Like many people who've seen the trilogy, usually they're exposed to this film as opposed to its first installment. Some are not even aware about the other films existence either, this was the one that seemed to have struck a huge chord with many people and left a bigger mark in cinema. However, the other two films had most of the elements that made this film so popular, which made me think to myself for a long period of time of what made this film better than the previous ones? Did the film really take more steps forward than what the other films did; or is this really an over-hyped film that just managed to get more attention? ON WITH THE REVIEW!
Set in the west during the American Civil War, the Man With No Name (Clint Eastwood) teams up with a Mexican bandit named Tuco (Eli Wallach) in a money making scheme where the two plan to split Tuco's bounty money after he is delivered and saved from being hanged. But no longer taking anymore of Tuco's complaints, he leaves him out in the middle of the desert to burn to death without a horse, hat, or water. Tuco vows vengeance against the man (who he refers to as Blondie) and survives getting across the desert to make Blondie suffer what he suffered. Tuco nearly succeeds with killing Blondie, until he discovers a carriage full of dead Confederate soldiers with only one surviving solider who is severely wounded and close to facing death. In exchanged for water, he tells Tuco about $200,000 Confederate gold coins that he buried in a grave at a cemetery. Before he can tell Tuco which grave he hid the gold, he collapses and Tuco runs back to his horse to get him water to reveal the name of the grave. When returning however, he finds the solider dead with Blondie laying next him who found out the grave's name, but won't tell Tuco unless he nurses him back to health and takes him to the location of where the gold is hidden. The two men keeping their part of the secret from each other, team-up once again to embark on a journey in finding the gold. Unfortunately the cold and vicious rogue cowboy Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) is after the gold as well, and will do whatever means necessary to get his hands on the loot.
When comparing the story to this film to the previous two films, it offers a few more interesting twists and turns. That's not to say that the stories in the previous two films weren't exciting and offered situations that held me at the edge of my seat, but unlike how those films were pretty much about Eastwood killing bad guys to profit off of them, this film uses a part of that element from its predecessors in the first hour and suddenly turns it all around to give us a big action/adventure treasure hunt for the rest of the film! It's a sequel that knows how much to duplicate the franchise's identity in terms of plot while still giving us a story that's completely fresh and new. Eastwood is not partnering up with an innocent and wise civilian or a bounty hunter who is his equal, he's now teaming up with a criminal who hates him as much as he hates Tuco, but must put their differences aside to work together, that I find to be more fascinating when compared to his other partnerships since these two clearly have no respect for each other. And unlike how Eastwood makes money for turning in the criminals to the authorities dead or alive, Eastwood doesn't have that choice since he needs him in order to get what he wants knowing that turning in the criminal that he's working with is not going to amount to the same sum of money as the gold that he's hunting for. Eastwood is also no longer confined to a town or a near by hide-out like in the last films, he and Tuco travel from one different location to another as they overcome every challenge that's thrown in their way (even before the treasure hunt begins) which gives the film more variety than what we were given before, making each situation and place they go to a surprise and a start to a whole new chapter as if we're watching a series of episodes to a season of a TV show being condensed together. And though Eastwood has to watch his back from the backstabbing bandit aiding him on his trip, and avoid the ruthless Angel Eyes who crosses his path when he least expects it, the film takes the extra step to include him being caught in the middle of the Civil War where he's captured by the soldiers, and forced to take part in their battles, which just makes the stakes even higher than they ever were before! Sure there were indeed soldiers in the original two films, but they didn't nearly play as big of a role or became as much of a threat as they are here.
One of my favorite storytelling techniques that the film uses that improves upon what "For A Few Dollars More" started, is how the characters are introduced. In "For a Few Dollars More" when we were introduced to Eastwood and Van Cleef's characters the film would spend the first 12 minutes or so showing off how each of them catch their bounty, before the film's plot begins with the film's villain El Indio escaping from jail and leading to these two bounty hunters to team-up when they discover that they're both after the same crook and are equally skilled. The introduction scenes were a terrific way of getting us acquainted to both characters as it got us hyped for the action that would later happen in the film, but none of these scenes move the story forward which results with these scenes being an overlong prologue to this 2 hour and 12 minute film. When all three characters are introduced in this film to define their personalities and skills, they're doing something that would move the story forward or play a bigger part to the story much later on. Tuco is introduced killing all the bounty hunters off-screen where you at first think that this scene is not going to go anywhere and just be a simple wild introduction to this character. However, much later in the film, it turns out that one of the bounty hunters is alive and is seeking vengeance on him. As we witness what a merciless killer that Angel Eyes is, we also find ourselves learning about the gold and how he knows about it, before our main characters can even hear the news. And when Eastwood finally appears, he's not alone killing his rivals and capturing a wanted man, he meets Tuco for the first time and starts conducting his scam against the law enforcement. Sergio Leone even goes as far to give these introduction scenes a little more style by ending their scenes by freezing their image and placing colorful titles next to them to identify which character falls under good, bad, and ugly, as a piece of the film's theme plays.
Since Eastwood has top billing, you expect him to be the star and focus of the film, like in the previous films of the trilogy, but in all honesty he's not given much focus. He's easily the toughest and wittiest of all the three characters who's given a handful of scenes to show off all his classic badass trademarks that he brought to the character in the past (his attitude; the way he shoots; how he smokes that short cigar), but the film seems more focused on his side-kicked Tuco. I personally enjoy watching Eastwood more in "A Fistful of Dollars" than I do in this film since the spotlight was always on him in that film as he demonstrated all the tropes that make him out to be a different kind of cowboy. So what makes Eastwood stand-out so much in this film as the Man with No Name? Well a few things actually! In the past two films, he's always seen to be wearing his trademark poncho, and with this being the third installment to the saga; you'd expect him to wear it throughout the film. But instead, he doesn't wear the clothes that we see him usually in until the very end of the film, where we see him gradually add the pieces of clothing that we're familiar with to his wardrobe as the film moves along. And since we never see Eastwood change clothing in the previous two films since he's always shown to be wearing his iconic outfit that would in some respects make this film a prequel.
And it's not just Eastwood changing his clothes to hint that this film is a possible prequel to the other films, but also because the film takes place during the Civil War, when the previous films seem to take place after the war, which the concept of having a western focusing on the Civil War is another unique thing that the film offers. Though the film is most likely not the first gun-slinging western film to involve the Civil War, it's not often that you see a western of this type give so much emphasis on it, where the sense of adventure of finding gold combined with the harsh reality of war don't feel like one element is being more focused on than the other. They're both given equal treatment for them to mash together to perfectly shine. I'm not going to pretend that the film is by any means a perfect and accurate representation of the Civil War because there are plenty of inaccuracies that I'm sure would make any history-buff shake their heads just as much as the inaccuracies in "The Birth of a Nation". But still you can not only tell that Leone was trying as best as he could to visually capture the war for how the sets and costumes resemble pictures that you'd see in old photos of the war, but the emotions regarding war in general is handled so gritty and maturely that its chillingly powerful. This film doesn't go as far to glorify the war by making it be all about heroic masculinity and claim which side is right and wrong, they're both seen as the equal problem as they slaughter each other and keep taking Blondie and Tuco hostage who want no part in their feud. After seeing so many cool scenes of the characters taking out people who stand in their way, when we see people battle in war or witnessing severely wounded soldiers on every side that are slowly dying while shivering in pain, they're not played out as exciting entertainment as the other scenes in the picture for how quiet and realistic they look. And when we meet the leaders of the troop that the characters are captured by they’re not harsh people who want to take the enemy down and win, they are actually upset and disgusted by the war as one leader who is slowly wasting away and doesn't want any of the war prisoners to be given cruel treatment, as another leader drinks his problems away with no desire to fight or command. The way that this film handles these war dramas are not something that you saw in any of the other films (or in that many westerns in general) so the fact that Leone decided to make his film more than a typical shoot-em up western film with gold by adding something deep and real to it, takes the series a step further by trying to appeal more to the emotion than just simply to entertain.
After talking so much about the Civil War portions, I'm sure you're wondering why I bring this up now (apart from the film being a prequel) since I was in the middle of talking about why Eastwood's character stands out in this film despite not being the complete focus. Well as the film tackles on the dramas of the war, it doesn't show us these horrors just to give the film more of an edge, but we see how the characters react and deal with the war, that is best represented by Blondie that gives him a subtle but effective arc. When Blondie first appears in the film, he's no different to the other two killers we’ve met, since he shows no remorse in who he kills, where the only thing that labels him as “the good” is that he brings Tuco to the law and spares his life, which isn't really all that good either since he does con towns for profit off of Tuco, and lets Tuco slowly suffer out in the desert as opposed to just killing him or officially bringing him in to be hanged. As the film progresses, Blondie goes into being in near death situations orchestrated by Tuco, to getting caught in the middle of the war experiencing imprisonment with the other prisoners, and witnesses soldiers fiercely wasting their lives despite many of them showing no pleasure in fighting, that shocks him and causes him to slowly value human life, where you see the character's change of heart towards the end when encountering another solider, and how he handles his last situation that involves him forcefully pulling the trigger. And we don't see Eastwood monologue how he's feeling, or see him break-down, we feel his displeasure and pain in what he's experiencing from what we're seeing with him as he gives a cool but disgusted look on his face, where he even at times gives a quiet and bruiting look on his face. This is legitimately the only time when Eastwood’s character has ever been given a legitimate story-arc in any of these films. He had goals but he wouldn't change or learn anything different about himself or the people around him. The closest that he ever gotten to that was when he helped an innocent family in a "Fistful of Dollars" since he knew people like them where nobody was around to help, which is a nice moment that gives him a bit of back-story, but it isn't the focus of the movie; it was more about Eastwood just taking down both families to clean up the town while making a profit off of them. And in "A Few Dollars More" all the emotion and focus was on Eastwood's partner Col. Douglas Mortimer while Eastwood just hanged back and aided him.
As Eastwood has a story-arc that changes him to make his character appear to be more human than just a tough cigar smoking badass (even though it would mean nothing if this was intentionally a prequel to the other films), he's more vulnerable here than he's ever been before. In the other films, you always knew that Eastwood would get out of a rough situation even when being literally kicked to the ground, for how calculating and near unstoppable he is. He almost seemed too perfect of a hero, where the problems that he faces were just annoying inconveniences as his injuries felt almost nothing more than just a few scratches no matter how weak they try to make him look. So to make things seem more challenging and brutal for Eastwood, Leone puts him in situations where he can't so much as use his wits to get himself out of, he'd only be free either by convenient luck or a decision made by the person who has him right where he wants him. So when we see a scene involving Eastwood suffering in the desert, he looks so drained of energy for how dehydrated he appears to be from his burnt face and having no place to escape from Tuco or the hot burning sun that even though you know he'll survive somehow, you still would swear that he is very close to meeting his maker for how harsh and brutal the entire sequence is.
And that's another thing that this film does better when compared to the other films, the violence feels more painful! It uses the same style that the other films had by building up the suspense and having the deaths end quickly, showing more blood when compared to other westerns at the time, and seeing innocents being harshly killed or tortured; but you get more of the weight of when someone is getting injured in this film. Some of that has to do with the emotional appeal that connects to the war where we see these men covered in blood and missing a limb during battle, but when it doesn't have to do with the war, the scenes revolving around the characters being tortured feel just as harsh from the way these scenes are acted, directed, paced and shot. You feel the tight grip of the noose around Tuco's neck as he's about to be hanged (that may also have to do with the fact that Elli Wallach did most of his own stunts that nearly cost him his life). Every beating, scream, and ounce of blood that comes out of Tuco when he's being tortured feels real, as opposed to coming off as a bit staged and tamed. This film brings that solid amount of giving us fast and exciting action that's cool to look at, and scenes and moments where the violence feels intense and gruesome that are hard to watch at times. That's not to say that the other films didn't have moments that were painful and disturbing either. Some moments of Eastwood getting beat-up in the first film felt harsh (especially for the time); and a part of me wishes that the film took a bit of that darker edge that "For a Few Dollars More" had that involved such traumatic scenes like the suicidal rape, or a baby and a wife being killed off-screen by the villain, because there aren't any scenes in this film that go into that shocking direction. But still the film offers so many memorable scenes of tension and gun-play that it's overall incredible that this filmed used most of the trademarks that made the other films so good and perfected on them, if not all.
Other techniques from the movies that Sergio uses and enhances to make them stand-out more, are his use of close-ups; wide-open space shots; drawn-out scenes to build up the suspense; and focusing more on visual storytelling instead of having the characters constantly talk; however the numero uno aspect that makes the film so big and epic where all of these other trademarks of the film combine grandly together is Ennio Morricone's score. The score plays a huge part in the film's identity and without it, the film would only be half as good! It'd be like watching "JAWS" or Tim Burton's "Batman" without the music, the film wouldn't be as atmospheric and effective. Morricone's score for the other films played a big factor with sucking you into to this world with Leone's visuals, but he seriously out does himself when composing the score for this film. Who isn't familiar with that high pitched famous flute sound that sounds like someone whistling that then proceeds to the famous "Wah, Wah, Wah" part of the score? It's simply unforgettable, whether you've seen the film or not! Even if the score didn't become a part of pop culture, it's still an amazing score where it seems that Morricone is using all the queues and sounds that that helped make his work in the previous installments so stunning and mixed them all together while still providing a fresh and new original piece of art, like Leone himself. It's operatic, it's dramatic, it's thrilling, it's adventurous, it's depressing, and it’s just all around spectacular on every level of music! Outside of its beloved and celebrated theme that will never ever leave your head, a few of my personal favorite pieces of music from the film as well as scenes, is Angel Eye's introduction where we get heavenly music as he's riding in the distant making us think that he's a hero until we see his face fully approaching the camera where we stare as his scary eyes as the guitar strings are suddenly being strummed faster and faster to make his entrance turn eerie; "The Story Of A Soldier" song that's sung by the mentally tortured prisoners of war who are forced to play, as well as the song's instrumental that can be heard many times in the film during the scenes depicting the war that's mournful and as powerfully haunting as his score to "Once Upon a Time In America"; and his second most famous piece of music from the film "The Ecstasy of Gold" that leads to a heart-pounding showdown between the three characters that's shot, paced, and edited so intensely that no matter how many times I see it the tension still continues to rise, thus making it the best final draw in all the three films (especially when considering that it's three people ready to shoot each other, instead of just two). I could talk so much more about the score and the scenes attached to it, however, I'd hate to spoil most of it for newcomers, but the bottom line is it's a huge a staple of what makes the film work so brilliantly!
But I will mention one last thing that I feel is important surrounding the music and visuals before talking about the rest of the main characters, and that's the opening credits! The opening credits for the first two dollars films were always the part of the films that got you hyped up for the film as you listened to the film's main theme and watched visuals that fit the film's tones as the credits rolled. Clearly we know which score beats the others, but how about the opening credits themselves? The opening credits to "A Fistful of Dollars" was different from what you've seen in a western for its flashing colors and rotoscope animation of silhouettes of the characters in the film riding horses and getting killed, while the credits to "A Few Dollars More" connected to a scene of a bandit getting shot from a distance who we find out that it's Eastwood who shot him by having the credits appear in the form of cigar smoke. Those two seem just as hard to the top as the other things in the movie, especially for how both of the previous opening credits differed from each other. The opening credits in this film take a similar approach to what the first film did, where we see animation of people riding horses, events that would later take place in the film being shown, and hearing gun fire. It almost seems like a copycat of an already unique opening to a western film, but it still stands out as its own thing. Rather than everything being rotoscoped, we see the characters faces being painted, and see old and rough illustrations of some of the events in the film that look like something out of an old history book, perfectly setting the tone for its war and western feel, and having the use of art being symbolic since Leone's cinematography resembles paintings from shots of the backgrounds and the characters faces. It feels a lot closer to Leone's style than the other credits since "A Fistful Of Dollars" looked a little to close to looking like the opening for a Bond film, while "For A Few Dollars More" though capturing the art side of him from the shot of that beautiful landscape didn't really offer anything else that visually appealing to give you an exact feel for what's in store for you. The credits here do him complete justice, and even have images that stand-out more than any of the images from his previous opening titles, like the cannon killing cowboys on horses to make each part of the title appear, and the last image of the cannon destroying Sergio Leone's name to develop the film's subtle tongue and cheek humor on the westerns that Leone has always aimed for.
Considering the cool and calm outlaw Blondie getting a story-arc despite that we know nothing about him, everything regarding his partner in crime Tuco is the complete opposite. We know all about Tuco as a character in terms of where he came from and why he started a life crime except that he has no story-arc. And instead of being cool and professional like Blondie, he's loud and wild. This is the kind of role that you would expect Gian Maria Volonte to play since he's been playing that kind of role in the past two films, where it would have been very interesting to see him play a character who's not as witty and sophisticated as the previous criminals he's played, and team-up with Eastwood for profit and to fight against an outlaw who's more deadly than the both of them combined; but instead the role went to Elli Wallach since Volonte was committed to another film that reflected his political views. And though it’s a tad bit disappointing to not see Volonte take up a role that's in many ways similar and yet different to his previous roles, Wallach more than makes up for it because he wholeheartedly owns the character and every single moment when he speaks. He's comical and many times shown to be idiotic as he chews up the scenery and mugs the camera more than Leone probably intended him too for how much life and energy he brings to his character, but he's still a cunning and savage killer who can be just as a total badass as Eastwood is! The chemistry that they both share also never stops being entertaining and fascinating for how different they both are in terms of personality. Eastwood's quiet coolness mashed with Wallach's loud eccentric behaviors is a perfect combination that's much better than Eastwood and Van Cleef being both equally tough.
And speaking of Van Cleef he as well gives just as phenomenal of a performance as Eastwood and Wallach do. As much as I loved him in "For A Few Dollars More", he still had the face of pure evil for his squinted beady eyes and sinister looking mustache, almost as if he was going to be an obvious twist villain who you were waiting for to reveal his true colors from the very start. So Sergio did the right thing of casting him as the film's main villain instead of having Volonte play a third one in a row. When comparing him to the previous villains, Angel Eyes seemed to be very tamed. The villains that Volonte played were always violent characters who killed dozens of people (including innocents), sexually violated women, and even had the pleasure to torture our main characters. Van Cleef kills less people than Eastwood does; and doesn't lay a finger on Eastwood. He does terrible things, but they don't seem to be as awful as Volonte's characters, so could it be that this is the one major thing the film didn't perfect upon when compared to everything else? Well in some ways yes, but in many ways no. It does disappoint me that the film didn't give us more scenes of him killing people, and doing the same dirty deeds that made the other villains so disgustingly evil. But here's the thing, when I think back to the villains that Volonte played, I always find myself never being able to separate the two characters since they're both very alike in many ways. With Van Cleef on the other hand, he stands out more as the villain for not only looking it, but for how he acts. He's so cool and collected that if you cross him or don't give him answers his violent actions come at you quick and viciously hard without any sign of warning. He's a time bomb that will eventually explode, but could more than likely explode at the moment when you least expect him to as if the timer was delayed or went off earlier than anticipated. And when torturing and killing people, he gets ruthless and occasionally shows some joy in what he does where he'll also taunt his victim. And that's what makes Van Cleef a better villain than Volonte, because you're always expecting Volonte to break out into violence as you have a great idea when he will (though he'll have his small share of moments that catches you off guard) when with Angel Eyes you're not exactly sure when or how he'll carry out his acts of violence that just makes his overall presence more unsettling for how unpredictable he is, and dangerous he looks. I wish he did more, but it's one of those cases where the little he does amounts to much more!
OVERALL THOUGHTS
Pretty much any problem that I have with the film are nothing more than nitpicks. There are parts of the story that I question about (like how Blondie never becomes a wanted man after helping Tuco in front of witnesses, or why the soldiers don’t do anything when Tuco and Blondie take apart in illegal action right in front of them); elements that I wished that the film used what the others had; inaccuracies regarding the Civil War; and some of the dubbing being too obvious at times (that's at its worst in the extended cut), but nothing that really ruins the overall experience and sheer awesome factor of what a masterful western that this film is! It's one of the films where the more I watch it and think about it, the better it gets! It uses all the techniques that made the previous films stand-out and upgrades them to a whole new level as Leone takes more risks and offers a few new surprises for its change of plot, adding the horrors of the Civil War, fleshing out Eastwood's character more than usual while still maintaining his classic image, and switching and omitting his usual casting choices. Expanding upon that, you have excellent performances from our three leads that play such memorable and fascinating characters; a perfect balance of grand adventure, hardcore stylized action, and heavy drama; stunning cinematography that helps narrate the film and gives it so much depth; and arguably the best western score of all time! Whether judging it as a stand alone western film, or being part of an unofficial franchise, it still stands tall as one of the greatest western films ever made, and for good reason!
OVERALL THOUGHTS ON THE DOLLARS TRILOGY
Ever since I knew about "A Fistful of
Dollars" and "For A Few Dollars More", I for the longest time
thought that they were legitimate sequels and that "The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly" was an intentional prequel since many fans and movie buffs claim
them to be. But until I started re-watching these films and reading more about
them, I discovered that making them connected to each other was never the
intention, which would explain why these films have such terrible continuity by
never referencing each other or making sense to what happened to all the money
that "The Man With No Name" earned in all these films that could make
him rich for life! Eastwood's character wasn't ever refereed to as "The
Man With no Name" in the films since he always had a different name, which I
interrupted the reason for it to be that he changes his name in each film to
give himself a different identity for every new adventure, when in reality it
wasn't the case and purely used as a marketing tool for the films promos. The
trilogy itself doesn't so much as have an official name, since it would also be
titled as "The Man With No Name Trilogy". So if they're not connected
in terms of narration, why do so many fans and critics compare them and see
them as being part of a saga?
Many of the obvious reasons are because they're
westerns directed by Sergio Leone, star Clint Eastwood along with many of the
same actors who appeared in most of the films, and have music composed by Ennio
Morricone. But what really makes those films so comparable are that they all share
the same style, look, and feel. Eastwood's appearance, character, and performance
barely alters much in these movies where he always appears to be playing the
same guy; even though the locations to the films changes, the environments
still always looked gritty, intense and artistic from Leone's filming
techniques; and the stories though having different scenarios and motivations
were always about a lone cowboy searching for money as he kills people for it.
When I talk about Steven Spielberg's unofficial "Monster Trilogy"
("Duel", "JAWS", and "Jurassic Park")
they share plenty of similarities to one another where Spielberg himself has
claimed to be "kinship between them". However, aside from Spielberg's
perception of them that isn't commonly known or addressed by many film-buffs, the main reason why Spielberg’s film are not seen as being part of an unofficial
trilogy or are rarely ever compared is because all three of them have an
identity for each them to stand-out on its own. With Leone’s unofficial trilogy, if you've seen all three films, it's in many respects hard not to talk about or
compare the others when bringing them up in conversation for how they identical they are to each other.
So if all three of them are pretty much the same
movie that aren't trying to follow a continuing narrative, does that make them to be lazy
works of film? Not quite. They are overall excellently made films that are big and
visually stunning, with great performances, characters who stand-out,
entertaining and suspenseful action, atmospheric music, and stories that are
simple but offer plenty of investment for its large amount of surprises. And as
I clearly stated just now in my review of its third installment, they're films
that get better and better as they progress. "A Fistful of Dollars"
was a terrific starting point for Leone, who didn't have much creative freedom,
but was still able to show off his talents as a filmmaker by creating a western
unlike any other. "For A Few Dollars More" became the point when
Leone was given more freedom to explore and try out new strategies as a
filmmaker, in terms of action, storytelling, and cinematography. And when he
made "The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly" it was time for him to use
nearly all the elements from the previous movies that made them successful while still challenging
himself by giving his audience something different and powerful that became the
most celebrated and influential film in the franchise!
What truly made all of these films to be such huge
staples in the western genre was how different they were to the typical American
western. I can't say that it isn't expected because these films weren't made in
America
despite having an American actor staring in them, but were actually made in
foreign countries by Italians that were refereed to as "Spaghetti Westerns" which
were made on a low budget. However, as most spaghetti westerns at the time were
mainly comedies, Leone wanted to further on the western genre by changing the
tropes that people at the time were used to seeing in run of the mill western
films back in America,
while subtly making fun of them in a tongue and cheek sort of way. The
hero though not bad looking is definitely not a handsome and well-groomed
pretty boy who acts heroic, he's a cold killer who only does good if there's
something in it for him. The villains weren't all
talk who just kidnapped, robbed, and simply shot people;
they were savage and greedy killers that raped, killed, and tortured people in grotesque and traumatizing ways just for the fun and thrill of it, no matter if the people they harmed were
against them or not. The world that the films were set as gorgeous as it looked didn't look as polished as you would usually see in a western for how dusty and
dirty it is, as the characters live in a world full of constant
fear and violence where only the strong survive. And the violence weren't always
satirized since there would be the use of blood and extended scenes of building-up the tension or showing people slowly getting killed and beat-up; but they weren't
always taken seriously since some of the deaths (if not most) while cool and
full of style, were also exaggerated and even poked humor at the genre, whether
how an actor pretends to play dead, Tuco making fun of a typical cliche, or
Eastwood using a machete to kill a surviving bandit. I can't certainly say that these films and its choices were the first
ones to try it (I'll get into that in my next review), but they were still definitely big game changers for westerns that
would inspire American filmmakers to take extra steps forward, as Leone created a distinct style in
his films that can never be mistaken for anything else outside of them. You see
Eastwood, hear the music, and gaze at Leone's artistic looking
shots, and you think of one of the films from this trilogy!
The only major problem I can find in any of these movies
is the dubbing. Since these films were made outside of America, it would be more than
likely that the majority of the actors didn't speak English. And most of them weren't
Italian either, they were all different ethnicity that Leone chose not mainly
for their skills as actors, but because they had distinctive facial features to
them that either fit the look of the character or made them stand-out (thus
adding to his iconic portrait like-style of cinematography). Leone himself only
spoke little English as well, and would simply direct his actors by telling them
to watch him as he would act out the scenes himself, and then would shoot the
actors performing the scenes as they spoke in their native language.
Afterwards the films would then be dubbed and edited in post-production in one
whole language for each country that the film gets distributed too, which in
some ways makes me curious to see a cut of these films with all the original
native languages mixed together that probably wouldn't be good, but would be
interesting for fans like myself to hear the majority of the actor's performances in
their native tongues. The dubbing for many people may come off as distracting
for the odd edits, the occasional terrible lip-syncing, and the obvious sense
that people are recording their lines in a booth. I personally never had that big of a
problem with it since the actors voices always matched how these characters
would sound and behave through decent editing techniques, when with say the
dubbing for the American Godzilla films, the actors voicing the Japanese actors
would sound too white American as these films barely tried to hide the terrible lip-syncing. And as the films got better and better, so did the dubbing,
especially when it came to casting a few more American actors in the lead
roles.
But apart from the bad dubbing, these films are
all excellent, and should be celebrated for its influence with changing
westerns, the appeal they have on pop culture, and launching Eastwood's career
as a movie star! The films may not be connected in terms of story, but they
share so many things in common that they may as well be seen as trilogy,
whether you can make sense out of its continuity or not! It just possibly may
be the best unofficial trilogy to have ever existed for how strong its fanbase
is by adopting these three separate films as one whole saga!
It's became so recognized and celebrated that even "The Great Movie Ride" at the last minute created an animatronic of Eastwood as "The Man With No Name" (assumingly from the third film, since he’s not wearing his poncho) as he hangs back by a saloon smoking his short cigar. And yet for some strange reason, there are still tons of people who don't talk about these films or aren't even aware about the films before "The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly"! It's highly unfortunate that the mainstream crowd doesn't celebrate these films as much as the film historians and fans of the trilogy do, but considering how not many people in this generation aren’t into westerns the same way as people once were, I can't say that its the series fault and am at least glad that there are still many people who keep it alive both young and old. If you're not into westerns, I still highly recommend that you give these films a watch if you want a complete full dosage of pure entertaining badass action on an artsy level! But if you have to see one, then definitely see "The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly"!
