Film Essay: Early Essential Anti-War Films

Anti-war propaganda movies have always remained a popular subject. Usually when modern audiences think about them, many tend to refer to the ones made in the 70s to the present with such classics as "Full Metal Jacket", "Platoon", "Saving Private Ryan", "Apocalypse Now", "Schindler's List", "Hacksaw Ridge", and "American Sniper." That mainly comes from how modern audiences tend to focus more on films made after the "Black and White Hollywood era." But there are still many who are unaware of the existence of anti-war movies made during the early stages of cinema as most of them were used as propaganda for fighting the war than calling out on the horrors and tragedy of it. They were undoubtedly a product of their time, yet, there were still anti-war films made around the time that has gone as far as to win the award for Best Picture for how powerful their messages were executed.

Through the silent era, anti-war films such as "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" and "The Big Parade" have successfully managed to shock and depress people through their portrayal of war. The first significant anti-war sound film that has won many audiences and critics over is Lewis Milestone's "All Quiet on the Western Front" from 1930. At the start of the film, it doesn't seem to treat itself as an anti-war film. We watch soldiers proudly march and sing in the background, wherein the foreground we see a friendly mailman (John Wray) making his last delivery before proudly going off to serve. We then enter a classroom filled with students who are given a lecture from their professor (Arnold Lucy) about serving the war. To inspire his class to join the war effort, rather than telling them to fight for their country, or to go to learn discipline, he instead glorifies it. He tells them that the war will be short with very little casualties, where they will easily be praised as heroes, for simply standing out on the lines and killing a few people while being properly taken care of. Through his speech, we see the students’ daydream about how they will be praised when they get back home. They think little of the risks and more about the parades and medals honored to them for their bravery, which will attract all the women around them. For their brains being filled with dreams that were directly placed in through their heads by their professor's propaganda, they immediately run off to join the war after they're questioned of who will go out and fight.

The training camp becomes their wake-up call about the realities of war as soon as their drill sergeant enters (who was formerly their mailman). The first order he gives them is to forget everything they learned as well as their dreams, so they can be dehumanized as soldiers. This order contradicts everything they were told by their professor, as they spend the next few weeks of rigorous training with hardly any breaks. Little do they realize that the horrors they are facing have not even begun. When they are sent off to fight, the war is nowhere close to their professor's description. They live in the trenches in a small bunker filled with rats, starving, as bombshells keep falling around them, almost making their bunker collapse above them. The constant bombings, the lack of food, and sitting around in boredom causes them to go insane. The action they part-take in doesn't make them feel any better. Not just because their lives are at risk, but also because they are watching their friends die in horrible ways as they kill the enemy realizing that they are probably not in the war for the right reasons either. Many have families they left behind as well. There is medical treatment available for the soldiers; however, it isn't reliable for how poor the conditions are, as most of them are sent home in a box after spending endless hours of agonizing pain. In the midst of all this, as the soldiers sit down to have a great feast after spending so many weeks or so with little food, they sit around wondering why they are fighting. They understand it's because their country leader is offended by another country leader, but they question why they have to do all the fighting instead of the people who overpower them. Why can't they settle their matters themselves, and send people who most likely don't care or offended by their conflicts fight for them? All they know is that the people who make them go are safe, as they are the ones catching the hell.

The closest that the film has to a main character is Paul (Lew Ayres), as the film is mostly just an ensemble cast. By the time Paul is allowed to visit his home, the war is still going on after the few years he's been fighting, with no signs that it will end soon. He hopes that people's opinions of the war will change, but it turns out that people are still living in ignorance. Paul is celebrated for his honor, but the people around him believe they know more about the war than he does. They tell Paul how he and the troops should have had a different strategy than the one they have, believing it would have ended the war quicker. Despite that Paul has been behind enemy lines seeing all this, he's being told that he doesn't know the details of war, as they foolishly believe Paul is under good treatment while the people at home live in conditions worse than the troops have it. This ignorance from the citizens’ point of view disgusts Paul, but it's not until he visits his old classroom that causes him to snap. Right as his professor is using the same kind of propaganda that lured Paul and his friends to fight, the professor uses him as a perfect of heroic bravery to his class so they can be just like him. Paul doesn't wish to tell the class the details of war until he is pushed by his professor to tell them. Instead of lying to the class about how wonderful it is to be a soldier, he tells them the cruelties that he and his friends have faced, telling them there is no glory when fighting. For this, the students in the class label him as a coward. Paul at this point becomes certain that everybody is brainwashed by the propaganda supporting war, knowing that many more lives from young recruits will be wasted.

"All Quiet on the Western Front" tackles more on the battlegrounds then it does the aftermath of the war. An anti-war film that focuses strictly on the aftermath of the war is William Wyler's "Best Years of Our Lives" from 1946, which follows the lives of three soldiers returning home after serving in World War II. The character who takes up most of the film's plot is ex bombardier Fred Derry (Dana Andrews). Before being shipped out to war, Fred married a beautiful woman named Marie (Virginia Mayo) that he's only known for less than a month. After returning home, Fred seeks to find a better career than his old soda jerk job since his skills in the war have made him ambitious to explore new horizons. Unfortunately, since he only worked one job, and spent all his time fighting which isn't qualified for any job in his town, Fred crawls back to his old job that is now under new management. As all this is going on, the woman he married who fell madly in love with him for being a war hero who is about to make a lot of money from his service, spends it all and quickly loses attraction to him for being nothing more than an ordinary man. Fred overtime begins to discover (along with another veteran) that there are people at home who don't appreciate soldiers. One of the patrons at the soda bar he works at, for instance, goes as far as to insult soldiers calling them suckers right to their faces. Fred can't so much as get a good night sleep from all the troubles he's facing after the war because his memories of fighting the enemy and watching people on his platoon suffer haunts him in his nightmares.

Fred has trouble finding a job, but former Platoon Sergeant Al Stephenson (Fredric March) gets a promotion at his old job from a banker to a Vice President in charge of small loans. The problem is that he notices that the bank has not been helping that many vets out because of their lack of collateral for being away fighting. The lack of finical help from the bank disgusts Al, believing that soldiers deserve a chance to rebuild their lives after serving their country. Al himself has trouble rebuilding his life at home. For being away for so long to heed Uncle Sam's call, he has missed watching his children grow. For their knowledge, difference in behavior, and work-life, he does not feel that they are not his children for how much they evolved. It becomes harder for him to rekindle with his kids now that they are at the age where they have their own lives, despite living at home. Although many of the scenes of Al drinking is played-out for comedy, there is still emotion to be felt since alcohol is the only thing at the moment that can help him cope with all his troubles.

In the very least, Fred and Al have made it out of the war in one piece. The third veteran they meet on their way home named Homer (Harold Russell) has lost his hands. The tragic part is he wasn't involved in any of the war combat. He was confined to a repair shop below the ship's deck. Due to a fire that was caused by enemy planes as the boat he was in sunk, Homer’s hand was severely burnt beyond any medical treatment. To replace his hands, the army gave him hooks as they trained him on how to use them. The hooks don't bother Homer until he returns home. Everywhere he goes he is pitied for his loss than he is treated like any other soldier who made it home without losing a limb. Some people (particularly children) just stare at his hooks in shock of his deformity. This angers him where he feels that he must prove to society that he can function fine without hands. However, when adjusting to the activities in his home life, though succeeding in some eras with his hooks, he realizes he can never again feel his lover's hair. He notices that he can no longer light a match as quickly as others can because of his limitations. On top of it, he needs his father to assist him with getting ready for bed after taking off his hooks, who is now at this point as helpless as an infant is. Due to his depression from adjusting to society, he shuns away his girlfriend Wilma (Cathy O'Donnell) fearing that she will no longer love him now that she has to deal with his disability.

The reason why the topic of anti-war films has lasted so long is that war is a topic that has always stayed relevant. Whether the film takes place in World War II, the jungles of Vietnam, or during the Civil War, the portrayal of the horrors of war never seemed outdated. The times may be different, the weapons they carried may not be as advance as today's weapons, however, the pain and suffering the people go through is timeless. By watching the sadness that has happened to the lives of people in the past, we reflect on it knowing that war will only get worse during the course of time.

FILM ESSAY: THE LAW VS. THE OUTLAW

Last year I reviewed two of the most iconic westerns of all time that still stand the test of time, which were "The Searchers" starring John Wayne, and "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" starring Clint Eastwood. After re-watching the film that gained John Wayne his Oscar "True Grit", and an Eastwood film that I've been dying to see since Middle School "The Outlaw Josey Wales", instead of reviewing them separately (though I eventually plan to in the future), I'm deciding to compare and contrast them. The reason why I've chosen these two films for such a comparison, as opposed to the two classics I've already reviewed, was for two reasons. The first being how these two completely different types of cowboys share together in terms of traits and personalities. And the other reason is the theme that both films are centered on which is revenge.

WARNING: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!



Interesting enough, though John Wayne has top billing in the film, his character Rooster Cogburn isn't the focus. The actual main character is a 14-year-old girl named Mattie Ross (Kim Darby), who is one of the strongest female characters to have ever existed in a western (at least until the third act). Regardless of how many times people dismiss and bully her because of her gender and age, she always finds a way to push-passed it. When Rooster and his partner La Boeuf (Glen Campbell) try to ditch her, she catches up with them. If she has trouble bargaining with a person, she won't stop arguing until she gets what she wants. She's headstrong of having things her way because she wants revenge on the man who killed her father, Tom Chaney (Jeff Corey). Though her on-screen relationship with her Father is shown very brief, her love for him is felt throughout her journey for how determined she is to find Chaney and bring him to the town where she killed her Father to be hanged as opposed to flat-out murdering him.



Josey Wales' seek for vengeance shares a similar loss that Mattie went through. Before becoming the kind of outlaw that people would expect Eastwood to behave, he was a humble and civilized farmer living happily with his wife and kid without a care in the world. Until one horrible day, an army of pro-Union Jayhawker militants arrives at his farm taking away everything he had. Instead of losing one person he loves, he loses his whole entire family and his farm from these war-crimes as he's left for dead. Wounded, alone, and with nothing left for him to live on, the only thing that Josey can do now is take revenge on the Union Jayhawkers and the man who led the attack Captain Terrill (Bill McKinney) for what they did to him, his family, and his way of life. Much like how Mattie's relationship with her Father is played-out, Josey screen-time with his family is short but is still felt not only through his actions and thirst for blood but through every moment of the scene itself without feeling rushed or too romanticized. Mattie's motive for revenge is effective, but it's definitely Josey's motive that feels grimmer and felt more by comparison.



As Mattie and Josey seek revenge over the loss of family, both being inexperienced with guns and finding criminals, they don't go alone, they get help. Josey joins a group of pro-Confederate Missouri Bushwhackers after teaching himself how to fire a gun, while Mattie hires aging U.S. Marshal Rooster Cogburn who is known for having "True Grit". Mattie may be the main character of "True Grit" and tough for fighting to get what she desires, but when it comes to partaking in action and coming up with strategies at capturing her enemy, she gets put aside for the star that people came to see shoot-up the screen, John Wayne. Mattie does shoot the man she's after, but he still lives and gets taken out by Rooster as she's trapped in a snake pit. So in terms of comparing methods and personality for how the characters take action during the search, I'll be focusing on Rooster when covering "True Grit".



Unlike Josey Wales, Rooster doesn't have any personal vendetta against the person he's tracking down, all he cares about is the money he receives from it because that's his profession. To Rooster, he finds hunting criminals and bringing them back dead or alive to be more of a profitable sport for him, than wanting to serve justice for the common good. If anything Rooster just uses his position of authority just to strike fear into the criminals he's paid to find, feeling that he can do whatever he wants to them as long as the people who pay him see it justifiable. He knows his way around the places he explores to find the person he's after very well, and how the criminals he seeks thinks, which gives him the advantage to take on his opponents when they least expect it. And when he takes his fight to those who challenge him or refuse to obey his commands, he shows no mercy or hesitation when killing them or keeping them in-line. Before being a Marshall, Rooster in the past hasn't been so different from the criminals he catches. During the Civil War, he's taken part in war crimes with Captain Quantrell and revealed to have robbed a federal paymaster after the war, who doesn't consider these illegal acts he's partaken in to be crimes. Above all, despite Rooster being played by John Wayne, the iconic charismatic American hero who we know will do right in the end regardless of his faults, Rooster is shown to be rude, patronizing, and aggressive, who constantly drinks and is very trigger happy. However, (as many would expect from Wayne playing a cowboy) he can be gentle and protective towards Mattie, almost acting like a second Father figure to her. His ways of handling Mattie can be a little too rough and cold, but only because he doesn't want her to get hurt. The relationship shows that underneath Rooster's savage and self-righteous ways is a lonely man who has no real friends or a person to care for, where the only thing that keeps him going in life is killing people for the thrill and making money to drink his pain away. 



Rooster may be flawed, but most of the people he goes after are people who are deserving of their crimes. Josey goes after people of authority who in the justice system are considered to be good guys. After years of killing Union soldiers during the Civil War, when the Union wins, the Confederates are forced to surrender, and Wales still holding a great hatred for the Union Redlegs refuses to bow down to them. His resistance becomes a lucky break for him after discovering that the Union is not only bullying the band of guerrillas he's been fighting with by forcing them to forget their beliefs but has them massacred even though the war is over. And the Captain (John Vernon) who Josey has served faithfully during the war is now slaved by the Union to take out rebels that oppose them, including Wales. The war may be officially over, but for Wales, it will continue as long as he's around and the Union Captain who killed his family is still alive and well. Josey will slaughter every Union Redleg that comes in his path, even with the knowledge that he can't single-handily slaughter them all. But he doesn't care, because just like the protagonists in "True Grit" the only things that keep him moving in life is revenge and violence which makes him become a wanted man. The greatest element to Josey's character is Clint Eastwood's performance because he's nowhere near as predictable as John Wayne is. Eastwood always had a dry and emotionless approach, who seemed like the kind of cowboy who will just do whatever he feels without caring about the consequences of his actions. Unlike how Wayne will shout, make bluffs, and give warnings when going after someone, Eastwood intimidates a person who dares to cross-him with his cold-stare and few threatening words spoken in such a gruff tone. At first, his intimidation backs away the person who is thinking about turning his gun on him, but should that man suddenly make eye contact with him again or look like he's about to pull out his pistol after being given a warning, he kills him in a wink of an eye. Just like Rooster, Josey is shown to be very calculating when coming up with strategies to attack his enemies, and is openly rude to people, except he'll mostly just spit in-front of the people he hates. Underneath his empty appearance, Josey on the inside is very caring and sentimental. He'll kill any Union Jayhawker soldier he finds but will stop his attack to rescue someone who is in need of his help. When about to ride off to face a large Comanche tribe, he leaves the people who he met on his journey who have become like family to him behind so they won't be harmed like his family. And instead of down-right killing the leader of the tribe, he sympathizes with them for their hate of the government stripping them away of everything away that they valued, and joins them as an ally, after how the government supported the people who took everything that meant to him.

Given John Wayne’s heroic reputation, and that his performance as Rooster came late in his career when everyone was already familiar with his characteristics, Eastwood as Josey Wales comes across as a more interesting character. Eastwood had already established his trademark as this kind of cowboy before in the “Dollars Trilogy”, which you can argue makes him almost as predictable as Wayne is at this point too. However, Eastwood's bruiting personality and savage approach makes him less expected when compared to Wayne because you don’t know when he’ll fire or when he’ll stop his plotting just to rescue an innocent bystander or make peace. With that said, despite their differences and one being more foreseen than the other, Wayne and Eastwood still perfectly fit the western genre, for their heroic image, tough personality, and having a soft heart underneath their cold personality. They are the true legends of westerns who will not be forgotten as long as the genre is still around.

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

Allow me to talk a little about my exposure to one of the most popular heroes in cinema, Indiana Jones...



The first time I ever heard of the character was from a trip to Disney World when I was 7 years old. Even though I went on "The Great Movie Ride" (which wouldn't impact my life the way it did until my second trip to the park), I had no memory seeing the character during that portion of the ride. The only bit I remembered during that section was the skeletons. After leaving the park, my Mom had generously bought me a souvenir video called "Around the World with Mickey & Friends", that showcased all 4 parks. Once I saw "The MGM Studios" segment, I was thrilled to see the footage of "The Great Movie Ride" which had helped refresh my memory with certain parts, but I still had no idea who the two people lifting that giant ancient golden box were and what movie was being recreated. Immediately after watching Mickey and Minnie ride "The Great Movie Ride", came Goofy watching a live show titled...



As soon as I saw the actor dressed as Indy climb down a rope to the stage and took notice of its temple setting, I instantly recognized him being the very same character in the temple full of snakes and skeletons on "The Great Movie Ride" (the fedora hat was the big give away). I became dazzled by the amount of action and excitement that was being duplicated from the film. The bits that really mesmerized me was watching spikes pop-out from underneath the floor towards almost every step Indy would take and watching him run away from a giant boulder.



A little after I saw the footage, I re-watched the opening of "The Rugrats Movie" noticing that the scene is supposed to pay homage to Indiana Jones from the giant boulder chasing after the babies, and Tommy holding a jump-rope in place of a whip calling himself "Okey-Dokey Jones". Once after seeing Disney and the Rugrats take on the film, I asked my Dad to rent me a copy. Instead of getting one film, I was given two, which were "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Temple of Doom". I saw the opening to both films and was thrilled by its sense of action and adventure, however, given how small my attention span was with live-action movies at that age, I began to turn them off as soon the action stopped.



During my second trip to "Disney World" when I was in the 5th Grade, after seeing the trailer for "Raiders of the Lost Ark" during the queue for "The Great Movie Ride", and getting a better view of the animatronics of Indiana Jones and his sidekick Sallah trying to move the ark, I left the ride anxious to see the movie again. My Dad gave me an old VHS copy of the film that he recorded off of HBO (I guess he must have found it when cleaning up the closest, since he rented me a copy a couple of years prior to it), and having more of an attention span to watch a movie in full, I left the film in awe by the character, sets, effects, score, and action. The only thing that disappointed me was that the great stoned gargoyle that contained a jewel protected by the gods was only created for "The Great Movie Ride" than originating from the movie where the scene takes place.

After re-watching it a few more times, I began to grow distant from the film when I went to High School, and haven't had the pleasure re-watching it since then. After previously covering a few of the films from "The Great Movie Ride" last year like "The Searchers" and "Footlight Parade", admiring how extremely well they held-up, it is time for me to once again dig-up this piece of nostalgia to take a closer look at it than I did as a kid. This is...



Taking place in the year 1936, daring archaeologist and college professor Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is contacted by two Army Intelligence agents. Aware of Indy's fearless reputation of finding ancient artifacts in some of the most dangerous places on earth, he is given the task to find the lost Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis with the aid of his rival Dr. Rene Belloq (Paul Freeman) find it in belief that its power will make their army invincible. Indy takes on the task and goes on a series of adventures to recover it with the help of his ex-lover Marion (Karen Allen) and a skilled digger from Cairo, Sallah (John Rhys-Davies).



Harrison Ford came fresh out of the successful "Star Wars" sequel "The Empire Strikes Back" to play Indy in George Lucas' next project. Originally Lucas didn't want Ford to play the role of Indy after Steven Spielberg has suggested it to him because he didn't want him to star in every project he's made since his wide success as Han Solo in the "Star Wars" movies. It's hard to picture anyone else taking the role of this iconic hero if these films were to be made without Ford in the lead role for how perfectly he fits it. And while many people would say that Han Solo is Ford's best role when working with Lucas, I would say that Indiana Jones would be his best. Not to say that there's anything wrong with his performance as Solo because there most certainly isn't. It's just unlike how Ford is required to only be tough, snarky, and show a little emotion when expressing the softer side of Solo, he must be the badass daring hero while still showing a nerdy and passionate side to his character. For all the cool moments that people remember the character for, people tend to overlook that he can be at times awkward and geeky. Given that he is an archaeologist, it wouldn't seem believable if he didn't seem passionate and obsessive when talking about history to the point where it feels a little geeky. And when around women he doesn't try to go for the romance like how a hero like James Bond would, if anything he can be downright uncomfortable or put in an odd situation that leads to a few moments of comedy. It's also intriguing to see Ford play a character who isn't as perfect when fighting against the bad guys. He's calculating, slick, strong, and even at times downright cold when taking on an enemy (which has me wondering why Lucas is fine with Indy killing a person in cold blood, and yet Han shooting an alien holding him at gun-point caused him to make such a controversial change), but he can make serious mistakes and have his weaknesses and downfalls. He can face all these booby traps without fear, and yet snakes scare him to death. He'll take out a few assassins in such a cool fashion, but he winds-up accidentally killing a person who's helping him. He just feels like a more rounded character and performance when compared to his role as Han, as well as having a more distinctive outfit that says so much about his character just by looking at him, which is why I find him more appealing.



Watching this film again after so long, I found myself surprised that Indy's love interest Marion is just as tough and skilled as he is. I remembered her being more as the typical damsel in distress who only exists to be a prize for Indy, and that's not to say there isn't any truth to it. She does get taken hostage numerous times in the film. But with that aside, while containing a charming and sweet personality, she can be strong and feisty. When being interrogated, she can be fearless and rough before being put in a vulnerable position. Though she becomes a prisoner of the Nazis, she uses her beauty and abilities as a means of escape when interacting with one of the main antagonists. And just like our hero, when an action scene unfolds, she doesn't suddenly run, hide, or get caught, she fights back killing any Nazi that stands in her way and saves Indy's skin on a few occasions. Allen herself doesn't look like an innocent when she takes part in the action, she becomes just as much as badass as Ford does. The relationship that both characters share is like the relationship between Han Solo and Princess Leia. They both bicker and argue but show their feelings for each other. In comparison "Star Wars" handles this kind of relationship much better. However, the chemistry that they have is just as engaging for how they both contain a love for adventure and danger, as their reasons for not getting along with each other, are legitimate after discovering (a grim part of the story that completely flew over my head as a kid) that the two were unhappy with the fact they were once lovers when she was a teenager who was ten years apart from Indy's age. Even though she "knew what she was doing" her frustration toward Indy for loving and leaving her is understandable for feeling betrayed and dirty, as Indy feels guilty for it but is trying to stay professional in his search for the ark.



Another surprise that came to me when viewing the film after so many years is discovering that John Rhys-Davies is in the film. The supporting actors in the film all give strong solid performances, but apart from Allen, the villains (will get to shortly), very few of them are memorable since their only purpose is to provide exposition. Davies' character isn't strictly around to give Indy the information he needs to move the plot forward, he also serves as his side-kick during his expedition for the ark by helping him penetrate in restricted areas and locating "The Well of Souls" where the ark is hidden. While being very loyal, Davies brings a lively performance to his character that makes him entertaining to watch, while containing a humble presence where you admire how much he cares for Indy. All he just needs are a few scenes of him getting involved in the action (after all he would later play Gimli in "Lord of the Rings"), otherwise, he makes for a great companion to our leading protagonist.



A treasure hunt action-adventure film wouldn't be complete without containing villains who are menacing and colorful, and this film certainly does deliver by providing a wide variety of different types of villains. The film's main antagonist is Indy's arch-rival Dr. Rene Belloq, who is a dark sophisticated counterpart of our leading hero. As Indy goes into life-threatening situations and fights against bad guys to find the artifact he's looking for, Belloq would always be a step ahead of him joining forces with such awful people like Nazis and terrorists to aid him in his quest. And unlike how Indy searches for these ancient artifacts for his love of history and preserving them, Belloq though is very knowledgeable about the items he's after only wants the money, power, and recognition. He's a character so nasty that a fly crawling inside his mouth doesn't faze him. Paul Freeman's performance hams up the character as if he was playing a Bond villain, he's just enjoyably dastardly as Indy's rival. Upstaging Belloq is the Gestapo agent Major Arnold Ernst Toht (Ronald Lacey). Like the villain Angel Eyes in "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly", despite doing very little, his appearance and personality are so slimy and vicious while showing great enjoyment over the people he intimidates that his presence alone is what makes him so chilling. You're never sure when he's going to strike or how far he goes when using brutal force on the people he meets, all you know is that it's going to be slow and incredibly painful where your screams will just increase his pleasure. There are other villains who stand-out in the film too, like the eye-patch terrorist with his Nazi saluting monkey, the giant bald head Nazi, and Alfred Molina as Indy's backstabbing guide, but they're only in the film for a short time.



The film's villains are indeed threatening, but nowhere near as fleshed-out as our hero, and for a film like this, that's fine. The film's focus is not about Indy and his rival challenging each-other wits, it's your simple point A to point B adventure film where the hero, the action he takes part in, and the treasure he seeks is the primary focus, like in a Bond film from the time or an old film serial. As a matter of fact, a lot of the film was inspired by old Saturday Matinees from the '30s and '40s (particularly the ones made from "Republic Pictures) for their fast-paced action, stunts, adventure setting, and thrilling cliff-hangers. Only instead of the film being shot on the same small scale as these types of films were, it's made to look as big and grand as classics like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Citizen Kane". It takes the same kind of influences as the "Star Wars" films did, except Lucas' idea of having the film centered on an archaeologist when paying tribute to serials was the first idea he had in mind before deciding to set his tribute to the genre in space.



Most audiences and critics would consider the action in this film to be some of cinema's greatest, and they certainly aren't wrong. I was blown away at how well the action in this film holds-up. There's not a single sequence that bores or drags-on. Scenes such as Indy escaping booby traps in a temple, the fist-fight by a spinning plane, the shoot-out in the bar, and Indy dangling on a moving truck are all just one big thrill ride. The tension and obstacles that Indy faces in these scenes never die-down and only get worse by creating new problems for him thus making the situations more captivating for how high the stakes are. The pacing itself perfectly moves from slow and intense to fast and exhilarating when the action begins to start as you're still given time to breathe and admire the images in front of you through terrific editing that doesn't rush. Being able to see everything, unlike today's action movies where most of it uses CGI to the point where you can't fully appreciate the stunt-work, since this film was made at a time when these advantages weren't around, the stunts performed here (some by Ford himself) are breathtaking for how dangerous and insane they are. The stunts not only still stand the test of time, but so does most of the effects. This film uses nearly every single effect that was around at the time, such as blue-screen, matte paintings, miniatures, animation, live animals, sets, on-location shots, and so much more. It's incredibly impressive the kind of imagination and effort that went into making these effects look so dazzling, especially in the film's climax! The only effects that haven't aged too well are some of the blue-screen effects, but even so, they still add so much to the atmosphere of the scenes they're used in that it doesn't matter if its obvious or not. Adding to weight to the parallel for the stunts being performed and the special effects looking so grand are the sound effects. Hearing people being punched, the giant boulder rolling, the slithers of a thousand snakes, and Indy's whip being cracked, add a large thrill for how brutal they sound (you'd be amazed at what was being used behind the scenes when creating these sounds). The element that overpowers the sound effects is John Williams score. The score may have similar cues to the music he composed for "The Superman" movies, but it's still a score as spectacular as the very scenes it plays for, coming across as exciting, triumphant, and big, while still maintaining a sound reminiscent to themes for adventure serials back in the day. This is another one of those films directed by Spielberg that if Williams score was absent the impact wouldn't be as strong regardless of how epic the action scenes are.



From all its stunning action, the film does carry tons of enchantment to it as well. The talks about the ark provide a dark sense of wonder for how powerful and yet full mystery it is. Hearing the ominous score and eerie sound effects being played in the background matched with the excitingly intense delivers from the actors becomes incredibly haunting, effectively building-up of what an important find it is, and the chaos that may occur when fallen into the wrong hands. The visuals depicting the ark, and the artifacts that Indy finds on his journey don't disappoint as they are shot and lit to appear to be larger than life despite its size. As beautiful as the treasures are, the set designs for the temple and lost tombs where Indy goes are appropriately the opposite, looking old and grim giving you the feeling that booby traps and snakes aren't the only things protecting the treasures.

SPOILERS IN THIS PARAGRAPH!



The only problems that the film really has are the plot-holes that happen in the film's third act. The first two acts are very solid in terms of writing. There are of course historical liberties being taken when portraying the Nazis, and the famous opening scene being pointless to the overall plot of the movie, but nowhere near as questionable as the stuff that happens as soon as Indy rides on top of a Nazi sub to their hidden base. It's amazing how the submarine never dives, nor are there any troops guarding the top. Indy himself doesn't even look dehydrated during a voyage that may have taken days if not weeks to get to his destination. Indy later threatens to blow-up the ark in exchange for Marion when he reaches the Island, but doesn't he realize that blowing-up the ark will also kill her if the Nazi's refuse to turn her loose? A common criticism that people give the film is how Indy's involvement in finding the ark would have no effect on the story. One way or another, the Nazi's are going to die after unveiling it. I don't agree with this criticism for a few reasons. Belloq may have been searching for the ark, but it's made clear that his discoveries are from following Indy around, and without Indy's involvement, Belloq probably wouldn't have come close to discovering it. After all, he had Nazi's following him to retrieve the amulet that will help lead them to it. And if the Nazi's still did discover where the amulet is, Marion would be killed if Indy wasn't there to save her. But the main reason why Indy's involvement matters is that his goal to bring the ark back to the United States before the Nazis grab it, and even though the first troop that opened it up will die, that doesn't mean the Nazi's don't still have it. Indy knew how to keep himself safe from being killed by the angels of death by not looking at them, what makes people think the Nazi's can't learn about it too? They can still use the ark as a weapon to help take over the world after learning how to use it to their advantage. The only problem with the film involving Indy's involvement is we never see him escape the Island (that I'm sure is still crawling with Nazis) with the ark! That's a very important detail to leave out, almost as if there wasn't enough time or money to shoot a final action sequence before the last scene in the movie.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

As massive as the plot-holes are, that doesn't mean they're distracting because the film is so awesome that it doesn't matter. The film has everything you could ever wish for from an adventure film! It's action-packed, atmospheric, dark and edgy, full of wonder, romantic, humorous, has outstanding performances, a relatable daring hero, menacing villains you love to hate, plenty of tension, amazing special effects, fun mind-blowing action-scenes, a variety of different locations, and a tremendous score. It's as perfect as a film like this can get that can appeal to all audiences! To think that every studio in Hollywood (before "Paramount" gave in) would turn down a film like this with the combined talents of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg is very jarring because have this film not been made, we wouldn't have had a timeless classic that has revolutionized action-adventure films the way we see them now.

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

Way back when I began critiquing, two films I reviewed during my earlier years was "A Fistful of a Dollars" and "For a Few Dollars More" from the "The Dollars Trilogy" directed by Sergio Leone that stared Clint Eastwood, which later made it to number 5 on my list of my "Top Ten Favorite Film Series" (and number 1 on my brother Jack's list). It's almost my tenth year, and I have yet to touch upon the last and most popular film from the saga...



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"!