Spaghetti Westerns

[Pulpmariachi]

Wasn't Fonda in "Once Upon a Time in the West"? Oh wait, that was HENRY Fonda. My mistake.

[slayrrr666]

Don't worry. That happens.

[spacer]

I'm the great fan of Spaghetti western movies. Italians really refreshed the genre though they were later accused that they killed and ridiculed classic western movie. But I don't buy it. To me spaghetti western flicks are fresh, brainy and natural. Yes much more natural and real though they were shot in Spain or Sardinia. Unlike pretty, conventional, politically-correct and artificial John Wayne's films. But don't take too literally, I mean I like those artificial flicks as well
I'm a fan of Clint too.
My choice is obvious: All 3 flicks from the famous trilogy, especially For a Few Dollars More (1965), and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966). and nobody mentioned A Fistful of Dynamite a great flick too.

[slayrrr666]

I'm glad you mentioned A Fistful of Dynamite, as it's on cable over here later this month, so I'll catch it when I can.

[spacer]

[slayrrr666]

Yes, I hope it is. The reviews for it I read online make it sound just as good as the No Name trilogy, so I have high hopes.

[randomninja5]

(Pun intended) there's good bad and ugly spaghetti westerns out there, but I would have to say that the Sergio Leone movies are my favorites. I can't decide which of what people refer to as the "Dollars Trilogy" I like best. And really, I don't think that they are a trilogy. Just because Clint Eastwood stars in all three and wears the same clothes does not make it a trilogy. If they are a trilogy, there is a plethora of continuity mistakes. (spoilers will ensue) First off, in "Fistful" which is a quite clear Western take on Akira Kurosawa's "Yojimbo", Clint arrives in a Mexican town run by two gangs. He plays them against each other and gets caught in the middle, eventually siding with the few townspeople and taking out the gangs once and for all. He rides off into the sunset. In "More" Clint has become a Bounty Killer and rides from town to town, killing bad guys for money not nobility. (He wasn't noble in the first either, but he eventually helped the town without expecting payment) Here in the second, he's totally doing this for money. The only thing linking the two is himself and his outfit. He teams up with a former Army colonel to take on a recently escaped bank robber. The two bounty killers decide to split the reward, but things take an unexpected turn. Their plot needs to be quickly revised, but the two are found out. In probably the greatest villain blunder ever, Indio lets them escape so that his men will be killed in the coming gunfight, but Indio underestimated the abilities of the two bounty killers. In the end, the former colonel kills Indio to avenge the rape and death of his sister at the criminal's hands (actually she kills herself rather than live with the shame) however, the colonel (played by Lee Van Cleef) lets Clint take the entire reward) They part ways; Clint's character soon to become wealthy with upwards of $30,000 reward. In "Ugly" we are introduced to 3 main characters: Tuco (Eli Wallach) Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) and Blondy (Eastwood), However, I see Tuco as the main character for several reasons. He goes through the most change as a character, has the most emotional arc, and in the end, you root for him to succeed. Clint's character, apart from a few moments, is kind of a jerk, and of course Lee Van Cleef is the villain. Clint is an anti-hero, Van Cleef is too, but leans more towards the villainous side, and Eli is the underdog. We see as these three men's paths cross as they each find out about the treasure. They have to sneak through the war-torn west, in search of what is said to be a vast horde. And here the "trilogy" problems emerge. I can buy that "Fistful" takes place during the American Civil War, we see American soldiers trading with Mexican ones, for gold. Although they are clearly Union soldiers. This could easily be after the end of the war. "More" is clearly taking place after the war, with Lee Van Cleef's character being a former colonel from the Carolinas. "Ugly" is smack dab in the middle of the war. The characters interact with both sides of the conflict. And in the end, Clint rides off with another fortune. (There is an amazingly good Korean remake call "The Good, The Bad, The Weird. I highly recommend checking it out) Anyway, The only way I can see these movies being a trilogy is if "Ugly" was a prequel which eventually led to the others. We even see how Clint comes across his iconic outfit. All in all I have to say that "Ugly" is still my favorite, there is much more depth to the over-all story and it has a subtle, yet powerful anti-war message. One scene in particular show Clint and Eli traveling across the barren land. They two come across a ongoing battle, and Clint says, "I've never so many men wasted so badly." I recommend finding the extended version, which includes scenes deleted from the original American release, but were in the European release. And of course you can't beat the 3-way duel at the climax. Well, I've rattled on longer than I had planned. If you would like to read or watch some of my other reviews, and rants please visit my blog at random-ninja-attack.blogspot.com/

[Bartwald]

randomninja5 - first of all, welcome to The Board! And secondly, it's good to see you're a spaghetti western fan, too. I recently revisited all the Eastwood/Leone films and I agree, of course - they're definitely NOT a typical trilogy. But if you see one of them and get to love it the way some of us do, you're just compelled to see the other two films as well - and in that sense, I guess, we usually perceive them as some kind of a "loose trilogy".

And by the way, everyone who likes Leone's spaghetti westerns, should also check out the ones directed by Lucio Fulci, like The Four of the Apocalypse. Powerful stuff.

[slayrrr666]

Well, three things come to mind after this:

1. Welcome to the Board, and nice to see you're finally posting.

2. We have the ability on forums to put our thoughts into paragraphs by hitting Enter twice whenever we're finished with a series of thoughts. It's a pretty handy trick, since it makes long winded but truly informative posts like that a little easier to read.

3. I always placed them as a trilogy simply by virtue of having the same director direct the same star. That's as far as my continuity expects them to go with these, and about as deep as I thought about them.

Though I've always preferred Django over all of these simply because it had more action in it and was a lot bloodier. That's a much higher-rated film and a clearer example of the kind of stuff I like watching anyway.