Holstra Boring, long, and too preachy.

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Brucey D They spent a lot of money on this movie, with a star-studded cast and a long running time. When it was first released it didn't live up to expectations and didn't do that well in the US box office. However in some export markets it did rather well and was one of the most popular films for about twenty years. I guess the tale of long-lost gold, perhaps protected by native Indian spirits, pursued by an unlikely alliance of people, bound together only by their mutual greed, is one that resonates with many different cultures. In a way it reminds me of 'Kelly's Heroes' a bit, but without the laughs. I first saw this film as an impressionable teenager, on a slightly fuzzy 625 line TV set. I didn't notice the weird editing then; at times the action jumps in a crazy way from location shooting to studio close-up and model shot, all with different lighting. If you are watching on an HD TV or better, at times this approach is rather distracting. At other times one can only marvel at the cinematography; the images of the canyons in the desert, shot in glorious colour on 65mm film stock, still look fantastic. The device of using narrator at times is considered a mark of a bad film by many; however in this type of film, I don't mind it in the slightest; is it really any worse than those lame bits of 'dialogue' that are forced into scripts just to keep the audience abreast of the plot? I don't think so; it just gives more room for action, scenery and characterisation, if used correctly. Anyway, quibble as one might over details, the fact remains that overall, this is a rollicking tale with some fine actors in it, hamming it up fit to bust. Arguably almost perfect cinema.

SanteeFats This oater is not your typical western. There are so many well known and famous actors and actresses in this movie that I am surprised they got all of them to appear in it. Gregory Peck gets top billing as the no name, judge appointed marshal, of some nameless town. Omar Sharif is very campy as a bad ass outlaw who I guess is suppose to be Mexican. He portrays a totally venal, amoral, character His accent makes it hard to tell at times. The white's playing the Apache's in this movie are a little outre to say the least. It is refreshing now days to see actual indians playing indians. Julie Newmar as an Apache woman who has a history with Peck is decent since she doesn't speak. There is some humor in this movie from time to time, but overall it is a fairly serious movie.

Jeff (actionrating.com) See it – This is "Indiana Jones" disguised as a western. It is overflowing with action and adventure as a group of outlaws, Indians, soldiers, townspeople, and a sheriff played by Gregory Peck search for fabled treasure in the old west. The impressive cast also includes Omar Sharif, Telly Savalas, Eli Wallach, Edward G. Robinson, and Lee Cobb. Although most movies during this time period were very family friendly, be aware that in addition to some violence, this movie has one of the first female nude scenes in a western. So keep it in mind before watching it with the kiddos. But if you are looking for a movie with non-stop action, this is one of the most action-packed, epic westerns you'll ever see. You've got Indian fights, cavalry fights, gunfights, knife fights, tomahawk fights, and…belt fights? No joke.

Bob_Zerunkel This guy who got famous for standing around watching crazy people and occasionally commenting on humanity plays the lead, a man who stands around watching crazy people and occasionally commenting on humanity.So in the movie, this guy is ambushed by an Italian guy who was a leader of an Indian tribe. In the end the Italian guy dies and the other Italian Indians get mad.Then the guy who gets famous is captured by this Greek guy who heads the local Mexican gang which is made up of white guys playing Mexicans and/or Indians.Lurch just stands there, but Catwoman does her sexy killer routine.So far, after 40 years, that's as far as I've gotten. Peck is the slowest moving action hero known to man. Van Cleef, by the way, still gets that award in the villain and overall categories. Lurch is as good as needed. Catwoman is truly strange. The godawful music must have been written in 5 minutes (by one of the best in the business) and also recorded in 5 minutes (again, by one of the best.)...... Parts I didn't see because they happened after Minute 5 which is the point where my aneurysm always starts throbbing:The producers felt that having just one Greek in a Mexican gang was not enough so they import another guy later on. But two Greek guys is not enough to make an authentic Mexican gang.They bring in stars such as Edward G., but they had to poke his eyes out.From what I hear, this is sort of a messy road movie. You could remove the Mexican bandits or the townspeople or Telly and the army, and the movie would be the same. It is one of my lifelong goals to sit through this pile of manure. I failed again today. I plead unpreparedness. All my towels are white and with this aneurysm throbbing, I felt that I was looking at a potentially devastating laundry bill.This movie gets one star because I like Lurch