Kate O'Mara is also heavily cut.In the face of this ineptitude, some ripe overacting by Palance and the actor who plays his youngest son is the only thing left to enjoy.

marbleann Absolutely one of the worst movies I ever seen. Unlike Plan 9 From Outer Space this movie is not one of those so bad they are funny or good flicks. Why? Because it takes itself too seriously. And the production wasn't shoddy and because of the well known actors. Jack Palance who is one of my favorite actors, but tends to have bouts of hammery really pours it on. He plays the father of a a marauding confederate gang, obviously a take on Quatrill raiders, but only because the are a violent gang and they are confederates. For some reason I see a resemblance with John Brown. He is bible spouting father, who is actually a Parson, the trouble between the brothers which happened with John Brown. But even though Hollywood tends to portray Brown as a madman as Jack Palance is in this movie in reality he wasn't. Because of those reasons I do think they were not really basing this gang on Quantrill raiders but on John Brown and his sons! The movie Che the other worst movie of all time was next up for Palance, what was he thinking? Vince Edwards is the son who decided to break off from Daddy Dearest and the Boyz. I am just going to say he pays for it. George Maharis plays one of the brothers. Both are good, as Sylvia Syms who plays Vince Edwards wife. Vince Edwards was actually very good. A very quiet and nice performance, but then Mt St Helens would look quiet next to Palance. I forgot how much I liked him and how we lost him too early. But it is Palance's performance which needs to taught in all acting and movie schools on not how to act, that is in the center of this movie and does it suffer for it. Lastly the music was so inappropriate it sounded like it came from another movie..a romance movie. I never heard so many flourishes in my life. It was just as bad as Palance was. I do not understand how a actor can have such bad performances but then turns right around and does work that will knock your socks off. No other actor has the knack for doing that. It is like he knows some of these flicks are stinkers and acts accordingly. Avoid this movie if you can. It side swiped me early one morning and I continued to watch because I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I gave it 3 stars because of Vince Edwards good performance otherwise it would of have gotten a 0.

Poseidon-3 What could have been an interesting tale of marauding renegade Confederates out for revenge becomes a slapdash, tawdry mess of a film. Ringleader Palance (a former parson!) and his sons Edwards, Maharis and Roberts, along with a huge gaggle of violent rebels blaze a path across the southwest frontier robbing, raping and burning anything in their midst. It's all because their own loved ones were brutalized when they were out killing Union soldiers on a raid. Finally, Edwards decides he's had enough and he and his wife (Syms) start over in a new town with an assumed name. They also have a son. However, it's only a matter of time before the relentless Palance and his band of un-merry men make their way to this heretofore quiet town. Edwards (his svelte, muscular days as a posing strap model long behind him) gives an exceedingly wooden performance. His character's motivations rarely make sense because of the weak script and because it's never really clear what he's thinking! Outfitted with Elvis-style porkchop sideburns, he mostly stares blankly and expressionless at the events around him (unless constipation can be considered an expression.) At the other end of the spectrum is Palance, who mercilessly overacts with an abandon not likely to be found anywhere outside the movie "Mommie Dearest". His ungodly performance has to be seen to be believed. Inexplicably drawing out certain words and syllables, screaming at the top of his lungs and throwing over-the-top tantrums every few minutes, he is a profound embarrassment. Maharis is given little to do as the middle son, but Roberts, as the youngest son, gives Palance a run for his money in the ham acting department. It is excruciating to watch Roberts mug and cajole incessantly through the film. O'Mara pops up rather briefly as a lame hooker (!) who hobbles around everywhere when she ought to be doing her job. She finally gets a little more to do near the end. Brand turns up as the rotund, but caring Marshall of the town Edwards has settled in. He pays for his friendliness with a sound beating. The lovely and talented Syms is FAR out of place in a movie this crass and tasteless. She provides the one ounce of class that the picture has. The sets look like something that Bonanza would reject as inauthentic, the camerawork is distractingly busy, the editing is choppy to say the least and the music is alternately abysmal and inappropriate. On good thing the film has going for it is a series of pretty decent action sequences. Some of the raiding is arrestingly done and there's a nifty scene onboard a moving train. The dynamic of the son turning against the father and having a fateful reunion could have been a great one, but unfortunately there were too many weak elements involved to sell it properly. Another oddity is the prevalence of British actors in the cast (playing Americans.)