When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk. 70% (ish) This is the third in a so-called ‘trilogy’, a framing which I expressed doubts about in my review for the second in the sequence, “For a few dollars more”. So, from my perspective it’s a matter of complete indifference as to how many in this ‘trilogy’ you see and in what order you watch them. That being said, if you watch all three films you will observe the tropes that are common to this ‘trilogy’. In this one the plot concerns three men on the make who end up chasing a fortune in gold during the American Civil War (American history is not my forte, so looking at Wikipedia for the span of this war, I’d guess that it takes place towards the tail end of it, in the mid 1860s). The three men on the make are referred to in the film’s title. Skim reading Wikipedia’s entry for this film, there is an interesting thing to note about the title: “In the theatrical trailer, Angel Eyes is referred to as The Ugly and Tuco, The Bad. This is due to a translation error; the original Italian title translates to "The Good [one], the Ugly [one], the Bad [one]"”. That quote misses ‘the good one’, which, in this case, is Clint Eastwood’s character of ‘Blondie’. I’m using scare quotes for his name because it’s a nickname and also a trope of this trilogy, in that he always plays a character whose name we aren’t sure of, whether we think we know it or not. Lee Van Cleef plays ‘the ugly one’ and Eli Wallach plays ‘the bad one’. “The good, the bad and the ugly” returns to the opening title style of the first film, “A fistful of dollars”, initially, at least. Here you’ll get Ennio Morricone’s famous composition which is, musically, at least, his most accomplished, as in you’d want to get the soundtrack for this film because it is so good as a piece of music (it’s an earworm!). His score for the previous film worked better as a soundtrack for a film, as in it heightened tension or what have you. When Eastwood’s character is revealed (or at least the back of his head, while he is smoking), that famous score plays. That seemed to tie it to him but it would later repeat for the character of Tuco. I’m not sure what we are meant to glean from the fact that the phrase “Directed by Sergio Leone” is in three different fonts! The opening titles have a letterbox aspect which is dropped for the rest of the film, as was the case with the earlier films. Back to the tropes of this film, there is the visual style of Eastwood. It looked as though his stylistic trope of wearing a poncho would not occur in this film but it did towards the end. As I noted for Eastwood’s character in the previous film, I would say the same thing about Lee Van Cleef’s character for this one: he’s not the same person in both films. Once again you eventually get something resembling a visual trope for him, after thinking it wouldn’t occur: his pipe smoking. Lastly, going on the two previous films, you would expect there to be a main villain of the piece. Maybe I thought it was (or might be) Gian Maria Volonté but he is ‘replaced’ by Eli Wallach. Wikipedia does mention that Volonté was considered for the role but Leone wanted to cast someone who could add a different dimension to the character. Having him in all three films would have made for interesting processing of what this kind of casting means for the trilogy. In any case, perhaps it’s a nice symmetry with Eastwood being the constant and Volonté and Van Cleef being either side of the trilogy for two films. Some of the dialogue in this film did catch my attention, as it did in the first film. Both of these films would make good material for a high school subject like history or media studies or what have you. Amongst the meaty dialogue in this film are lines like: (an official reading the charges against a condemned man) “raping a virgin of the white race; statutory rape of a minor of the black race”; a business man speaks of the Confederates: “as soon as these cowards hear a blue shirt is around, they run. These rebels have no will to fight. They’ll soon be finished. We get rid of these bastards, then we begin making money on those Yankees. They carry gold, not paper dollars and they’re going to defeat the South”; a Confederate sergeant says: “the only thing we care about is saving our own hides”. In my reviews I’ve noted the sense of humour of Eastwood’s characters. In the first film it is playful. In the second it is guarded (maybe I should have used that word there!). Here it is cruel (in an early scene). This is just another demonstration to me that Eastwood is not playing the same character in all three films. Of all the three films, Eastwood’s character is the most unpleasant here, which makes his designation as “the good” (in a postmodern fashion by Leone, using on-screen text) as seemingly ironic. When he calls Tuco a “greasy rat”, it makes me wonder if there is an ethnic dimension to the choice of villains in all three films. That might be a meta observation of the trilogy by me though. Some of the humour isn’t intended as cruel though. For instance, there is a funny scene where ‘Blondie’ and Tuco wonder what side of the civil war an approaching cavalry is on. Another scene with Tuco, in a prison camp, brought to mind a scene in the film Pretty Woman, which was played for laughs. ‘Blondie’ is definitely a dodgy character and his scheme at the start of the film is novel (to me) although I do wonder about continuity errors as far as his partner in crime goes. Their seemingly first meeting doesn’t really square with what happens later. How Blondie is seen to become partners in crime with this person also illustrates how odious his character is. Another major aspect of this film is its depiction of war. It made me question whether it was being used a prop. Is what the film saying about war merely glib? War isn’t glorified here in any case. Perhaps it’s not odd that I found some scenes of war being taken to a town had echoes in what is currently happening around the world. The makeup used to depict war injuries strikes me as having a realistic look to it. In a more oblique manner, I did note the use of targets in a shooting range looking like Native Americans. It’s such a throwaway moment but it struck me, as did similar moments in the first film, concerning Native Americans. Of the three films in this ‘trilogy’, this is the one that I’m scoring the lowest. All of the films had their moments which strained credulity or buggered belief. It’s just that for this one, it really went beyond pushing the envelope for me. Even though Eastwood’s character’s entrance into the final showdown of the first film was unbelievable, I still found it satisfying for its mythic quality. This unbelievability just increases from film to film in an unsatisfying way. One example of that is the depiction of the captain at Branson Bridge. His behaviour just didn’t seem grounded in reality. I’m not including the fact that he looks swarthy, as do most of the soldiers on the Confederate side, for some reason. It was filmed in Europe, especially Spain, so I won’t hold that against them. Generally speaking, I just didn’t find the main characters believable in how they related to one another, given their history. As a side note, this film had a non-linear feel to it but I suppose that the ugly one’s search for Carson is a thread. Of the ‘trilogy’, I’d say that the first is the one that I’d most likely revisit again sometime. The second one, maybe, after a long absence. The third film is much longer but it’s not for that reason that it doesn’t feel to me like something that I’d be interested in revisiting, although it does have its moments. My thoughts on what I should score this range from 75% (no + sign meaning I give it 7 out of 10 stars on a site where you can’t give half stars) to maybe 67.5% if I’m feeling unaccommodating. 72.5% or 72.5+% isn’t unreasonable but maybe I’ll just stick to what this site gives me, 7 out 10 stars? Random notes: ^ I viewed the “Extended English language version” which had a “2003 restoration and remastering”. Recorded on 11/10/2024. SBS World Movies, 9:55pm. Running time of 2:51:15 without the six lots of ads during the film (measured from the start of the MGM lion’s roar to to the end, being after the trademark still of the lion, which, for the first time, didn’t have a lion’s roar), which brings the running time up to 3:11:51. I must say that I appreciated the fact that SBS didn’t play ads during the lead up to the ending (the last ad ended 2:26:04 on the unedited film). Audio Described and Closed Captions. It was rated M for adult themes and violence. I viewed this film over two days, from 23/11/2024 and made these notes. I started writing this review on 07/12/2024 up to here and a bit more. Another first for this trilogy is the inclusion of end credits. ^ The option for Closed Captions was appreciated by me but I still found an online site with the script to refer to at times. SBS’ captions (I presume it was theirs) were good. For instance, whilst the online site didn’t include Spanish utterances, SBS’ did and I got a strong language translation when I typed it into a translation app on my PC. Sometimes the online script had words which the CC didn’t. Sometimes the online script had the right word and the CC didn’t. ^ Once again, I hear what sort of sounds like words in Morricone’s score, in this case “Go, go, go, echo”. He has actually composed music which features lyrics for this film: “The story of a soldier” and those lyrics were written by Tommie Connor. ^ Not sure if Tuco’s sign of the cross is correct...which might be the point, perhaps. ^ Interesting casting for the first character we come across called “Shorty”. I wonder what his story was. Wikipedia doesn’t answer that question but interestingly I see that he is yet another actor who has appeared elsewhere in this trilogy...and you’d think that I would have definitely remembered seeing him before! ^ Lee Van Cleef seems to have at least one thing in common with Dave Allen...part of his finger is missing! Anyway, it’s interesting that the film delays returning actor’s props from the previous films in the trilogy: Eastwood starts out wearing a trench coat in this film before taking a poncho at the end (by the way, I liked the cinematography of that scene at the cemetery with Tuco) and Van Cleef is only later seen with a smoking pipe. This review submitted late 11/12/2024, AEST. P.S. Having now looked at the ponchos in all three films, it looks to me that they are the same. Now, maybe this style of poncho was ten a penny back in the day but it seems to me that this stylistic thread between all three films...and I'm not sure what it's meant to signify...because I'm not treating all the characters that Clint Eastwood plays as being the same person.

People tended to treat Sergio Leone's work with a considerable degree of disdain, but watching this in 2020 it is still amongst the very best of the genre. A good-looking, calculating Clint Eastwood ("The Good"), is the itinerant bounty hunter who has an uneasy partnership with a scene-stealing Eli Wallach ("The Ugly) to trick the local authorities of the reward money due for his capture before escaping and dividing the spoils. After a bit of duplicity that rather erodes what little trust there ever was between them - and some very timely cannon fire - they happen upon a recently robbed stagecoach where they learn of the whereabouts of a huge stash of gold - but they both possess different clues as to the location, so must - despite themselves - work together to track down the loot. Meantime, a thoroughly nasty Lee Van Cleef (“The Bad") hears about their treasure hunt and is now joined in the race to the money. There is a paucity of dialogue that only enhances their performances - there are bouts of humour and although the premiss is pretty violent, there is actually very little by way of grisly, gory, depiction seen on screen. The scene near the end in the graveyard with the magnificent Morricone "Ecstacy of Gold" theme is as good as Westerns get. The editing is not great, it has to be said - but the cinematography gives a great showcase to the scale and grandeur of the locations. Not a word I use often, but this really is a masterpiece of the cinema.

**One of the best, most famous and most iconic Westerns ever. More than a classic, it's mandatory.** I'm not an expert nor do I want to sound like one, but I think this is one of the most famous western films ever made, despite being shot by an Italian director and being more European than American. Sérgio Leone was one of the most notable directors of his time and he left us, in this film, one of his masterpieces. This is one of those movies that is almost perfect. Problems and failures are scarce and reside in minimal details that end up not making a big difference in the overall work. The story was very well written and takes place in the midst of the American Civil War, a time when violence was part of everyday life. In this environment of violence and mutual distrust, two men are looking for a treasure buried in a cemetery: the problem is the fact that each one knows only part of the location (that is, one knows the location of the cemetery and the other knows which grave it is) and there is a third man, a fearsome assassin, willing to do anything to take all the gold. For this film, Leone put together a very reasonable cast, mostly European, and three great North American actors with enormous talent: Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach and Lee Van Cleef. I believe that they knew how to make the most intelligent and skilful use of this film, giving us a truly remarkable job. For this three actors, this is the best cinematographic work of their career, or one of the best, consecrating them as great Western movies actors. The film, however, seems to give Wallach more and better opportunities. While watching it, I got the feeling that he is the actor who receives most attention and best material, in addition to having known how to improvise at the right moments and in creative and intelligent ways. The film has great visual beauty, emphasized by the cinematography, the filming work and the good choice and design of sets and costumes. At a time when the correct period recreation was something that cinema sometimes blatantly ignored, this film did the opposite, giving us a realistic and believable vision of the past and placing the film in a specific place and time. I'm not saying it was a one hundred percent successful effort, but it was definitely a decisive step in the right direction when it comes to period films. The special effects and visuals are excellent, the best there was then, and the whole film has an epic, grandiose, expensive feel. It is also very long, with almost three hours in length, but it is worth not being afraid or giving up on because of that. Being a Western film, it is quite evident that there is a lot of violence, so it is not a film for children. Even so, it is not gratuitous violence. Finally, we owe Ennio Morricone a salute for the excellent soundtrack he composed. Among his vast work, this is not my favorite nor the best, but it is undoubtedly one of the most recognizable and iconic pieces, a work that we know, even without having seen this film, and that has become part of our collective memory. We can't ask for more than that.