God's Gun

The strangest thing of all about this terrible western is that while it has the look feel and especially the SOUND (loud, overdone) of a spaghetti western, most of the talent involved in the top positions were not European, including the director. Also, the three male leads did not sound right. The lead Lee van Cleef, sounded like himself most of the time , but Jack Palance and Richard Boone were dubbed. This is especially clear with Richard Boone who has a very distinctive voice. If someone out there can tell me why you would dub a distinctive sounding American actor's voice into English, please tell me. I liked the plot twist of the twin brother but this is a bad movie. Enough said!

The spaghetti western is/was a very specific genre, and by the standards of the day, they were a huge departure. The first several - A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good The Bad and The Ugly, Once Upon a Time in the West, to name a few - all in the unique hands of director Sergio Leone - are classics. Those that came after - including this one, Diamante Lobo (God's Gun) - not so much. The problem starts with the script, which leaves a lot to be desired. In Leone's films, he realized that he was working with a lot of actors for whom, however good they might or might not be, English was not their first language, if in fact they even spoke it at all. So he wisely devised an approach that required very little dialogue, depending mainly on action, atmosphere, style and - yes, violence. A lot of it. In Leone's hands, this combination spoke volumes. When it came to Gianfranco Parolini (aka Fred Kramer), the magic touch just wasn't there. For Diamante Lobo/God's Gun, the script was just awful - clichéd situations, cheesy dialogue, bad continuity. This saddled some of Hollywood's most reliable actors with a difficult assignment - making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. To a great extent, they were constrained by the director, and they fell back, as actors will, on their shtick, to get them through. For some (Sybil Danning, Jack Palance, Leif Garrett), it worked better than others (Lee Van Cleef, Richard Boone). For Van Cleef, the spaghetti western was familiar territory. But playing sort of against type in such familiar surroundings - good an actor as he was - just doesn't ring quite true. Boone, in one of his last films and probably already in poor health, in addition to being miscast, was just plain disappointing. Palance chews up the scenery, as he was wont to do in many films before and after - too broad, and yet it worked. Garrett, one of Hollywood's most promising young actors at the time, hit most of the right notes. Danning - well, she didn't have much to do, but she handled it quite well. The production values were inadequate. The town looked very well turned out for a dusty old stage stop. The post production just made things worse - bad dubbing, in some cases laughable voice replacement, second-rate scoring, editing that worked against the script (although perhaps in spite of it - who knows?). In short, there was a film in there somewhere, but it didn't have a chance to show itself. Two final thoughts: Although Van Cleef was a veteran of the genre, he wasn't the best choice for role(s). Leif Garrett was quite good when allowed to be. Too many reviewers just hate on child actors as a matter of course. And quite a few deserve it. They may be cute, but they are not good. But some are genuinely talented. Garrett was among them until the music thing overtook him. One can only wonder what might have happened had he not gone the teen idol path. As an actor, he sure had the chops.

The votes seem rather low for this; my guess is that those voting aren't familiar with (or fans of) westerns from the 1960's / 1970's. As they go, this one isn't bad at all.

Lee Van Cleef was excellent; Leif Garrett went from underplaying to overplaying in some scenes, but that was probably what the director was wanting. Jack Palance was the surprise to me; he is usually the epitome of a villain. Here, I thought that the menace was a bit overdone to the point of being lost.

My vote was 5, could have been better, but is quite watchable.

Actually, this is just a comment. I did not find the movie as bad as ejhutchez, but I did enjoy it. (I am a westerns freak, so that may have had something to do with it). Make no mistake, it is no classic- but it is watchable. Anyways, the point I wanted to make is that the three American stars, all of whom- particularly Jack Palance- have trade mark voices and ways of talking were all poorly dubbed by what seem (or rather sound) to be Italian actors. That just strikes me as really weird. I do agree that the dual roles played by Van Cleef were the best part of the movie by far and that Boone and Palance did indeed seem to be walking through their parts. Still, it's better than a Tom Cruise movie.

This is an interesting spaghetti western that could have been done much better, but it was entertaining nevertheless.

First off, let me say that I love cheesy movies. Cheesy movies can be great! In fact, all of the greatest spaghetti westerns are wonderfully cheesy, but, like a great chef, a great director must know how much cheese, and what kind of cheese to use to create a masterpiece. This movie was not up to those standards.

The music score is a mixed bag. The opening theme is great, and very catchy. As for the rest of the score, some parts are good, but other parts sound tacky and fake, kind of like the music they use in porno movies or those awful direct-to-video films.

With the exception of Van Cleef and Palance, the acting isn't that great, but there are a few things about it that are funny. Towards the beginning of the film during the bank robbery, watch for the look on the deputy's face when he gets shot, and notice the way he falls. It's so stupid it's hilarious. An even funnier scene is when a crook who is forced to dress like a priest gets shot in the back by some members of his own gang. He looks like he is doing some funky dance moves while the bullets are hitting him. I had to play that part over again a few times. There are other similar funny parts, but I won't waste time mentioning them all. You've got to see it for yourself. The movie definitely has that "train wreck" sort of appeal. The overall story isn't bad at all, and it kept me interested all the way to the end, in anticipation of the final showdown.

It's a bit hard to accept Lee Van Cleef as a priest, but when he switches to playing the priest's gunfighter twin brother, he is great, and it adds a tiny bit of quality to a movie that desperately needs it. He is especially good during the flashback scenes that show what happened before his brother talked him into leaving town for good. I have read that Van Cleef's voice in this film is dubbed by someone else. There are parts where it doesn't really sound like him, but there are some lines where the voice sounds exactly like him. Jack Palance is hammy and over the top as the main baddie, but this is great! He is very entertaining in this role. It's like what I was saying earlier about knowing what kind of cheese is good, and Jack Palance is very good. During the final showdown, as Palance is Hamming it up wonderfully, and Van Cleef is giving him that steely, confident stare he does so well, I couldn't help wondering how it would have been if any of the three Sergios, or Tonino Valerii had directed a western with these two actors playing adversaries. There's no doubt it would have been one of the great ones.

Even with all of it's faults, the movie is definitely not boring. It manages to be interesting sometimes in spite of itself, and sometimes because of itself. I recommend that all fans of the spaghetti western genre see this movie. Others will probably want to stay away.