Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: This British-Spanish co-production is one of the countless films shot in Spain in the wake of the unexpected phenomenal success enjoyed by the Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns and, as is typical of such genre efforts, features an eclectic assortment of established and emerging international stars: Robert Shaw, Telly Savalas, Stella Stevens, Martin Landau, Fernando Rey, Michael Craig, Al Lettieri, Dudley Sutton, Antonio Mayans, etc. Ironically, however, this incoherent mess of a movie serves as a shining example as to why that most American of film genres became a dying breed in the 1970s and is nowadays practically (or is that officially?) extinct.

I really wanted to like this film, not only because the Western is one of my favorite types of movies but also because it had all the qualities, including an intriguing premise, to be a good one - not to mention the fact that my father had purchased a paperback edition of A TOWN CALLED BASTARD's novelization following its original release! As it is, the film's sole virtue (if, indeed, it can even be called that) is its sheer eccentricity: for instance, Stevens, playing a widow out for revenge on the man who betrayed her revolutionary husband, sleeps inside a coffin(!) driven around in a carriage by her dumb manservant(?) Sutton; Savalas, as a blood-thirsty renegade, who at first appears to be the film's main villain, is unceremoniously dispatched by his own henchman Lettieri very early on in the picture; the villain of the piece, then, turns out to be Landau who, in the film's very first scene, is seen pillaging side-by-side our legendary hero-turned-priest Shaw!; Fernando Rey, playing a blind peasant, is the only one who can identify rebel Shaw who, in the end turns out to have been merely a front for...well, nevermind! As you can see, the plot is very confusing and it gets stranger from there! The production team responsible for this film were also behind other Western fare around the same period of time, like CUSTER OF THE WEST (1967), BAD MAN'S RIVER (1971), CAPTAIN APACHE (1971) and PANCHO VILLA (1972).

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: The only reason I'm giving this a 9 is that the other kid actors who played Tadashi's tormentors were not up to the job. I presume they were just kids who happened to be the right age and handy, but they were not well coached, and their scenes were a minor annoyance.

I say not to judge this by U.S. standards because it's full of ambiguities and the kinds of equivocations that Japanese culture readily embraces, and is not beholden to the black-hat/ white-hat moral constraints U.S. kids' films are routinely subjected to. For example, there is a preciously funny moment when Tadashi's small band of yokai companions finds themselves let down and abandoned by the other yokai, and Shojo--the avuncular Kirin herald--does what many a stressed-out Japanese adult would do. Hint: this would not happen in a Disney film. This picture also has the best product placement for beer you will ever see in a kids' movie.

Early on, there's a moment where a school teacher smacks a couple of bullies on the head with her attendance book. There was a TV commercial in Japan a couple years before this movie came out. It was a stop-motion clay animation about a kid who's depressed and playing guitar and singing the blues in his room. His mother yells at him from downstairs to shut up. Then, someone gives him a candy bar and he cheers up and sings a happy tune, but his mother comes in and tells him to shut up again and gives him a dope slap that leaves a dent in his forehead. I mention this commercial, because it was considered funny, and I didn't hear any objections to it while I was there. There is a lot more bloodshed and physical cruelty on screen in "The Great Yokai War" than one would find in a Disney movie. As a parent, if this were a U.S. film, I would be up in arms about such things, although not necessarily the moral lessons drawn at the end of the picture, which, of course, are also not black and white. Since it's a Japanese movie, I accept that those cultural norms allow for imagery that would not get past the standards and practices cops in a U.S. production. However, I'd probably be a little uneasy taking young kids to see it without giving them some sort of pre-show briefing and/or post-show debriefing about the violence and other off- color stuff, or I'd wait till they're older to show it to them.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
This movie is without a doubt the worst horror movie I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot, considering I've seen such stinkers like Demon of Paradise, Lovers' Lane, and Bloody Murder (which is a close second). However, I love bad horror movies, and as you can tell from my username, this one really sticks out. At times there's nothing more entertaining than a poorly made slasher flick. As for this film, the opening scene in which a woman gets fried in a tanning booth appears to have no bearing on the film whatsoever, especially since the movie fails to tell you that the event happened 2 years prior to the rest of the film. The acting is nonexistent, and most of the camera shot are of women's areas shrink wrapped in spandex. The policeman was the most stone-faced, monotone actor I've ever seen. The best/worst part of this movie, however, has to be the murder weapon. A giant safety pin?! What were they thinking? Who's the killer? A disgruntled "Huggies" employee? I'd have to give this movie an overall zero, but darned if I didn't have a blast watching it