This movie does have its moments. For instance, the opening segment features three badmen obviously modeled after the main characters in "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly", only they are like inferior, generic, "Rent A Center" versions of Eastwood, Van Cleef and Wallach; and you think, "Oh geez, are we going to have to watch these wannabes for a whole movie??" Only then they get killed off by the "real" hero, and you breathe a sigh of relief. I liked the movie a lot for that.
It actually took me a while to realize that this was more of a "spoof" of GBU than a rip off, I thought the title ("Go, Kill, and Come Back") represented some ESL translator's clumsy attempt at Spaghetti Western nihilism...but later I realized that it was meant in fun. (The original title, "Any Gun Can Play" would have made it a lot more obvious.) In my defense, most of the scenes are devoted to straightforward action, gun-play, and exposition. For instance, the train robbery scene was done "straight" and fairly well, and most of the other actual killings and gunfights weren't at all campy or cheesy in any way I could see. And Gilbert Roland played his role absolutely straight throughout the movie. (BTW, now that I've actually seen him act, I understand what all the fuss was about. What a great screen presence!) And with a lot of the minor roles, such as the bandits' chief assistant, who could tell the difference?
So here's my main problem with the movie. Anyone who has paid any attention to "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" knows that it is already packed full of dead-pan gallows humor and misanthropy. The characters are both enigmatic and completely venal - you never know what they are going to do or say, but you do know that it will be consistent with everything else that has been revealed about them. That's what makes it watchable; without that humor, the movie would have been a mind-numbing death-march toward a pointless conclusion with despicable characters we hated and wanted to see dead. Think about it; Eli Wallach's character "Tuco" was already a comedy relief character (much of the humor and jokes were at his expense) and Eastwood and Van Cleef got off deadpan one liners in almost every scene. The famous three-way "Mexican Stand Off" is funny, because when Tuco discovers that his gun was empty the entire time, his outraged reaction is priceless. Even the very last scene is screamingly funny and the resolution, perfectly timed, evokes a huge sigh of relief (although once again, it is at Tuco's expense.)
"Go Kill and Come Back" simply isn't as good - or as funny - as the movie it spoofs. Most of the scenes, even the intentionally funny ones, drag on far too long; substituting broader, more genial humor for dead pan misanthropy and overcomplicated plot twists for atmosphere and character revelation relegate it to "minor league" status. As a contrast, the Terence Hill and "Trinity" movies, which have much of the same feel, are much funnier and show what can be done it the screenplay really wants to be tough and funny at the same time. If GBU had never come out and this movie was released, it still would have sunk without a trace except for the archives of Spaghetti Western fanatics.
Still, "Go Kill" is not all that bad viewed as a pastiche. It was worth watching just to see Gilbert Roland in a major role.
It actually took me a while to realize that this was more of a "spoof" of GBU than a rip off, I thought the title ("Go, Kill, and Come Back") represented some ESL translator's clumsy attempt at Spaghetti Western nihilism...but later I realized that it was meant in fun. (The original title, "Any Gun Can Play" would have made it a lot more obvious.) In my defense, most of the scenes are devoted to straightforward action, gun-play, and exposition. For instance, the train robbery scene was done "straight" and fairly well, and most of the other actual killings and gunfights weren't at all campy or cheesy in any way I could see. And Gilbert Roland played his role absolutely straight throughout the movie. (BTW, now that I've actually seen him act, I understand what all the fuss was about. What a great screen presence!) And with a lot of the minor roles, such as the bandits' chief assistant, who could tell the difference?
So here's my main problem with the movie. Anyone who has paid any attention to "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" knows that it is already packed full of dead-pan gallows humor and misanthropy. The characters are both enigmatic and completely venal - you never know what they are going to do or say, but you do know that it will be consistent with everything else that has been revealed about them. That's what makes it watchable; without that humor, the movie would have been a mind-numbing death-march toward a pointless conclusion with despicable characters we hated and wanted to see dead. Think about it; Eli Wallach's character "Tuco" was already a comedy relief character (much of the humor and jokes were at his expense) and Eastwood and Van Cleef got off deadpan one liners in almost every scene. The famous three-way "Mexican Stand Off" is funny, because when Tuco discovers that his gun was empty the entire time, his outraged reaction is priceless. Even the very last scene is screamingly funny and the resolution, perfectly timed, evokes a huge sigh of relief (although once again, it is at Tuco's expense.)
"Go Kill and Come Back" simply isn't as good - or as funny - as the movie it spoofs. Most of the scenes, even the intentionally funny ones, drag on far too long; substituting broader, more genial humor for dead pan misanthropy and overcomplicated plot twists for atmosphere and character revelation relegate it to "minor league" status. As a contrast, the Terence Hill and "Trinity" movies, which have much of the same feel, are much funnier and show what can be done it the screenplay really wants to be tough and funny at the same time. If GBU had never come out and this movie was released, it still would have sunk without a trace except for the archives of Spaghetti Western fanatics.
Still, "Go Kill" is not all that bad viewed as a pastiche. It was worth watching just to see Gilbert Roland in a major role.