WARNING: "Heavy on the spoilers" spoilers below One thing I never understood about this movie until this second watch was what people meant by the close-up shots. I liked the close-up shots in this movie, and recognize that this sort of thing ins't common in movies from any era.
I liked the first few shots of the opening scene, but, right before the goons entered the pub one of them pulled his coat asside and hovered his hand over his gun like he was preparing for a quick draw. I thought he was going to walk in like that, and stay poised. Instead he drew his gun then ran in. This left me wondering why he bothered to pull his coat asside so dramatically and hover his hand over his gun. Why didn't he just draw his gun right away? It seemed like the kind of thing done for dramatic effect without any logical reason. This was the first of many such things that would be done throughout the course of this movie resulting in a lot of flare, but little substance. Anyway, that particular example was minor compared to what was to come. Next all four of them were shot by the character who represented Ugly. As Ugly was riding away one of the goons came out clutching his wound, fired a shot, and then twirled down onto the floor in an exceptionally absurd death. It was comedic, and I guess the Ugly character also brought comedy to the movie. I didn't feel that comedy suited this movie though. It felt like it should have been more serious. The comedic elements seemed absurd and out of place to me. Not to mention, they weren't actually funny. They were just cheesy.
In the second scene, the character representing Bad sat down and ate a meal with some jittery fellow who's brain was so rotted by fear that he immediately spilled the beans without Bad even saying a word. I generally don't have any issue with Italian movies that dub. I love Fernando Di Leo's crime films like Caliber 9 and The Italian Connection. But the voice acting in this scene was way off. The expression and tone in the jittery man's voice didn't match the actor's face, and the words weren't properly syncronized to his lips. This sort of thing would become commonplace throughout the movie, with only some characters having properly syncronized audio and voice acting. Most of the cast were off by a mile. I couln't excuse this since in editing you can record as many tries as you like until you get it. By comparison the Bad guy was fine which demonstrated that they were at least capable of it. Why were so many characters done so poorly? I can only attribute it to someone not doing their job properly, and ultimately I would think director Leone himself would have the most responsibility in that regard. I don't know who was truly responsible though, or what transpired behind the scenes. Whatever the case it made the movie seem amateurish.
In the next scene ugly was riding along when someone shot at him. Ugly pulled the reigns hard, the horse jerked its head and collapsed, he was thrown from the saddle, and then the horse got up and rode away. I'm not entirely sure what was presumed to have happened. At first I thought the horse was shot, but then it got up and rode away. So did the shot miss and the horse was spooked? I don't understand why the horse would collapse unless it was shot, and I don't understand why it would get up and ride away if it was shot. I think typically in movies from this period, since they didn't have the technology to make it look like the horse was really shot, they would use several cuts with stunts showing what they could and implying the rest off-camera. There was a cut as the horse just started to get up, which made me wonder if they just misstimed it and wanted to imply the horse was dead, except they included the sound of it galloping away in the next shot. Anyway, so then three guys surrounded Ugly with very wooden voice acting. Acting-wise Clint Eastwood and Bad were fine, but Ugly was at the quality of an extra and not on par with the other leads.
Next Eastwood collected the bounty on Ugly, and the athorities went to hang him. The dialogue in this scene was tediously generic and cliche, as was often the case throughout the movie, but especially when Ugly was concerned. Throughout the movie I got the kind of vibe I get when a conservative, self-conscious, awkward person tries to insult someone whithout fully committing to the vulgarity of their own words. Like when someone stubs their toe and says, “FFFFFF-Fudge it all.” Totally nerdy and awkward. There will be swear words and vulgar insults, but there will also be a lot of goofy nerd fudgery. Ugly says “bastard” a lot, often in a very repetitive way that suggests he's having a hard time thinking of insults but still wants to be insulting. What a looser. It's pathetic. I can see that in the case of the character Ugly it's intentional and adds to his comedic aspect. If only it were actually funny. Instead it fell flat and made me cringe. It's especially ridiculous when combined with his expert marksmanship and long list of horrendous crimes such as rape. I can't hold together such a conflicting character in my mind, as if a total nerd could aslo be incredibly evil and skilled. It's the kind of warped character I see teenagers make in fanficition. It's not the kind of content that can be in a respectable film. That some people even dare to say this movie is anywhere near the level of Jodoworsky's work in El Topo is so stupid it's beyond words. There was debate over this issue on these forums in the past and that's why I really want to put this to rest and tear this pathetic garbage to pieces so the argument can be put to rest. Even when I look on youtube I can't find critical reviews exposing this trash. I think I will have to make it myself. This review is basically homework for the video I hope to one day make. Anyway, continuing on with the movie... After the authorities read off a long list of crimes, Eastwood shot the whipp, the noose, and everyone's hats letting Ugly escape. So, why exactly was Eastwood considered good? I guess in contrast to the other two he was less evil, but he was far from good. He was a con-artist who worked with a theiving, murdering rapist to scam bounties and then double crossed his own partner in crime. The audience was presumed to accept him as justified in betraying Ugly because Ugly was "clearly" more evil and greedily wanted a larger cut. Ugly was the idiot cousin to Eastwood, who was intelligent and cunning, which only made it even harder to find Ugly believable as the kind of character who could be an expert shot and a cold-blooded killer. I also couldn't understand why Eastwood didn't have a bounty on his own head. He didn't even try to hide his face as he strolled through town after aiding the escape of a convicted murderer and rapist (among over a dozen other crimes) numerous times.
After the second rescue there was a scene where a woman was thrown out of a wagon by a group of singing men. She took a few steps toward the camera looking on as the men rode away and shouted, "You filthy rats." The voice acting was so terrible it made me laugh. If the same woman did the voice as the actress I don't know why she couldn't give it more emotion. Even for an average extra I would expect the director to coach them to get it to the same level of emotion in the recording studio as the performance on set. I couldn't forgive this. And what was impled in her being tossed from the waggon and insulting them? This was another case of “nerd fudgery.” Why didn't she cuss them out harshly? Was throwing her out the only thing they did? I had the feeling that she must have been mollested, or something, but that if that was the case they did a terrible job of portraying it by only showing her hair slightly messy. It wouldn't surprise me at all that this was a pathetic attempt at portraying rape, considering how terrible everything else in the movie was portrayed. But I'm tempted to think they literally did nothing to her except toss her out, and that's why she only insulted them with something as mild as, “filthy rats.” I was as bewildered by this scene as I was by the scene of Ugly's horse getting shot at. What actually happened is not clear. I also wasn't impressed with how quickly she looked at Bad after getting slapped so hard she was bleeding. The acting didn't match up with how much pain was implied by the volume of the slap sound, how far she was tossed by the momentum of the slap, and the fact that she was bleeding from it. At least get her to hold her cheek longer and keep her face down before giving a sharp angry glare. Give her time to feel the pain. It was too obvious that the actress wasn't in any pain at all. It may just be a movie, but they should have coached their actors better like we see in better movies.
In the next scene ugly gets back from the desert so dehydrated he makes a b-line for the well... and barely drinks two drops...? When I was ten years old and played hockey at recess for half an hour I would race to the drinking fountain. We were so thirsty there had to be someone policing us to not take forever so everyone could get a drink and get back to class on time. This guy was completely releaved when a few splashes grazed his lips? Pathetic.
Do I really need to say any more at this point? It's just more of the same for the rest of the movie. Terrible acting, terrible dubbing, no meaningful dialogue, implausible plot, cheesy, failed attempts at humor... this movie is just plain bad across the board. It's so bad it's a joke. It's pathetic. I can't take anyone serious who thinks this is a good movie. This is by far the worst movie in this HoF. And the ending... Oh the “climactic” ending. Did anyone actually wonder who would get killed at the end? What other possible outcome did anyone imagine? I've heard people call the ending great, a dilema... But can anyone imagine another ending? Oh yeah, Eastwood getting killed... right.... no one would have expected the star, and the obvious “good guy” to be the one that gets it in the end. Everyone knows the clear-cut villain will be the one to die, and then the goofball will be a pushover for Eastwood, and the hero will walk away with all the loot.
One thing I never understood about this movie until this second watch was what people meant by the close-up shots. I liked the close-up shots in this movie, and recognize that this sort of thing ins't common in movies from any era.
I liked the first few shots of the opening scene, but, right before the goons entered the pub one of them pulled his coat asside and hovered his hand over his gun like he was preparing for a quick draw. I thought he was going to walk in like that, and stay poised. Instead he drew his gun then ran in. This left me wondering why he bothered to pull his coat asside so dramatically and hover his hand over his gun. Why didn't he just draw his gun right away? It seemed like the kind of thing done for dramatic effect without any logical reason. This was the first of many such things that would be done throughout the course of this movie resulting in a lot of flare, but little substance. Anyway, that particular example was minor compared to what was to come. Next all four of them were shot by the character who represented Ugly. As Ugly was riding away one of the goons came out clutching his wound, fired a shot, and then twirled down onto the floor in an exceptionally absurd death. It was comedic, and I guess the Ugly character also brought comedy to the movie. I didn't feel that comedy suited this movie though. It felt like it should have been more serious. The comedic elements seemed absurd and out of place to me. Not to mention, they weren't actually funny. They were just cheesy.
In the second scene, the character representing Bad sat down and ate a meal with some jittery fellow who's brain was so rotted by fear that he immediately spilled the beans without Bad even saying a word. I generally don't have any issue with Italian movies that dub. I love Fernando Di Leo's crime films like Caliber 9 and The Italian Connection. But the voice acting in this scene was way off. The expression and tone in the jittery man's voice didn't match the actor's face, and the words weren't properly syncronized to his lips. This sort of thing would become commonplace throughout the movie, with only some characters having properly syncronized audio and voice acting. Most of the cast were off by a mile. I couln't excuse this since in editing you can record as many tries as you like until you get it. By comparison the Bad guy was fine which demonstrated that they were at least capable of it. Why were so many characters done so poorly? I can only attribute it to someone not doing their job properly, and ultimately I would think director Leone himself would have the most responsibility in that regard. I don't know who was truly responsible though, or what transpired behind the scenes. Whatever the case it made the movie seem amateurish.
In the next scene ugly was riding along when someone shot at him. Ugly pulled the reigns hard, the horse jerked its head and collapsed, he was thrown from the saddle, and then the horse got up and rode away. I'm not entirely sure what was presumed to have happened. At first I thought the horse was shot, but then it got up and rode away. So did the shot miss and the horse was spooked? I don't understand why the horse would collapse unless it was shot, and I don't understand why it would get up and ride away if it was shot. I think typically in movies from this period, since they didn't have the technology to make it look like the horse was really shot, they would use several cuts with stunts showing what they could and implying the rest off-camera. There was a cut as the horse just started to get up, which made me wonder if they just misstimed it and wanted to imply the horse was dead, except they included the sound of it galloping away in the next shot. Anyway, so then three guys surrounded Ugly with very wooden voice acting. Acting-wise Clint Eastwood and Bad were fine, but Ugly was at the quality of an extra and not on par with the other leads.
Next Eastwood collected the bounty on Ugly, and the athorities went to hang him. The dialogue in this scene was tediously generic and cliche, as was often the case throughout the movie, but especially when Ugly was concerned. Throughout the movie I got the kind of vibe I get when a conservative, self-conscious, awkward person tries to insult someone whithout fully committing to the vulgarity of their own words. Like when someone stubs their toe and says, “FFFFFF-Fudge it all.” Totally nerdy and awkward. There will be swear words and vulgar insults, but there will also be a lot of goofy nerd fudgery. Ugly says “bastard” a lot, often in a very repetitive way that suggests he's having a hard time thinking of insults but still wants to be insulting. What a looser. It's pathetic. I can see that in the case of the character Ugly it's intentional and adds to his comedic aspect. If only it were actually funny. Instead it fell flat and made me cringe. It's especially ridiculous when combined with his expert marksmanship and long list of horrendous crimes such as rape. I can't hold together such a conflicting character in my mind, as if a total nerd could aslo be incredibly evil and skilled. It's the kind of warped character I see teenagers make in fanficition. It's not the kind of content that can be in a respectable film. That some people even dare to say this movie is anywhere near the level of Jodoworsky's work in El Topo is so stupid it's beyond words. There was debate over this issue on these forums in the past and that's why I really want to put this to rest and tear this pathetic garbage to pieces so the argument can be put to rest. Even when I look on youtube I can't find critical reviews exposing this trash. I think I will have to make it myself. This review is basically homework for the video I hope to one day make. Anyway, continuing on with the movie... After the authorities read off a long list of crimes, Eastwood shot the whipp, the noose, and everyone's hats letting Ugly escape. So, why exactly was Eastwood considered good? I guess in contrast to the other two he was less evil, but he was far from good. He was a con-artist who worked with a theiving, murdering rapist to scam bounties and then double crossed his own partner in crime. The audience was presumed to accept him as justified in betraying Ugly because Ugly was "clearly" more evil and greedily wanted a larger cut. Ugly was the idiot cousin to Eastwood, who was intelligent and cunning, which only made it even harder to find Ugly believable as the kind of character who could be an expert shot and a cold-blooded killer. I also couldn't understand why Eastwood didn't have a bounty on his own head. He didn't even try to hide his face as he strolled through town after aiding the escape of a convicted murderer and rapist (among over a dozen other crimes) numerous times.
After the second rescue there was a scene where a woman was thrown out of a wagon by a group of singing men. She took a few steps toward the camera looking on as the men rode away and shouted, "You filthy rats." The voice acting was so terrible it made me laugh. If the same woman did the voice as the actress I don't know why she couldn't give it more emotion. Even for an average extra I would expect the director to coach them to get it to the same level of emotion in the recording studio as the performance on set. I couldn't forgive this. And what was impled in her being tossed from the waggon and insulting them? This was another case of “nerd fudgery.” Why didn't she cuss them out harshly? Was throwing her out the only thing they did? I had the feeling that she must have been mollested, or something, but that if that was the case they did a terrible job of portraying it by only showing her hair slightly messy. It wouldn't surprise me at all that this was a pathetic attempt at portraying rape, considering how terrible everything else in the movie was portrayed. But I'm tempted to think they literally did nothing to her except toss her out, and that's why she only insulted them with something as mild as, “filthy rats.” I was as bewildered by this scene as I was by the scene of Ugly's horse getting shot at. What actually happened is not clear. I also wasn't impressed with how quickly she looked at Bad after getting slapped so hard she was bleeding. The acting didn't match up with how much pain was implied by the volume of the slap sound, how far she was tossed by the momentum of the slap, and the fact that she was bleeding from it. At least get her to hold her cheek longer and keep her face down before giving a sharp angry glare. Give her time to feel the pain. It was too obvious that the actress wasn't in any pain at all. It may just be a movie, but they should have coached their actors better like we see in better movies.
In the next scene ugly gets back from the desert so dehydrated he makes a b-line for the well... and barely drinks two drops...? When I was ten years old and played hockey at recess for half an hour I would race to the drinking fountain. We were so thirsty there had to be someone policing us to not take forever so everyone could get a drink and get back to class on time. This guy was completely releaved when a few splashes grazed his lips? Pathetic.
Do I really need to say any more at this point? It's just more of the same for the rest of the movie. Terrible acting, terrible dubbing, no meaningful dialogue, implausible plot, cheesy, failed attempts at humor... this movie is just plain bad across the board. It's so bad it's a joke. It's pathetic. I can't take anyone serious who thinks this is a good movie. This is by far the worst movie in this HoF. And the ending... Oh the “climactic” ending. Did anyone actually wonder who would get killed at the end? What other possible outcome did anyone imagine? I've heard people call the ending great, a dilema... But can anyone imagine another ending? Oh yeah, Eastwood getting killed... right.... no one would have expected the star, and the obvious “good guy” to be the one that gets it in the end. Everyone knows the clear-cut villain will be the one to die, and then the goofball will be a pushover for Eastwood, and the hero will walk away with all the loot.