Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Cortechba Overrated

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

MartinHafer Because hundreds of Italian westerns were made, they couldn't all be classics! In fact, a bunch had to fall in the at best mediocre range--and "A Bullet for Sandoval" certainly is that. Despite a starring role for Ernest Borgnine, this wasn't enough to elevate this movie to anything other than a time-passer for those obsessed with the genre.The film begins with an idiot being told his girlfriend is about to give birth to his baby. Despite this being during the Civil War and the man being in the Confederate army, he just runs away--and so it's hard to really empathize with the guy even though he wants to return and marry the lady and do the right thing. When he arrives, however, he finds that his girlfriend is dead! And, her father threatens to kill him unless he leaves and takes the baby with him! He and his partners leave and try to find lodging and food, but because a Cholera outbreak has occurred, folks are very unfriendly and refuse help. The baby soon gets sick and dies and the man vows to make the towns and the baby's grandfather pay. Now this was actually a pretty good idea for a film (despite the whole AWOL angle). However, the man and his friends went far beyond exacting revenge--the gang grew and they terrorized EVERYONE. Because of this, you really had no empathy for him or his nihilistic cause. On the other hand, the father (Borgnine) wasn't exactly likable...and in fact NO ONE in the film was the least bit likable or multi-dimensional. They were all either scum or victims! Because of this and the film's not taking advantage of a decent plot idea, I found myself happy when the whole thing ended (and on a very, very downbeat note).

dbborroughs I had been always told this was a great film. What I found when I finally saw it was that it's a messy film.It's about a southern soldier who deserts to marry his girl who is about to give birth during a cholera epidemic. Eventually making it home he is refused permission to marry by the girls father. She dies, the baby survives and the father rides off with a friend and the baby. Picking up a monk they travel a short while before the baby dies. Dad swears revenge and after picking up some other bad man goes after the father of his dead lover.Things happen and only enough is explained to move things along. As I said to dad, I'm watching simply to see if they pull it out in the end. It never did.On some level the pieces work but as a whole this film just doesn't work.

Scarecrow-88 George Hilton has a big role in this spaghetti western where he portrays an embittered Confederate deserter whose infant child dies of cholera and starvation due to the apathy of others who deny him milk for the baby. In retaliation all those who he blames for the death of his child, especially one Don Pedro(..portrayed by a unsympathetic Ernest Borgnine who hates Hilton's John Warner so much he denounces his own daughter's existence because she fell in love with him), a wealthy man who practically owns the village of Los Cadres, the place where the cholera broke out, whose disease has created a widespread panic plaguing the surrounding areas. Evolving into a remorseless outlaw, with a growing pack of cutthroats and dangerous gunmen joining him, Warner sets his sights on destroying Don Pedro Sandoval in every way possible, blaming him for the death of his child.I think the major mistake of A Bullet for Sandoval is establishing, effectively I thought, Hilton's Warner as a legitimate tragic hero only to transform him into a murderous thug. I never personally thought Hilton was as good as some loathsome killer gathering a brood of gunfighters as he was a mistreated soldier, stripped of any form of dignity due to leaving his regimen before their battle against a major Yankee outfit because he took off with Don Pedro's son, who had informed him of his beloved's sickness and the child he never knew he had. Seeing a pitiful Warner, in a hopeless quest to find a sympathetic figure to provide him with milk for his baby really tugged on my heartstrings and I certainly found his situation devastating. Then, the film, after the baby's death, strips him of his humanity, and he becomes some outlaw collecting his own personal army..I never bought Hilton as an effective heavy, and believe in switching his personality costs the film some major dramatic punch. Borgnine, while attempts at showing a remorse for losing his daughter, while at the same time hating her for the love affair with Warner, never earned an ounce of empathy from me, and I imagine others will have just as hard a time caring about his fate. If anything, the film removes anyone to care about. That is a mistake, in my mind, that the film never recovers from. Almost every time he's on screen Don Pedro is berating someone, loudly barking at others for allowing Warner to roam free, failing to accept his responsibility for what transpires.As you expect, the movie prepares you for the eventual showdown between Warner and Sandoval. It's really about waiting and fate. How long will Warner and those he associates himself with last as a unit? When Sandoval and other ranchers plea with the Confederacy for man/firepower, will Warner be able to successfully avoid a court martial or certain death? Can Warner and those men not killed by the soldiers, attempting to flee a set-up after one of their own betrays them, survive in Mexico? Will they attempt to re-enter America? You just know that Warner and Sandoval will meet face to face to settle their differences. The major bugaboo that bothered me was the reason Sandoval hated Warner so much to begin with. There's mention that Sandoval thought Warner was only interested in his wealth and ranch, but to hate him with such guile, the film doesn't seemed too worried to address this very important question with great detail.There are some action scenes, but most of them lack vigor and punch. And, there are several build-ups to stare-down gunfights which never reach the level expected for this genre. There's lots of potential for A Bullet for Sandoval, but for some reason director/writer Julio Buchs doesn't wish to stage full scale shootouts which is a standard for any great spaghetti western. There's also enough story here to build from if Buchs had stay the course. Too bad.

Michael_Elliott Bullet for Sandoval, A (1969) *** (out of 4)Interesting Spaghetti Western takes place during the Civil War when a soldier (George Hilton) gets word that his pregnant girlfriend is dying. By the time he reaches the house she has died and her jealous father (Ernest Borgnine) makes him leave with their newborn son. Without the resources to take care of the child, it dies and soon the soldier sets out for revenge. This film has a great revenge story going for it but by the time it ended I was pretty mad at the movie because it could have been so much better. The film has several subplots and none of them are as interesting as the revenge story so these subplots get in the way and in the end they really pull the film back some. The film's main story is still good enough to make this worth watching as it features some great action sequences as well as two good performances by the leads. Hilton is very good in his mainly silent role and Borgnine delivers a maniac style performance. The ending is very strange and bizarre but it works well with the film even though the revenge takes a few different turns.