Simply Perfect

From my favorite movies..

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Filmed in Spain by Italian filmmaker, this is the best Western ever made. With Hollywood actors but fittingly, not made in Hollywood, it was despised by the mainstream at the time, but also recognized for its genius and is the most famous part of the most famous Western trilogy. Building on a rich Italian storytelling and film making tradition, with unforgettable score, this movie has justly taken the place it now holds. If you have not seen it yet, do it. Equally subversive and authentic, this is just one master piece nobody should miss.

"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is a bloated spectacle. Spectacles were the big thing (pun intended) in the mid-sixties. Leone (or his cinematographer) had an eye for landscape; but Leone never had spectacle-director David Lean's craftsmanship, nor his concern for character. Following "For a Few Dollars More" (imho the finest entry in the "dollars trilogy") Leone had more money than he should have been allowed. Clint Eastwood pocketed much of it. Coming off "Rawhide" and working cheap for Leone in "A Fistful of Dollars" Eastwood proved he could hold the big screen even better than the small one. Eastwood knows how to walk, to stand, to posture himself to attract the eye. Always an underrated actor, he made the trilogy, not Leone (despite the director's later wry comment that Eastwood had two expressions, one with a hat . . .).Eastwood is "the good" in an extremely relative way. Leone's west is a world where towns might be planets in science fiction, they're so separate. And none of them seem to have any law; despite the occasional badge, their laws, such as they are, seem to be based on circumstance rather than morality."The bad" is second-string actor Lee van Cleef, coming into his glory. He played an avuncular character in "For a Few Dollars More" (not the same character). Leone tried to get his hooks on several better or better-known actors (as he had with Eastwood's role in "Fistful") and got stuck with van Cleef again. Well, that worked out just fine. Bronson might have been excellent, but playing second fiddle to Eastwood might not have been his style.NY stage actor and movie star Eli Wallach (legendary from this role) is Tuco, a bandit with no moral compass. Wallach's comedy "How to Steal a Million" (starring Audrey Hepburn and an unlikely Peter O'Toole) came out also in 1966 and it's interesting to compare his two characters, one a jet-setting businessman and the other an unimaginably dirty western drifter). Oh, and in the scene where he's trying to find the grave, Wallach runs like a girl.The plot: the good (Eastwood) the bad (van Cleef) and the ugly (Wallach) chase after buried gold, with changing alliances to suit their needs. But to get the gold, the three have to fight their way through a war (loosely based on Sibley's New Mexico campaign in early 1862, fitting for the date on Arch Stanton's grave marker).I thought this was a great movie the first few times I saw it--on television, shown on two nights, broken by commercials. Seeing it again for the first time in years, restored and uncut, I changed my opinion.The story takes about an hour to start. The good, the bad and the ugly are introduced in unconscionably long sequences. Nearly every scene could have been trimmed with no loss to the story.But Leone is not interested in story. As he proved in his even more bloated epics "Once Upon a Time in the West" (where he dawdles through a credit sequence that is a mini-movie in its own right and longer than most "short features") and the pretentious but tedious "Once Upon a Time in America",Leone is interested in showing off what he can do with money. He spends as if he's a congressperson and his movies are government programs: the more he gets, the more ways he can find to waste it.The first hour: meet the characters. Some of it's fun, especially Tuco's chase of "Blondie"; but it's bloated, full off Leone's trademark too-close closeups and far-off vistas (can he do nothing in between?) The second hour: the plot gets rolling and Blondie, Tuco and "Angel Eyes" begin their episodic interactions. The first third of the third hour could be liberally cut with no devastating results to the story or the movie. And they even restored some scenes in a new version! Can there be too much of a good thing? You bet there can. Tuco's scene talking to a dead chicken might clear up a few points previously left vague, but it adds nothing to the film.Spoilers ahead: The last half-hour, where all the ragged ends begin being sewn together, is brilliant. I own the Leone westerns to see just the good bits over and over, and the climax here almost makes one feel squirming through the first two and a half hours was worth every yawn. From the time Blondie fires his cannon until the final frame, especially the search through the cemetery and the classic showdown between the three, when they have finally left the war behind and only they exist in the world to live or die, is beautifully shot and acted.The Good: 1) Ennio Morricone's legendary score. The movie's theme is rightfully iconic, and I love his "Ecstasy of Gold" (I'm a sucker for bells). His score also has foreshadowing of his delicate work in "The Mission" in the 1980s. 2) Clint Eastwood. While Eastwood's flicks as director are strangely humorless, Eastwood's wry humor and charm shine through this movie's bloat. He's an underrated film actor who deservedly shot to stardom in these films. 3) Lee van Cleef. While no one's first choice for a costar, van Cleef seems to realize this is his moment and he makes the most of it, becoming one of the most slyly despicable baddies in westerns. 4) Eli Wallach. While I'm tempted to move him to "the bad" for stealing almost every shot he's in, his performance is good . . . if tiring when the movie his watched on several outings. Wallach did not know how to dial Tuco back; neither did Leone who, I guess, decided, for once, to get value for money. Nevertheless, Eastwood can express more with a flick of his cigar than Wallach for all his overacting. 5) Spain. Franco, the one fascist dictator not targeted in WW2, ran an oppressive regime, but one where filmmakers found they could get anything they wanted for a well-placed bribe. The long shots of the land do resemble the never-never land of the old west, but they have their own stark beauty. Just as one can't go wrong with Tuscany, it's difficult to make this part of Spain look bad on film (Lean even used it in "Lawrence of Arabia").The Ugly: Leone. His closeups of ugly actors, his meaningless tracking shots, the very overwhelming bloat of the whole movie when seen in one go. If any movie benefited from being chopped up by commercial television this one did. Had I not known, from repeated previous tv viewings, just how good the climax was, I might never have finished it.Overall, a good story well acted, but with no sense of restraint. By all accounts Leone was a glutton. He simply never knew when to stop eating. He also never knew when to cut a movie. He could easily trim an hour out of this long-winded, overblown, occasionally messy flick and it would never be missed.

The biggest and most epic of the "Dollars trilogy". The three titular characters are all great, going through (mis)adventures amidst the the civil war as they search for the buried treasure! The score is AMAZING! Metallica uses "Ecstasy of gold" to open their shows!

As a person "of a certain age", and a true movie buff, it is now startling to me that I managed to miss experiencing this gem until 2018. It is truly a masterpiece. And, as said "movie buff", am somewhat embarrassed to admit this ignorance. Stunning is not a cliché when applied to TGTBTU. And omg that classic, iconic score.So, expecting to see a plethora of Oscar nominations/wins, was stunned to learn on IMDB that there was not even one of either! This compelled me to search Wikipedia to understand how this omission occurred. It became clear quickly. Simply put, 1967 was a big year for Hollywood. And the oscars were at that time limited to only 5 nominees per category. Best Pictures: "In the Heat of the Night", "The Graduate", "Bonnie and Clyde", "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" (all truly worthy of the honor), and "Dr. Doolittle".Excuse me? "Dr. Doolittle"??? Over THIS? Well, it was indeed the psychedelic 60's.