Sergio Leone

Dang, when I saw the thread title I thought you were going to say he was dead...

Doomsday SnoBorderZero




A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

A magnificent stranger (played by Clint Eastwood in his breakout role) wonders into a Mexican town that borders with the United States. He soon learns that the townspeople are caught in the middle of a war between two smuggling gangs. For reasons that are never fully explained, he rescues the townspeople by infiltrating both gangs and defeating them from within. It is based on Akira Kurosawa’s Yojimbo, but director Sergio Leone and his collaborators make it their own. One thing I picked up on this rewatch is its exploitation roots. This was a relatively low-budget film made by three different companies from three different countries (Italy, Spain and West Germany). This was made to make a quick buck, not to be high art. I believe that Leone was pressured into making an exploitation film. The violence here is a lot more brutal than in the succeeding films. Eastwood kills someone with a machete. Two henchmen die when they collide with a giant barrel. The villains set a house on fire and murder everyone in cold blood. In these scenes, Fistful of Dollars feels more like a horror film than a western.


For a Few Dollars More (1965)

Shall we get into hot takes? PG Cooper? I respect The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I will acknowledge it as, objectively, the superior film in the trilogy. But — For a Few Dollars More is the best of the three. Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef play bounty killers that pair up to take down bank robber El Indio (Gian Maria Volonté). Let’s break it down. This film moves. No frame is wasted here. There’s urgency from beginning to end. Both Eastwood and Van Cleef are badass. They’re awesome individually and together. El Indio is by far the best villain in the trilogy. He’s Phenomenal. The Mexican standoff at the end is the best. There’s real stakes here. All the characters are excellent. Main roles. Supporting roles. Bit players. Extras. Everyone here is memorable. Either they’re well-written, have funny lines or simply have great faces. The casting here deserved an award and should be a gold standard. And above all, it’s funny. There’s great humor, great bits, great gags. It’s a breezy fun movie with enough heart to root for the good guys and against the bad guys. It’s a masterpiece. If it’s not in your Top 100, don’t talk to me.


The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

Eli Wallach should have won an Oscar for his role as Tuco. It’s a great role and performance. Ennio Morricone should have won an Oscar for his score. Once again, the Academy Awards prove to be in the wrong side of history. I’ve been a fan since the 1990’s when TNT would air the movie as part of its 24 Hours of Eastwood marathon the day after Thanksgiving.





But the older you get, the more ways you’ll interpret a movie. We know its impact in the western genre. We know its depiction of the Civil War. But one thing I picked up on in this rewatch is the nastiness of the characters. All three characters (played by Eastwood, Wallach and Van Cleef) are assholes to each other and only tolerate each other cause they have to. I’ve been aware of this since the first time I watched the movie, but it’s only now that I actually feel it. It’s only now in my late 30’s that I can actually relate to the Clint Eastwood character. I have unfortunately dealt with some Tuco’s. I have even dealt with some Angel Eyes. When Eastwood left Tuco in the middle of the desert with a rope around his neck, I get it. I get it.