The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Reviews

El Bueno, El Malo y el Feo es la viva representación de Estados Unidos; fue filmada en España, dirigida por un italiano, producida en Alemania y actuada por un ashkenazi, un holandés y un anglosajón, ósea: el euro-mestizaje en su estado absoluto. Bueno, dejándome de jodas, esta película es la piedra angular de la cultura pop del western que tanto nos gusta—una lástima que no incluya gauchos, llaneros o huasos, pero hey, es el mismo estereotipo de jinete así que da igual. Han pasado cerca de 60 años desde su filmación y hasta el día de hoy no ha existido película que se le iguale a no ser que proceda de Leone—aunque a mí me mola El Topo pese a que la mayoría diga que es mala o horrible. Lo fascinante reside en como una premisa tan simple como ir a buscar un tesoro logra envolverse en un entramado donde tres personajes sumamente distintos se adelantan entre sí a ver quién gana esta carrera por el botín.

A nivel cultural, se entiende lo valioso que es, dado su ambientación en algo tan legendario como el lejano oeste donde saca provecho de los terrenos baldíos y zonas aisladas para darle personalidad a muchas escenas, desde aspectos culturales más anglos como misioneros hasta hispanos como los curas católicos, aparte de la ambientación de la guerra civil estadounidense que le saca la vena patriótica al pueblo yanqui. Se siente que hay una riqueza bastante notoria en la ambientación y que cada localización juegue un papel importante en el avance de la trama. Es como un rompecabezas o un juego de la muerte donde hay áreas en las que se obstruirá el progreso, sólo para que los personajes se las ingenien para salir bien parados de la situación. Otras localizaciones sirven para ir buscando pistas sobre donde se encuentra el tesoro, donde se conocen personajes ilustres que sirven para avanzar la trama. Claro que como hay una marcha constante, nada del lore es de particular interés a menos que hablemos del tesoro en sí dado que es en su mayoría un elemento estético, algo parecido con lo secundarios.

Aquí se puede remarcar que la película no tiene un cast muy importante salvo por el trio. Ellos tres se roban cada escena con su carisma, aunque es verdad que eclipsan las demás cosas interesantes en el lore de la película. Los secundarios son unidimensionales, algunos tienen conflictos que dan cabida a desarrollos interesantes. Pese a ello, se queda en un escenario hipotético dado a que no hay mucha resolución a las tragedias a menos que estos personajes sean asesinados. Para tratar sobre los horrores de la guerra, de la crueldad del salvaje oeste donde la ley es escasa o de como los débiles son sometidos por los más fuertes, no es como que se centre en esas cosas en particular. De nuevo, es caracterización superficial para el escenario y quienes no participan activamente en la búsqueda son ganado yendo al matadero; es más para recordar el estilo de vida de la época en lugar de segmentos resolutivos. Fuera de ello, al menos sirve para darle una atmosfera cautivadora a una película de estilo sobre sustancia.

Con esas no me quiero dar a entender que la película carece de sustancia por su trama principal. No es una película intelectual ni compleja, pero si es verdad que logra que cada cosa que implemente tenga su relevancia, aunque sea momentánea. A la par de ello, es verdad que hay un gran ingenio en los personajes por como logran salirse con la suya. Ello es lo atractivo: el “outsmarting,” la capacidad de burlarse del oponente o la cooperación circunstancial a la hora de afrontar enemigos en común. Es como la historia del gato y el ratón, pero con tres personajes y con los roles siendo intercambiados a cada rato; a veces son los perseguidos los que pasan a ser perseguidos o a ser antagónicos en lugar de protagónicos.

Es un muy buen cast coral que se sabe repartir hasta la moralidad, dado a que los personajes son bastante cuestionables pese a tener momentos en donde se la juegan por el lado del bien. Para ilustrar, el “bueno” no duda en timar con tal de sacar ganancias, y el malo que es un psicópata no duda en participar en pro de la unión, que es representada por los estadounidenses como el bando bueno en la guerra. El feo también tiene lo suyo, siendo el personaje que más se vale por sus defectos y por ser el más humano dado a que tiene su pasado bien establecido y hasta personas ercanas que nos dan a entender quién es a profundidad, eso también le da un carisma gigantesco dado que es el más balanceado y el que pasa por más cosas. El bueno es el más impersonal al carecer de pasado, pero su misticismo ha servido para agregar a su arquetipo, aparte de la buena química con los demás personajes y por ser más un antihéroe para contrastar con el personaje defectuoso y el completo villano; una mejora desde las previas películas de la trilogía del dólar y un perfeccionamiento del personaje original de Akira Kurosawa en Yojimbo. El malo, diría yo, es el menos interesante de los tres, pero también es el que juega más con el tema moral, al ser un asesino en serie capaz de lo peor y lo mejor al mismo tiempo, siendo por así decirlo, el lado más excesivo de los otros dos.

Las actuaciones son muy bien logradas y expresivas, y el vestuario añade personalidad a los personajes. Las secuencias de acción son increíbles y con su grado de cerebro puesto encima. Es divertido ver que los tiroteos no son balaceras descerebradas, parece que se toma muy en cuenta la agilidad y velocidad, así como la preparación para los combates, así como ciertas movidas como emboscadas o el escenario para lograr ventajas. Dentro de lo que cabe, también es muy épico por la destrucción masiva, el uso de distintas armas o incluso cañones, aparte de las varias secuencias de batallas.

Es una película que vale la pena, aparte de ser bastante chad y manly, con un legado que no debe ser subestimado y una de esas pocas cosas de las que puedo decir es cine estadounidense con valor cultural real—si ignoramos que la cultura vaquera no es su cultura original sino la puritana anglosajona de los dixlandeses y yanquilandeses, aka los peregrinos. Como tal, también es la viva expresión de la cultura pop, no es tanto sobre la sustancia sino del ingenio y el estilo. Es mejor que la mayoría de sus compatriotas al menos, y es un referente en muchos aspectos narrativos en el mundo del cine por sus aportes en materia de arquetipos y tramas. Tampoco es como que haya envejecido mal, tiene un ritmo paulatino, lo que aburrirá a los más acostumbrados a la acción inmediata, el mensaje no es su fuerte ni los conceptos, los personajes salvo el trio son olvidables y fungen como herramientas más que nada y la mayoría es estético. Tampoco vengo a decir que es lo mejor de lo mejor, aunque si por lo menos buscan ser un entendido del tema, entonces adelante y mírala. Tampoco sería mala idea ver las demás de la trilogía del dólar u otros westerns como Erase Una Vez en El Oeste, que también tienen sus cosas interesantes.  

  

Well what do you know? Another amazing movie from Sergio Leone. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly has so much good about it, and quintessentially it is one of the best westerns ever made. There may be nothing new about the story at first glance, but that's the point, Leone is paying homage to the Hollywood western, and despite the initial simplicity there is also a complexity mainly in the film's characters. Regardless of whether simple or complex it is, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly does have a compelling and brilliantly written story.

But there are other assets that make The Good, The Bad and the Ugly so good. The dialogue is always excellent, while Leone's direction is superb once again. The characters are great and are superbly played. Clint Eastwood gives one of his best performances ever here, and Eli Wallach is perfectly cast and more than a match for him. I was also very impressed with Lee Van Cleef, who I recognised from High Noon and such, but he makes a bigger impression here. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is also the most violent of the trilogy, and one of the most violent of the genre, not a bad thing whatsoever.

The pace was spot on too, even though the film is nearly three hours long, it is never boring or dull. The best things though about The Good, The Bad and the Ugly are the visuals and Ennio Morricone's score. The film looks amazing, the cinematography is gorgeous and the sweeping images and scenery are very lovingly crafted. Morricone's score is even more impressive than that, it is simply one of the best film scores I've ever heard, and if I had to say which was Morricone's best score, I would immediately say this.

Overall, there is nothing bad or ugly about the film. The film is amazing. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Warning: Spoilers
I guess I find myself somewhat in the middle on this film, I enjoyed it to a point, but I don't get the sense that this is one of the greatest Westerns ever, and the Western is my favorite movie genre. I much prefer a good psychological Western between complex antagonists, Eastwood's own "Unforgiven" would be an example. This was more a straightforward tale of three desperadoes consumed by greed who attempt to outwit each other on the trail to an unknown grave containing two hundred thousand dollars in gold coin. Each though, earns their respective title credit in the story, even if Eastwood's Blondie might be the 'good' simply based on his classically rugged features.

More on the plus side, it was really cool to hear the title theme music expressed in a handful of different ways throughout the story. The picture also captured the gritty realism of what the 1860's wild west was probably a lot like. You know, the more films I see of cowboys out in the desert days at a time with no access to soap and water, I start to wonder if they'll ever produce a picture that captures the fresh aroma of that experience. It's one thing to hear Tuco accused of smelling like a pig, but to actually get the full flavor of that would really be something. Then again, theater goers would never make it to the end of the picture - oh well for that idea.

As for the film's length, I too side with those that feel it took a long time to get from Point A to Point B. I'm really wondering if it was necessary to bring in the Civil War battle for that bridge, but it did give rise to perhaps the most meaningful scene in the picture for me. Watching Blondie try to ease the soldier's death with his coat and a smoke was a masterful touch.

You know, I could probably go so far as to put this film in the top twenty Westerns of all time, but it's position at #4 in the IMDb top rankings of ALL pictures (as I write this) is just too much of a stretch. That's probably the reason I find myself going to that page less and less, and watching movies of all types more and more.

Taking an entirely sardonic attitude in its depiction of the west, "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is the final instalment in Sergio Leone's unofficial Dollars trilogy. "A Fistful of Dollars" and "For A Few Dollars More" were unequivocally episodic and exponentially expelled to classic status by Clint Eastwood's laconic, enigmatic Man With No Name. Central to the series and its distinctive visual language were the landscapes of New Mexico, explicitly showcased rough, bloody violence and highly ambiguous morals and mercenary motives of the characters. "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" deviated from the blueprint set by Leone in delivering more adeptly composed cinematography and a cohesive, substantial narrative worthy of its near-three-hour runtime whilst retaining and extending the showdown aspect of its predecessors. Conversely suffused with poignancy and jocularity, the trilogy's fetishistic emphasis on excessive beatings and sudden gunfights, illustrative realism, authentic minutiae and dishevelled, unprincipled, cigar-smoking killers reaches its apex here, with the core plotline acting as a deconstruction of Old West romanticism, favouring the complexities and double-crossing antics between sympathetic criminal antiheroes and callous, irredeemable villains over plain old good versus evil. Leone magnifies and expands upon every element of his previous films, becoming more grandiose with his own iconography: a mythical figure raised by the American spirit now enters even more perilous territory, attacking the Puritanism of its heartland by interspersing long shots of dustlands, graveyards and war-torn scenery. It is this visual signature that notably progresses the film's character development, the continuous extreme close-up; demonstrated by a stony stare, reactionary expression or itchy-fingered hand hovering beside a gun, are one of many recurring keynotes throughout, thus defining the characters by their deeply nefarious actions, variegated by levels of relentlessness, not their humour-laden functional dialogue.

Narrating the search for gold through the classification of violence, uneasy alliance of a trio of reprobates and dispensing with the faster pacing of other Spaghetti Westerns, Leone opts to use scope and time, protracting the spell between reactions and the sudden shootout, employed perhaps to build suspense and also underscore his film with cinematographic techniques, stylistic touches and motifs now synonymous with the genre. Kill or be killed, backstab or be backstabbed designate the mentality of the males inhabiting Leone's arid west; devoid of exoticism, hope or beauty, it is a troublesome, decaying world beset by ruthlessness, murder and brutality. The only opportunity for any of the characters is to kill for profit, so the prospect of gold is a welcome change from this monotonous existence. Leone's propensity for re-invention sees him place the pursuit of monetary acquisition by any means necessary amongst the historical context of the American Civil War, entwining the characters in the battle as they travel to the uncertain location of the stolen Confederate gold. Operatic and intense, there is also a boyishness to the adventure aspect of the narrative that dulls the action, infusing a melancholy into the proceedings on several occasions, thus fortifying the plot and ensuring that the audience remains engrossed until the climactic standoff. What is most integral to the film's sustained dramatic tension is its musical theme by Ennio Morricone, which succeeds in accentuating pivotal moments, such as the breathtaking Mexican standoff at the cemetery. As with other facets of Leone's direction, the music breaks with convention; coordination with scenes, as well as adding vocals and alluding to other compositions within and outside of the trilogy, are all factors in its complimenting of the setting and camera movements. All of these fundamentals combine to distinguish it as a classic, moreover, its rewatchable qualities. It is a near-perfect masterpiece, and there are not many western satires that can be certain of that merit.

No puedo dejar de alabar lo increíblemente bien que ha envejecido esta cinta. El guión a primera vista parece simple, pero poco a poco va dando giros de tuerca que aún a día de hoy siguen siendo ingeniosos, la fotografía tiene un buen nivel la mayoría del tiempo con algunos planos que sobresalen de manera hermosa y si hablamos del soundtrack... está demás decir que es tan icónico que se volvería parte de la cultura popular, aún para personas que nunca han visto la película.

Hate to say this but this film starts off as a badly tuned guitar. The opening 25-30 minutes are clunky, loud and unmemorable. Only when Leone passes the half-hour mark does he find his true ground and plays the rest of the film in a memorable and we-all-love-to-love fashion. Westerns have largely been nitty, gritty, ruff, tuff and violent, and this film is no exception. Three characters with little or no soul in them start off an epic journey to find a stash of gold buried in a cemetery. This is the third time we're seeing The Man With No Name and the second time Angel Eyes, but they suddenly become just faces at the arrival of the newcomer, Tuco. Not only he makes us forget about the others but demands your utmost attention and concentration. Leone's Western characters have always been interesting and/or mysterious but none has been like Tuco here; Wild, cruel, sadistic, practically all of the 7 deadly sins and then some. You get to see so many different sides of him and they change so rapidly that if you were feeling remorseful of him in one scene then you were feeling hostile towards him 20 seconds later. Since the other two speak, in contrast to Tuco, very little, the latter makes all the gaps in the film interesting.

Just like the previous two films, this one is too violent and gory. What I like about this film is that everything seemed authentic. Every gunshot sounded real, every fall was convincing, every piece of clothe seemed lived in, every character and their mannerisms seemed bloody perfect and all that. Virtually everything felt real, as if you travelled back in time in a time-machine.

In the performances, both Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef were great in their roles but it was Eli Wallach that stole the spotlight. His character, although unlikable, was the most human and Wallach played him so seamlessly that he should've been nominated for an Oscar. The supporting and the minor were fine but they were better than most extras and/or supporting cast from other films. They were also in harmony with the film and kept it going.

In conclusion, this film plays like an explosion at the blood factory and is a great example on how to make a simple story entertainingly complex. Don't just watch this installment, watch the full trilogy.

8.5/10

Indeed, it is my favorite Western. Basically, I started to watch it as a kid with my father and I was actually planning to watch it again this time with my step-son but I ended up watching it on my own. I guess it is just too slow paced for him. Anyway, I had recently watched again ‘A Fistful of Dollars’ and ‘For a Few Dollars More’ so I obviously had to round up this trilogy with this seminal classic. In my opinion, it clearly stands apart from the rest of the trilogy as the scope was much bigger this time and Sergio Leone had a rather impressive budget, at least for the time period. Indeed, there was even some room for a war scene and Leone didn’t really focus on Clint Eastwood like in the previous movies but he spent some good amount of time with Eli Wallach who had a great character (as a matter of fact, he even had the most screen-time) and he made a great duo with Eastwood. Maybe they could have developed a little more Lee Van Cleef’s character but that wasn’t really a big deal. Eventually, it is pretty much a childhood favorite which goes with Star Wars and Indiana Jones, it is a great classic and it is definitely a must see for any decent movie lover.

Sergio Leone’s Italian spaghetti Western epic is one of the greatest pieces of purely visual storytelling. There’s very little dialogue, but there’s plenty of music and atmosphere to set the scene and provide the emotions. It’s like a great silent film that’s been filmed in color. This isn’t a John Wayne style Western in which we can easily tell who is good, who is bad and who is going to win in the end. Anyone could die at any minute, and there is no real hero to speak of. The Good, The Bad & the Ugly is a stark and tough piece of art.

Clint Eastwood plays the Man With No Name, probably dubbed as such because throughout this vague trilogy his name changes in each film. He is not a character so much as an archetype, which I think appears in some variation in Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian. Eastwood, naturally, is the “good.” Lee Van Cleef is the “bad” of the title. And Eli Wallach, in full on comic relief-with-a-razor’s-edge mode, is the “ugly.”

The plot concerns the three men searching for a fortune in long-lost Civil War gold. But who cares about the plot when the film is so rich in brutal and stripped images. And at three hours long, the film veers wildly into unrelated subplots, such as the prologue. This is a film of ideas and images, not a narrative. There is nothing wrong with that when it retains a certain hard won artistic vitality and keeps your interest. Those vast desert vistas which seem to extend on and on forever aren’t pretty in any conventional sense of the word, but they are a certain kind of pleasing to the eye.

Leone paints with a cinematic brush that alternates between the widest of shots of panoramic beauty and the most claustrophobic of close-ups. There is broad humor and scenes of horrific and graphic violence and bloodshed. Much like Bonnie and Clyde and The Wild Bunch from the same era, it repeatedly showcases throughout the film: that violence is not glamorous, it has consequences and it is a bloody affair. The western tropes and stereotypes are given a fresh, new, exciting life in The Good, The Bad & the Ugly.

At the outset of the first western movies, the cowboy characters had been categorized between two basic types: Those who wore the white hats, & those who wore the black ones.
As time passed though, the hat colors began to blur between who was bad, who was bad, & then to eventually who was just plain ugly.
Though the final film in the "Man With No Name" trilogy, IMO, the best & most definitive one of the three.
It's almost impossible to think of the genre of the spaghetti western, let alone this particular series & not think of the iconic trio of Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef & Eli Wallach.