Last night I saw one of the worst movies I ever saw. Waterhole # 3, widely panned by critics when it came out in 1967--I read AFTER viewing it--is somehow praised on IMDb by people who differ from my viewpoint.My take: We see 1800s soldiers moving a heavy box into a storage shed, guarded by Claude Aikins, an Army sergeant. Next door is a shoemaker's shop, where the shoemaker is forced into a hole in the floor, that we quickly learn leads to a tunnel through which this box, containing 100 lbs of gold, in four bars, has been stolen almost as soon as it was placed in the storage shed.A separate--supposedly--scene takes place in a bar where James Coburn plays a card sharp who gets in a dispute with a man who then wants a showdown--drawing guns on each other in the street. Coburn exits the saloon on being called out by the man, walks away from him, apparently not interested in a gunfight, then goes behind his horse, whips out a rifle and shoots the man dead from behind the horse--not at all a fair fight, but murder.The man he killed was involved in the gold heist, and on his body is a map Coburn finds, when he steals money from the dead man's body--somehow, nobody else in the town gathers around at all.Coburn is next seen in a town where Carrol O'Connor (Archie Bunker) is the sheriff. He gets the drop on the sheriff (who knows he's wanted for murder) locks him and his deputy up in the jail and has them take off all their clothes. Somehow, the two lawmen are too embarrassed to yell for help, so that lets Coburn escape, heading for the sheriff's house to steal, apparently, the only good horse in town, from the sheriff.While in this act, Coburn bumps into the sheriff's grown-up daughter, in the barn. He almost immediately goes after her, she tries to resist and we are treated to seeing the beginnings of a rape scene--the film makes it clear without nudity. Next scene, she emerges from the barn in the morning, now happy about the whole thing, yet still willing to tell Daddy that she was raped.In a broad farce, a rape "could" possibly come off as funny. But there was too much seriousness here to make this the least bit funny. It was painful to watch as he chased her around the barn then pulled her down and started forcing her to kiss him. There was no humor here at all.When she tells Daddy what happened (he got clothes from someone else) he was more upset that his horse was stolen than that his daughter's virtue was trashed. He goes after Coburn, and the rest of the film features long chases through the desert and many switches of possession of the stolen gold between Coburn and O'Connor's characters, who join together, inexplicably, and the original thieves.The biggest flaw here was that there was nobody likable in the show. We need to have some reason to root for someone, but we didn't. So there was no reason to care about who wound up with the gold.I think I smiled once or twice, but nothing in the entire film generated even a chuckle.Believe-ability is also important. If the sarge in charge of guarding the gold is IN on the plot to steal it, why on earth did they need a tunnel to steal it in the first place? Just have the people taking it slip in when the sarge is the only guard around.So, the comedy was totally missing, the drama was a bore, and the notion that rape is a minor offense is offensive; those together force me to give it my rarest rating--a one.

Maybe this is a movie Hitchcock saw before directing his 1972 picture "Frenzy". In that film, there's a scene of a businessman discussing the story's 'necktie murders' which also involve rape, and he says "I suppose it's nice to know every cloud has a silver lining", as it relates to a victim who was raped before being killed. I couldn't believe it then and I can't believe it with this movie, the attitude taken by the screen writers and director in taking an approach that brushes the subject off as just one of those things. OK, I can understand the parody aspects to the picture as it moves along, but that message of tolerance for a despicable act unnerves me even as I write about it. And to see such talented actors as James Coburn and Carroll O'Connor involved in the denigration of Sheriff John's (O'Connor) daughter was a bit hard to take. Granted, 1967 was a half century ago and I don't mean to go totally PC about it, but it did a lot to detract from this viewer's enjoyment of the picture. Not to mention the way it tarnished the actual comedic moments in the story.

Have those who do not like this film because of its 'morality' considered that the movie is actually criticizing a culture that views rape as funny? I do not have time to write a long essay, but consider the pertinent lyrics to the narrative ballad: 'Raping and killing weren't really so bad, but stealing Old Blue, now that made Sheriff John mad.' Is that the movie's message, or its commentary?We know who we are dealing with here. The sheriff says that he was planning a gold robbery himself, but got elected sheriff. 'If this job weren't so sweet and soft, why I might just elect to join the criminal profession.'Not one character is completely admirable, nor is anyone completely despicable. Lewton Cole is an anti-hero: Although he never lies, he is rarely faithful to the spirit of the truth. The movie's handling of a variety of moral issues is really quite profound.

Haven't seen Waterhole #3. Having just read 'writerasfilmcritic's review, will enjoy so doing. 3 will offend those who believe what we laughingly call civilisation commenced in the late 60's, when stunt-growth subversive whelps of 30's Trotskyite parents began the slow train wreck called Political Correctness. Those offended by 3 wouldn't last two seconds during 3's era. Mindrot 'Victim Hagvocates','Facilitators','Sensitivity Trainers' and other lice, steeped in the delusion that Mammon and lawyers can save them would flee in horror from that tool of the Old West known as the rifle. They'd scream 'Gun! Gun! Call 911!'. Confronted by a hissing rattler - hiss far more dramatic than rattle - they'd recite an insipid roster of environmentalcase memberships and sue for peace. The rattler would do as do rattlers always, bite and slither away. Call it pest control.Refreshing to hear of 3's cultural outlook. In the 50's and 60's schools had gun clubs and rifle ranges yet were islands of tranquil learning. Worst offenses? Gum chewing and note passing. Yes, I said the 60's. Not all of us behaved as dirty hippies only to morph into big fat bloated money grubbing Korpseorate Oligarchs in the 90s and '00s. We were too busy studying and having fun to waste time on communist front groups like feminism, environmentalism, peace rallies, ban-the-gun-ism and other Trotskyite Beasts That Would Not Die.Many of we much maligned Boomers despise vapid PC trappings of litigation, restraining orders, and endless whining on LeftWing LezBag TV carnivals like dOprah. Got a beef? Discern your part in it. That'll stop it. Someone bugging you? Never ever even joke about Restraining Orders. They're Leninist contrivances crafted by devious deviant lawyer-mutants, promoted by psychopaths for the purpose of dividing society the better to destroy it. Walk from trouble if you can. If not, educate those who make it as to its steep costs.Might Waterhole #3 make a good litmus test? You know, those offended by 3 we'd keep at polite distance while those who enjoy 3 we'd put on our A list? Makes sense here. PC shills like lawyers and Victim Hagvocates lie for criminals so as to destroy society. Why do they scorn the Old West? Because in that era they'd be marked as twisted serpetine rejects. They'd be stuffed into the nearest boobie hatch - to resounding applause.See this film. It sounds like a breath of fresh air in a world slowly strangling itself with endless 'reforms', laws, and PC trash.Dr. Paul Vincent ZecchinoManasota Key, Floridawww.etherzone.com26 September, 2006 "Fear is the price of our instrument. But I can help you bear it."H. Lecter, M.D.c. Thomas Harris,"The Red Dragon"