Not really a spaghetti western; as well as Italy it was financed by Spain and France. It's meant to be a comedy western, MEANT to be; it has a handful of funny lines and a bizarre accent from James Mason. It's a complete mystery to me why he and Lee Van Cleef bothered to appear in this. Put simply, the film is boring - the characters are cardboard and the actors look like they'd be having more fun watching paint dry. The plot is clichéd and contrived, and difficult to follow. The freeze-frames at the beginning are just plain stupid. Beautiful as Gina Lollobrigida is, she just can't carry the film alone. Eugenio Martin really hasn't got an excuse for rearing such a turkey here, as the following year, he [the director] went on to make the far superior horror classic "Horror Express".
And now, the plot: Roy King (Van Cleef) and his bank-robbing gang get caught up in a plan by his ex-wife and her new husband (James Mason) to steal $1 million from the Mexican government. But the group are captured and sent to a rebel stronghold. Besieged and under fire from the Mexican army, the rebel general is forced to offer King and his gang freedom if they can pull the rebel side through. And I only know that basic outline 'cause it's given in a slightly more in depth form on the packaging...
Like I say, "Bad Man's River" is unquestionably awful. It's simply not even worth seeing as a curiosity piece. I bought it in a 2 for £10 sale and now consider that to have been a waste of money. Some people say that for the sake of top billing, Lee Van Cleef appeared in some real stinkers. This time, I'm inclined to agree.
