Two brothers, Monty and Ted, will inherit $300,000 if they manage to live together for six months. The premise here is that two estranged brothers must spend six peaceful months together in order to inherit $300,000 from a rich uncle. This premise, however, is merely an excuse to put the two brothers into a series of comic adventures in the American West – circa early 1900s. While none of these adventures is original or memorable, they combine to produce an easy-going "spaghetti western" which never takes itself too seriously and which therefore qualifies as a pleasant time-killer. (Incidentally, the movie's Italian title translates as "Alive or Preferably Dead." The American title shamelessly tries to capitalize on another film's success but it has nothing to do with the famous characters portrayed by Paul Newman and Robert Redford.) This movie is helped by the fact that the two brothers, (and they actually look like brothers), are played by such handsome and agreeable actors as Giuliano Gemma and Nino Benvenuti. Gemma, (billed as "John Wade" for American audiences), got his start wearing nothing but a towel in 1959's "Ben-Hur" when he appeared as one of the muscular Roman athletes who observe Messala placing a bet with the Shiek on the outcome of the chariot race. Benvenuti, (here billed as "Robert Neuman"), first achieved fame as a boxer in Rome's 1960 Olympics. Despite being personable and good-looking, he only appeared in two movies. Not surprisingly, opportunities are found to show off these hunks' physiques by stripping them to the waist. Gemma is shown sitting in a tub, taking a bubble bath, while Benvenuti sheds his shirt when he chops a load of firewood. Both men are also shirtless when they're tortured by the Bad Guys who apparently poke burning sticks into their chests. Alas, both the American theatrical release and the videotape release drastically cut this torture scene. The two brothers are shown tied up and threatened but then the action jumps forward. The brothers now have burn marks on their chests but no torture was actually shown.<br/><br/>Sydne Rome, (billed here as "Karen Blake"), makes a spunky and appealing heroine but at the end of the movie one realizes she's just been added to the proceedings to persuade viewers that the two brothers – appearances to the contrary – are really "straight."<br/><br/>(November 2007 update: Having viewed a DVD of this movie under its Italian title, some new comments are in order. This Italian version is longer and more detailed than the American version known as "Sundance Cassidy and Butch the Kid." It contains the complete torture scene which turns out to be quite different than expected. The two brothers, stripped to the waist, are laid face-up on the floor with their hands tied behind their backs. The bad guy approaches with a smoldering stick taken from a nearby fireplace but does not, as expected, poke it into the brothers' chests. Instead he uses it to draw a smudgy line across the floor. Then he tells his gang-members they can throw hot pennies at the brothers but they cannot step across the line. The gang-members reach into the fireplace with their gloved hands, scoop up hot coins, and gleefully toss them at the brothers' bare chests. The brothers squirm and writhe, trying to avoid the scorching missiles, but some still hit their targets. Then a distraction occurs, the brothers manage to free themselves with no more damage than a few burn marks on their chests. It's puzzling why the American prints cut most of this scene since it's not especially violent and is played more for comic than sadistic effect. The beginning of the movie also varies from the Italian to the English-language print. The Italian version begins with a scene "back East" in which Monty Mulligan leaves a Christmas party, fights off four street-thugs intent on robbing him, and then encounters four more men who demand that he repays his gambling debts. Monty's unable to do so but is saved by the arrival of a messenger from a lawyer's office. The scene then shifts to this office where the lawyer reads to Monty details of his uncle's will. At this point the movie switches to its Wild West setting which is where the English-language prints pick up the story.) Not all of the slapstick works, but there are more hits than misses. Frankly I think the humor and production values are better here than all but the first of "Trinity" western-comedies. The English dubbing is not "awful," as one reviewer stated. It's actually better than in many spaghetti Westerns. I liked the attention to detail in the depiction of even minor characters, like the bank employees & dishonest doctor who encases one brother in a total body cast. While I agree the American distributors were guilty of giving this film an terrible "let's cash on on a better movie" title, I don't think seeing the prelude would have added much.The picture already seems a bit too long, with a throw in the kitchen sink approach to the screen writing ("Then's let's have them try this and fail, an then this…"), when a plot more focused on one or two criminal acts might have been better. I also watched this as part of the Mill Creek 20 pack, mostly to get Monte Hellman's "China 9, Liberty 32" and "The Big Gundown" I have only found one (so far) that was truly unwatchable ("Apache Blood"). My main complaint is being deprived, in most cases, of seeing the films in the original Techniscope widescreen process (similar to Superscope but invented at Technicolor's Italian lab), which, through setting the number of frames per inch of film higher in the camera, used only half as much film as Cinemascope or Panavision did. Some complained they could see more grain in the projected image in theaters, but in many cases that worked to the film's advantage, contributing to a gritty washed out look. As with Superscope (now called Super 35), the anamorphic squeeze was done in the lab on an optical printer, enabling the directors to use normal rather than expensive anamorphic lenses in shooting these movies. Unlike Techniscope, Superscope used a normal frame in the camera, so did not save any film stock. The price of film stock was a large part of the cost of making feature movies back then. Now, with digital video, it's not an issue.
Rashniche replied
372 weeks ago