tiffanie_says_stay_in_your_lane

I had tried to watch this movie before, like a couple years ago, and I found it boring. I was slowly getting into spaghetti westerns at the time. I've started binging them recently, so I thought I'd try again, and without fail, I had the same reaction. This genre is known for its grittiness, realism, and unique storylines that don't necessarily revolve around racial clashes and land disputes like mainstream westerns. I'm all for that, but $1,000 on the Black has cringe acting. For a plot that's serious in nature - two brothers engaging in a vicious battle with each other - the performances are so silly. Johnny Liston (Anthony Steffen) returns to his hometown after enduring imprisonment for 12 years, for a crime that he didn't commit, only to encounter his brother, Sartana (Gianni Garko). He's taken control of the town and has everyone living in fear. He also stole his fiancee, Manuela (Daniela Igliozzi). No one is on Johnny's side, not even his own mother. She praises Sartana, completely ignoring that he's a psychopath. Johnny takes on Manuela's brother, Jerry (Roberto Miali), as his partner, a mute who's not afraid to fight back.

I had hard time seeing this as a drama. I even laughed at one point, when Johnny basically said he was in charge, and Sartana replied 'since when???' With dialogue like that, a movie's not suspenseful or powerful, even if that was the filmmakers' intention. The cast's delivery of their lines sounded so unnatural, and there was just a lot of overacting. Like the scene where Johnny told Jerry that he talked when he was a kid, then asked what happened, which led Jerry to start whimpering hysterically. I didn't wanna laugh, because the reason was evidently traumatic, but his performance was unnecessarily extra. Another issue was scenes dragging on for too long. One of the members of Sartana's gang is chasing around Joselita (Erika Blanc), the woman Johnny rescued from bandits at the beginning of the film, in a circle on his horse. He's getting substantial pleasure out of causing her distress. It took Johnny too long to intervene, to the point that it had got uncomfortable to watch. I think what sealed the deal that this movie was absurd, is during the opening, when Johnny discovers Manuela living in Saratana's compound. He tells him 'I had to do it,' as if his brother being in jail for a dozen years gave him a moral obligation to steal his woman. Johnny should've had a duel with Sartana right at that moment, but he leaves instead. How much sense does that make? So there really wasn't even a need for this almost 2 hour long dumb story if he had beaten the crap out of his brother 5 minutes into the movie.

By the way, for anyone who doesn't know, there's another version of this movie, Blood at Sundown, made in 1965. It says online they're the same film, but the synopses are different on here, so I was confused. I kept doing research, but didn't obtain the answer until I asked Copilot, because Google just wasn't helping. There's actually two Blood at Sundown films. One is translated to "$1,000 on the Black," and the other "Why Go on Killing?" The plot summaries are different because they were marketed under the same name in different regions. Why Go on Killing is shorter in length, so I imagine it's probably more entertaining. I'll probably check it out, but I plan on spending the next week or so watching other spaghetti westerns. I know 1,000 on the Black mostly has positive reviews, but I personally didn't see what the big deal is.

It's possible my lack of motivation to watch this movie because of how long it is prevented me from liking it, so I will admit, I had a negative mindset for sure. Something else that contributed to my bias was my aversion for sequels. I honestly feel like they're just a cash grab. Just look at all of the films that have a sequel, if not a bunch of them: Rush Hour, Home Alone, Blade Runner, Karate Warrior. I personally have never once seen one that left me thinking "wow that was cool/amazing/funny!" Perhaps a sequel does exist that was just as better as the first movie and I just haven't seen it, but I highly doubt it, because I feel like I would've came across one by now. A second film actually ruins the original story in a way. For some odd reason, the writers thought it would be a good idea to have Trinity (Terence Hill) and Bambino's (Bud Spencer) roles changed to antagonists, quite a difference from the moral and social crusaders helping Mormon settlers defend their land from a sadistic Mexican bandit and his posse, as well as a land-grabbing major. In a weird turn of events, they become horse thieves. The movie opens with Bambino encountering escaped convicts, then steals their food and horses. Some time later Trinity comes home, strips to his birthday suit and jumps in the same bath water his brother had just used. They subsequently have lunch with their parents. After watching their horrid table manners, I didn't even care to see the rest of the film anymore. The humor was juvenile and exaggerated, if not borderline ignorant and stupid. In My Name is Trinity, the dialogue and jokes were exceptionally crafted, but here, the silliness was overused, and it seemed like the filmmakers were just trying to fill up space. It doesn't help that it's almost 2 hours long. So is the original movie, but that's worth sitting through. The pacing here is much slower, and it's a talky film, more so compared to the original. Not to mention, Trinity and Bambino had an actual purpose. The second time around the story was just nonsensical. Their father pretends to be dying as a plow to convince them to work together with the goal of becoming horse thieves. At least they abandon their career as outlaws to help a pioneer family and dismantle an arms ring, but you have to subject yourself to so much pointless conversation and overall sleep-inducing material. I would definitely skip this one, and treat yourself to the original film.