bkoganbing
The first half of the 60s were the years that Arch Hall, Sr. tried very hard to make a teenage movie heartthrob of his son Arch Hall, Jr. The Halls gave us such films as The Sadist, The Choppers, and Eegah and they gave up. But the Halls had one more film in them. I can hardly call Deadwood 76 a comeback film since they hardly made it with what they had already put out. Personally I think Arch Hall, Sr. instead of Ed Wood belongs with that dubious distinction of putting out the worst films in cinema history. Hall was also the inspiration of the Robert Mitchum-Jack Webb film The Last Time I Saw Archie. If he was half the conman Mitchum portrayed his whole life story would be worth a film.Junior Hall plays young fast gun drifter named Billy whom he's not adverse to using William Bonney's nickname and reputation. He kills a few of Sam Bass's boys and Deadwood starts anticipating what it would be like if 'Billy the Kid' meets up with their most famous citizen Wild Bill Hickok. Hall Sr. plays the part of a preacher in Deadwood 76.The Halls movie careers came to a merciful end after Deadwood 76. It's pretty bad in keeping with the Hall tradition. It's pretty bad all around in every film category possible.
Wizard-8
For years, this Arch Hall Jr. movie was all but impossible to see, but thanks to its copyright not being renewed at the right time, it is now available on budget DVDs. For those wondering if this is as hilariously bad as past Hall movies like "Eegah!" and "Wild Guitar", well, I hate to break the news, but there aren't that many unintended laughs to be found. In fact, much of the movie is more competent than you might think - there is some nice background scenery, a decent musical score, and the events of the movie are treated (mostly) with seriousness. But all the same, the screenplay is kind of a mess. The movie is not content to sit with one or two plot threads, but has several running through, and not all of the plot threads are resolved in a satisfying manner by the end. Also, the low budget is pretty evident at times. The movie is kind of a mess, but at the same time the mess gets you interested and wonder how things will be wrapped up. And the ending will be an unexpected one for many viewers. While I'm kind of hesitant to give this a general recommendation, I do think there are some people who are fans of offbeat cinema that may find it interesting.
MartinHafer
The beginning of this film blew me away, as it was nothing like I expected. Considering it was written by Arch Hall, Sr. and starred Arch, Jr., I expected total crap--as they had a reputation for making super-schlocky pictures. Don't believe me, how about "Eegah" and "The Nasty Rabbit"!! These are dreadful films and their only really decent film together, "The Sadist", was still super-duper low-budget. So whens this film began with sweeping music followed by a very professional sounding song, I was shocked--this looked like a real western!! As for the movie itself, it seemed like a constant string of clichés--myths of the old west that were pieced together by someone who apparently knew nothing of the period (that would be Arch, Sr.). Relatively unimportant pipsqueaks like Billy the Kid were raised to mythic proportions in the film. So, when someone mentions the Kid, people acted like they would today if someone said that Osama Bin Laden was standing behind them! And, for that matter, they then throw in a few comments about Wild Bill Hickcok, Wyatt Earp semi-mythical characters of the age. Who cares if the names, dates and places are wrong!! I guess Hall's attitude was just keep throwing characters and clichés into the film and hopefully something will stick! This and the dialog are the weakest points in the film.The film begins with a pretty good scene. A dealer in pussycats (I am not kidding) is captured by Indians. You aren't sure whether or not they mean him or his cats harm, but the situation is pretty menacing. Then, out of the blue, Arch, Jr. arrives and disperses the Indians. The old guy wants to see Arch blast the guys, but Hall is a nice guy and just tells them to 'git'.The two men then head to town where soon Arch is mistaken for Billy the Kidd following a shootout (another old west cliché--these actually rarely, if ever, happened like they do in films). Then the film takes a bizarre direction for a spell. Arch is taken prisoner by some Indians and learns that his father (assumed killed in the Civil War) is actually alive and working with the Indians to kill Union soldiers! This was pretty ridiculous, but at least I must admit that the plot twist took me by surprise. Now there WERE a lot of films that had somewhat similar post-Civil War plots--but NOT 16 years after the fact! While at the Indian camp, a young Indian girl falls for Arch. He does not reciprocate but you know something is brewing, as the ballad singer begins singing about their love blooming!! Later, she follows Arch but he sends her back to her people. On the way, she is raped by a couple dirt-bags, so it's up to Arch to kick settle the score. I really liked this scene, as it was not the traditional clichéd shoot-out--more just Arch plugging a guy who needed killing. Then, moments later, he catches the other and dispatches him to Hell as well. This is the highpoint of the film and is actually done very well.A bit later, Wild Bill Hickok comes to town and he and Arch nearly have a shootout. Why is really, really vague--as Hickok is a lawman and Arch certainly is not the criminal type. It just seemed like the town was itching to watch yet another killing. But their wait isn't for naught, as just moments later a really, really DUMB young guy sneaks up on Arch and threatens him--seconds later this 15 year-old is eating lead. Then, as no one knew what to do next, the whole town starts arguing about whether or not the killing was justified and everybody starts shooting at each other! Why? I dunno. And it all ends on a bit of a sad note--you can watch the film yourself if you want to know more.Overall, despite the many clichés and bizarre plot that seemed to feature EVERYTHING a western could feature all in one film, it wasn't too bad. Not great, but not horrible. A time-passer, but for a Hall film, that's awfully good! By the way, though Hall, Jr. never will be accused of being a great actor, after seeing almost all his films I have noticed that he got progressively better. While he was awful in "Eegah", by the time he made "Deadwood '76", he was a pretty fair actor (though he could have used a haircut) and it's a bit of a shame that this was his last film. Apparently he retired and is no longer acting and lives in Florida. I'd sure love to meet him one day, but despite us both living in the same state, it's a pretty big place! Finally, in you get a chance to see the film, take a look at Fancy's mustache. It looks like he glued it on upside-down!
c532c
This movie was playing in grind houses to unsuspecting kids and half-sleeping winos at about the same time EL TOPO was playing at college-area theaters to earnest young students and drug-addled hippies. Oddly, both films make the same point about the futility of death. Or something. While the lack of continuity and coherence here is probably unintentional, the parallels are striking: Like EL TOPO, DEADWOOD '76 offers a mythical gunfighter prompted into a series of challenges that maybe prove something to somebody, but are ultimately meaningless to the central character.Just thought I'd mention it.
