MartinHafer The film begins with a dandy gunfight, where three bandits are quickly gunned down by a bounty hunter--a bounty hunter who bears more than just a superficial to the Man With No Name from the Clint Eastwood trilogy (FISTFUL OF DOLLARS, FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE and THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY).Immediately after, you see this man in a gold train filled with Union soldiers. Naturally, the shipment is attacked and the soldiers all fight like blind guys, so they are quickly neutralized. However, in a twist, one of the bandits cheats the gang leader (Gilbert Roland) and rides away with the gold. Soon, Roland catches up and is about to find out where the gold is hidden. But, just at that moment, the army turns up and kills the traitor....bummer. However, the Man With No Name wannabe thinks Roland knows about the treasure and perhaps a medallion given to Roland by the traitor holds the key. A strange banker, also is thrown into the mix. All three want the gold and all three seem pretty macho.Overall, this is not a particularly distinguished Western. Much of it is the plot, some of it is that George Hilton (a Uruguayan despite the American sounding name) isn't as interesting as Eastwood or some of the other premier Spaghetti Western stars but most of it is because the soundtrack simply sucks. So often the music doesn't even come close to matching the acting and it seems almost randomly added. Plus, it just isn't very good stuff as well. This clearly isn't the work of Ennio Morricone--music master of the Spaghetti genre.Overall, just a time passer--and not a particularly good one to boot.

lemon_magic 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.

lastliberal Edd "Kookie" Burns, one of TV's greatest teen idols leads this spaghetti western which was also known as For a Few Bullets More.This was somewhat a parody of the Eastwood/Van Cleef westerns as everybody looked just too damn pretty. Their clothes always looked clean, their teeth looked as if they just cam from the dentist and had a whitening, and Edd Byrnes reminded me of Randolph Scott - his hair looked perfectly in place after a big fight.There was a lot of shooting, but mostly a lot of brawls.George Hilton, a spaghetti western favorite played the bounty hunter (The Stranger) and played it mostly for laughs, even though he did some fancy Clint Eastwood shooting.Golden Globe nominee Gilbert Roland (Cheyenne Autumn, The Bad and the Beautiful), with over 140 movies to his credit, played the outlaw leader.It had the elements of a good spaghetti western, but was funny also.

Diosprometheus Leonard Maltin gave this film a dreaded BOMB rating in his 1995 Movie and Video Guide. What film was he looking at? Kid Vengeance or God's Gun are bombs. This film is a delight. It is fantastic. It is literate. It is well mounted. It is beautiful photographed, making a brilliant use of colors. Right from the opening scene the film grabs your attention and tips you off that this film is a well-done satire of the whole Spaghetti Western genre. The film is played for laughs from the beginning to the end with homages to Douglas Fairbanks, 77 Sunset Strip, and the famous showdown in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Edd Byrnes, George Hilton, and Gilbert Roland work brilliantly together to make the satire work. It is too bad Mr. Maltin rated this film so poorly as it is undeserved. One can only guess as to his reason. I suspect that he missed the point of the movie entirely and was expecting something more serious than this film is meant to be. Kudos belong to everyone involved in this project. This film is a little gem waiting to be discovered by people who care about literate movies and appreciate satire.