Since I started this particular blog, I've tried my best to watch films that challenge me. And nothing challenges me quite like Westerns. It's one genre of film that I've never been particularly drawn to, and I always have to fight my natural tendency to tune out what I'm watching and pay attention. Having said this, the 1964 Sergio Leone classic A Fistful of Dollars was one of the real gems of 30 Flicks (the review of which can be read rightchere). If you've ever seen Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo (and I have), you've seen this movie, where an unnamed stranger arrives in town and promptly plays two warring factions within said town against each other while lining his pockets with money from both camps. It was a very simple concept, but the execution was almost perfect, with a kickass score and a kickass ending to boot. Afterward, I was actually looking forward to watching the other two movies in this unofficial trilogy, with both ensuing films again directed by Leone and both starring Eastwood as the antihero whose dialogue is very sparse.
Released to Italian cinemas a scant year after A Fistful of Dollars, 1965's For a Few Dollars More opens just like predecessor - with an amazing credits sequence accompanied by Ennio Morricone's awesome music. While he was known as "Joe" in the previous film, this time around Eastwood is addressed by the other characters as "Manco," and has graduated from being a rogue criminal to a bounty hunter. The film tells the story of Manco's competition and eventual partnership with Colonel Mortimer, a fellow hunter played by Lee Van Cleef in an appropriately scenery-chewing performance. The relationship between them is adversarial at first, eventually leading up to an admittedly goofy shooting contest that results in a grudging respect. I can't quite make up my mind about whether I loved or hated a scene involving a character shooting a hat multiple times in the air before it hits the ground. I lean toward the former.
The plot thread of the film is the two characters' search for Indio (Gian Maria Volente), brutal bank robber who has been broken out of prison by his posse. The story leads Indio toward the cinematic "one big score" that a good deal of heist movies revolve around, with Manco infiltrating his gang and Mortimer in hot pursuit. Director Leone throws in some excellent unconventional storytelling
touches in the way he treats the character of Indio, including a running
flashback that slowly explains the musical pocket watch that Indio
carries with him. He also mines the chemistry that Eastwood and Van Cleef share for all its worth; the film is a "buddy cop" movie before such a thing existed.
I did not find For a Few Dollars More quite as enjoyable as the original film. The movie's theme of revenge that is gradually revealed to the audience is a powerful one, and the performances are appropriate to the material. Leone's cinematography is again masterful, with his use of long takes standing out in this movie a bit more this time around. The main problem that I had with this movie was its length. At 132 minutes, it felt far too long for a movie of this nature. A Fistful of Dollars felt lean and mean. This film has execution that feels a bit sloppier, due to a story that occasionally meanders and takes perhaps one twist too many. It's a minor complaint, but this film definitely has more faults than the original. Fortunately, Leone would immediately get to work on the follow-up, and in 1966 we would get...
...The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The execution is always sharp with this film - Quentin Tarantino's all-time favorite movie, no less. After watching this movie, I can see the influence that it had the vast majority of his works. The storytelling that constantly shifts gears, the group of principal characters who all have severe flaws, and the plot involving a major crime being committed are all things that seem right out of a '90s Tarantino film. The setting, though, is wildly different. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly takes place during the American Civil War and begins its opening chapters introducing its three leads who fit each of those monikers. The Good is Eastwood, this time around known only as "Blondie." The Bad is the awesomely-named Angel Eyes, with Van Cleef in a different role from the revenge-driven bounty hunter he played in For a Few Dollars More. The Ugly is Tuco (Eli Wallace), an occasionally bumbling but very resourceful and cunning bandit.
The movie never looks back after the bursts of violence that establish the main characters. The crux of the story here is $200,000 in Confederate gold that all three characters find themselves on the trail of. The story flows with a very nice logic, as Angel Eyes is the first to learn of the gold's existence via a professional hit that makes him turn on his employer. Blondie and Tuco, meanwhile, happen across the search by chance - the kind of chance that feels right at home in Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill. The script has elements of escalation, with each act of violence and set piece topping the previous and the characters coming up with more ingenious ways to outfox the others.
Leone again tells an admittedly simple story through the eyes of multiple characters, but everything just feels grander and bigger this time around. Tuco is really the glue that holds the movie together, as we get to meet his brother and find out why he became a criminal. There are also elements of social commentary at play here as we are shown not only the prison camps on the Confederate side, but the Union side as well, and the futility of war is a theme that runs throughout the film's 180 minutes. That is really my only complaint with The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It is simply too long - of those 180 minutes, I feel that the movie could have been trimmed by at least 30 minutes, likely even more. A slightly leaner and faster-paced film would have likely made this movie very close to perfection. As it stands, it is a very good piece of action cinema.
I suppose I should close this post with a few ruminations about the series as a whole. While they are definitely not my favorite movies of all time by any stretch, there are many things to admire about this particular series of films. First and foremost are the jobs done by its director and leading man - Leone is an amazingly skilled artist, endlessly innovative with this at times very narrow genre and guiding it through directions it had never gone before. You can also see him become a better director with each film, with The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly being a showcase for his talents via some very noticeable bird's-eye-view camera shots. Eastwood is perfect in his role as the almost-silent protagonist, far from an angel but still possessing of a certain moral code that pours through his icy gaze. These two men were what gave us the career of Clint Eastwood, which would kick off in a big way in 1967 when all three of these films were released in the States to rabid audiences. The rest is history.
Review over. Time to hand out the ratings:
A Fistful of Dollars - ***
For a Few Dollars More - ***
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - *** 1/2
These films definitely paint your wagon with things other than paint.
0 comments:
Post a Comment