Movie Discussion! - Page 364

I mean, didn't he claim to be both Jesus AND Buddha?

let's say for example he was more of a behind the scenes figure that was very influential like one of the apostles for example.

A Fistful of Dollars

Director: Sergio Leone
Cast: Clint Eastwood ("Joe"), Marianne Koch (Marisol), Gian Maria Volonte (Ramon)
99 Min, Western

So what does this make a genre classic? The first point is a bit paradoxical. It is quite innovative despite being a blatant ripoff (more about that in the contra points). It broke with western tradition ( think of John Wayne movies) where the hero was a nice and upright guy saving weaker people from bad natives and gunslingers. In the western of the 60's and 70's the hero is a brutal and ruthless guy often motivated solely by money. The first scene shows that kind of hero perfectly: Eastwood forces some gunslingers from the town he enters to apologize to his donkey because they laughed about him which made the donkey sad. It created a kind of antihero that was so succesful that 500 of such movies labelled as "spaghetti western" would be made over the course of the next ten years. The term spaghetti western was a derogatory term created by Hollywood to discredit western themed films made outside of America (The Dollar trilogy was directed in Spain with many italian actors). It backfired badly and Spaghetti western became a thing in America, too.

Next thing is the setting and camera work. Settings in the film are not clean. They are dusty and shabby towns inhabited by people who sweat a lot and who are distrustful of strangers. The camera often showed the actors faces in long and detailed shots to show their emotions, whether they are fearful or determined. The scripts are rather short, the characters don't spoeak too much and the main character throws a lot of one liners (which will be rediscovered in the action cinema of the 80's).These methods gave the films a look that wasn't seen in the genre until Sergio Leone directed his western movies. It had a gritty look which got supported by the cynical characters to create a darker perspective of the wild west of the past.

Perhaps the most important part is the music of Ennio Morricone. It wasn't perfect in this movie (like in the last film of the trilogy) but it already showed the importance of it. The actors didn't always need to speak, the music made the all around atmosphere of the scene and the feelings of the actors perfectly clear. The music is an important part to support the relative lack of a script. It immerses the viewer into the film, builds up tension or supports the longer landscape shots. Already executed pretty well but not yet perfect.

Now let's come to the weaker parts. The smaller roles are not acted very well. The movie had a very small budget and the flick suffered around "the edges" for it. Meaning the acting of the smaller roles is not very good, the film has plot holes towards the end. For a film that tries to create a darker, more realistic view of the wild west, Eastwood just gets rid off his enemies too easily.

Next weak point: The movie is dubbed and you see it easily. Reason is the film was mainly made for an italian audience and with many non english speaking italian actors. The later installments are also dubbed but the execution is much better, thanks to the relative succes of this movie and a bigger budget for the following ones.

My biggest gripe with it is, despite it being innovative for the genre as a whole, it is still a blatant ripoff of Kurosawa's movie Yojimbo, made in 1961. This film is from 1964 and it has exactly the same plot. Gunslinger (or Ronin) comes into town to play off two gangs agianst each other. It creates quite the paradox: being innovative for the whole genre despite being a ripoff.

All in all I wouldn't recommend the movie for everyone. It is interesting for people interested in cinema because it was quite important for the development of the western genre but it has weaknesses, which will get reduced in Leone's next movies. It has weak acting in the smaller roles, plot holes, is a bit rough around the edges and it is a ripoff. It is quite a good example for "style over substance" but still enjoyable.

Pros: creates new kind of hero and gritty setting, music, minimalism
Cons: Acting, plot, ripoff

6.5 out of 10 points

For a Few Dollars More
Director: Sergio Leone
Cast: Clint Eastwood (Monco), Lee Van Cleef (Mortimer), Gian Maria Volonte (Indio)
132 min, Western

So what is new and what is the same in the Sequel of A Fistful of Dollars?
New is Lee Van Cleef who adds a nice little angle to the series. Despite being equally cold and silent as Clint Eastwood, he seems to be quite a different character. He uses more expensive weapons with sophisticated technology, wears nice clothes and is quite articulate if he wants to be. The two team up to get rid off a gang and share the profit. In the prequel one guy got rid off two gangs, in this one two guys get rid off one gang. It weakens the "it is just too easy" critque a bit and creates an interesting play of the two characters involved. Van Cleef played many villains in western movies and added quite some starpower to the cast, Eastwood was still relatively unknown.

Well and what is the same? The music of Ennio Morricone is still very strong, compared to the prequel the compositions play an even bigger part of the movie. It is so good, at your first watching you probably won't even realize how the actors don't speak much. The music just does such an awesome job to bring the atmosphere of the movie and the emotions of the involved actors to the audience, it is just great. The cynical perspective of the wild west and the gritty look is still there and the costumes are a bit better for my liking. In the prequel Eastwood brought some costumes to the set himself (he played in a western series made in the USA at that time) because the budget was so tight.

The increased budget in this movie basically added starpower in For a Few Dollars More, rounded up the rough edges from the prequel. That means the secondary roles are played a bit better, costumes are a bit better and the plot holes are reduced. The increased budget just made it possible for Sergio Leone to make every area of the movie a bit better, even the shootouts which were already executed quite well in the first part.

There is still room for critizism though. It is the second installment of the series and has a runtime of over 2 hours and we still don't get any character depth. Monco, the main character, is still solely motivated by money, the viewer doesn' t know anything else about him. The only thing we get to know about Mortimer is that he used to be in the Army but he also remains flat despite the interesting play of similarities and differences with Eastwood.

The dubbing problem is still there but it is less in your face. The camera doesn't focus on the actor's mouth every time that they speak. Dialogues take sometimes place on the horseback or with a bit of musical support. There is "more" going on in the dialogue scenes in this movie to detract the viewer's attention from the actor's mouth, the attention is focussing more on what is happening around that.

All in all this film is recommended for everyone. It is stronger in basically every area, excluding character development, it manages to reduce some of the weaknesses (minor roles, dubbing while still a weakness is definately done better) and emphasizes the strengths (music, drawn out shootout scenes).

Pros: cast, music, tense shootouts
Cons: dubbing, lack of character development

7.5 out of 10 points

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Director: Sergio Leone
Cast: Clint Eastwood (Blondie), Lee Van Cleef (Angel Eyes), Eli Wallach (Tuco)
161 Min, Western

Without a doubt this is the best film of the series. Tarantino names it as one of his all time favorites, for Jeff Bridges it is the best western movie of all time, it finds it's way into many 100 best movies of all time kind of lists. but why is that the case, what does it make better than the prequels?

The first point it makes better is the plot development. The characters are still solely motivated by money, it doesn't "break" its characteristics but they are engaged in a more complex plot which opens up better play between the characters. Tuco and Blondie are basically making money out of Tuco's bounty. Blondie delivers him to the authorities and frees him before he gets hanged. They do this repeatedly despite not exactly liking each other. Blondie breaks up their working relationship and Tuco wants revenge. They learn about some hidden gold but everyone only has one of the two needed pieces of information. So they now basically need each other and Angel eyes learns about that and just wants to wait until they have done the work for him.

How does this "open" the characters? Well, Tuco and Blondie have some conversations along the scheme"you idiot, you always were like that". The character of Tuco gives us the chance to learn something about Blondie. In his next movie Once Upon a Time in the West Sergio Leone will pull off a similar trick. He will create a character explaining the motives and personality of the main character who doesn't exactly talk a lot himself. Additionally the plot plays in the American civil War. We get to know the characters thoughts about the war and politics in general. They are in no way deep characters but the plot and the setting of the film help to reduce this weakness of the prequels.

The music is still awesome and perfectly fits the movie and it's long drawn out scenes. You don't realize this lengths as a viewer the music is just to engaging and fitting. You cannot emphasize this enough, Morricone was the perfect fit at the perfect time in the perfect genre. Without any hyperbole, you can easily say that this movie (and the next one made by Morricone and Leone) are among the best movie soundtracks and movie music in general of all time.

The last big plus is the final scene. It is very drawn out and long and uses all the stuff which characterise Leone's western movies: shots of the actors eyes and hands changing with shots of the general landscape in which the scene takes place, heavy support of music to show the athmosphere of the scene and the actors emotions, characters firing cynical oneliners at each other. This final scene is sooo great and it shows everything what was done well over the course of the 3 movies. The tension is build up so well and the payoff is good, too. What a scene!

Minor points of critique are still the relatively thin characters, better done in this movie but still a weakness. It runs 2 and a half hours and we just don't get much in that regard. The next slightly weak point is lack of innovation. I critisize series like Mission Impossible for bringing nothing new to the table despite throwing new films at us every two years. This also needs to be said about The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. It is the third installment of the Series and it doesn't bring us anything new or innovative. The stylistical methods already used in the two prequels gets perfected here, weaknesses get reduced but it doesn't innovate.

This two flaws are rather small if you look at the whole picture, the film is an absolute classic, it aged very well (was done in 1966) and is highely recommended for everyone with an interest in movies.

Pros: cast, ATG music, camera work, ATG final scene
Cons: character development, lack of innovation

9 out of 10 points

Unce Upon a Time in the West

Director: Sergio Leone
Cast: Charles Bronson (Harmonica), Claudia Cardinale (Jill), Henry Fonda (Frank), Jason Robards (Cheyenne), Gabriele Ferzetti (Morton)
165 Min, Western

First of all, this movie exists in different version. i chose to review the longest one as I think it is the best. It is labelled "international version". The american theatrical version runs 145 min and a version from 1970 runs 137 minutes. Who knows why it was even made.

What are the strong points of the movie? First of all the enormous star power. Charles Bronson was a big action star back in the day, Claudia Cardinale a star actress and Henry Fonda a well established western star going back to the John Wayne era. The big roles are casted and played very well.

Next point is the cinematogrophy we already know from the Dollar trilogy. Long, drawn out scenes with not much dialogue but great oneliners and great music. We get eaxactly that. Leone uses the first scene to introduce the bad guy, Frank. The scene shows us exactly what kind of guy he is. Ruthless and cynical, a genre antagonist played very well by Henry Fonda. In his first western movie Leone introduced his hero to us in the same way, so it is a bit of a deja vu. Setting is dusty and dirty as are the characters again. Nothing new but executed well.

The cast overall is well worth it's money. Cardinale plays the female lead and gives us more than a cliche character which was often prevalent in the western movies. She doesn't need the good cowboy to come to her rescue, she is hardened up and cynical in her own way. Robard's character Cheyenne is an outlaw, who has a bit of a heart and gets often used to describe the action and motives of Harmonica. We already saw that method in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, using a side character to describe the main protagonist of the movie, who hardly speaks.

Star of the movie is actuall Ennio Morricone and his music. I am not aware of any movie which emphasizes it's music to such a degree, not even Blues Brothers which actually has a band on their adventurous journey as main characters. The music is used everywhere, from the characteristic and well known main tune to the support of showdown or landscape shots. It is loud, it doesn't "hide" behind the actors, it is right in the middle, it is the front and centre of many scenes throughout the film.

In the beginning of my post I labelled it my favorite western. What sets it apart from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly? First it doesn't reinvent the wheel, it uses exactly the same stylistical methods, but they are perfected. It has a better all around cast, settings and camera work are on the same level and the soundtrack is even a bit better imo.

It also shares it's weaknesses. The main character remains pretty flat despite it's long run time, his motives are just explained shortly before the movie ends and in the end it is only revenge and nothing more. It has some plot holes (why don't we get explained how Harmonica knows something about the contract's specifics?) and two times in the movie the plot "jumps". It is hard to explain without spoilering (no worries I won't) but in two scenes regarding Morton the plot moves forward and we don't get shown how, we just get shown the consequences but have no clue why or how this happened. This is strange as the movie has so many drawn out shots, I am wondering why these two scenes didn't really happen.

All in all these gripes are pretty minor. Film is highly recommended for everyone, it is cinema history and an ATG movie it aged greatly and perfected the methods already used in other Leone films.

Pros: cast, setting, ATG music, pace
Cons: no innovation, character development, two plot holes

9 out of 10 points

Unforgiven

Director: Clint Eastwood
Cast: Clint Eastwood (William Munny), Gene Hackman (Little Bill), Morgan Freeman (Ned), Jaimz Woolvett (Schofield Kid)
131 Min, Western

This movie from 1992 is in my opinion the best western genre film of modern times. It got loads of praise from the critics, won 4 Oscars and many more awards.

What does it make good? Does it use similar stylistic methods like the old classics? Where are differences?

The first very strong point of the movie is that it opens up the main character. The first minutes are playing on William Munny's farm. He used to be a gunslinger and bounty hunter but "retired" and became a farmer for his family. This tells a lot about the character and his priorities. Things didn't go as planned, his pigs became sick, his wife died and he is running out of money, so he decides to go out on the hunt one last time with his old partner Ned. Munny gets portrayed as reformed family man who doesn't want to be the bad guy again but has to out of economic need. Much more complex than in classical genre films.

It also adds a self ironical nuance to the genre which totally lacks in its classics. Munny is totally self aware that he is quite old, he can't shoot as well as he used to and has trouble getting on the back of his horse because of his old bones. The rest of the cast is also picked very solidly, no complains from that side.

Another difference is the last shootout. It is over quite quickly and doesn't get drawn out too much, but i have no complains with that it is well executed and a good payoff for the movie in general.

Similarities are also easy to spot. The antagonist Gene Hackman is quite the douchebag, proper brutal guy who likes to fuck people's shit up. Munny and the sheriff are crossing ways several times and Munny decides towards the end that it is time for revenge, so we get the classical revenge motive also but this time with a character who is a bit more complex. We get many shots of the landscape, they give the audience a good sense of the sheer width of the wild west, well done.

What are the weaker points of the movie? First of all the grittyness. The grittyness gets displayed in Munny's farmer life and in two big shootouts throughout the film, apart from these specific scenes the movie comes across as pretty "clean". It isn't very dusty, the characters wear good and clean clothes, there isn't too much sweat everywhere. Eastwood decides to go for the cleaner look (for modern Hollywood audiences maybe?) and it reduces the athmosphere imo.

Next part is the music, don't get me wrong, it is above average, even got an acedemy nomination, but in regard to the genre classics with their ATG soundtracks, this is still a step back. The music is not good enough to carry scenes on it's own, it is merely a tool to support the action, much more in the background and not the "star" of the scene itself.

All in all it is a highely enjoyable movie which can be recommended to anyone, but the lack of gritty athmosphere and the lack of great music are responsible for it falling short in comparison to the genre classics The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West

Pros: adds a more complex main character to the genre, self ironic nuances, good cast
Cons: music, lack of immersion and athmosphere

8 out of 10 points

True Grit
Director: Ethan, Joel Coen
Cast: Jeff Bridges (Rooster), Hailie Steinfeld (Mattie), Matt Damon (LaBoeuf), Josh Brolin (Chaney)
110 Min., Western

True Grit is next in line to be reviewed. What do I like, what do I dislike? Plot is basically Mattie hiring Rooster to catch the bad guys, they'll pick up LaBoeuf on the way who wants to get hold of the anatgonist, too. We are riding along side them on their journey.

First pro of the movie is the overall execution. The Coen brothers are experienced film makers. the movie has good pacing, the final payoff gets prepared well, there are no big weaknesses in the cast, many things are very solid. Hallie Steinfeld is playing very well for her young age (she was 13), Jeff Bridges plays the constantly drunken sherriff solidly (although his best works remain Crazy Heart and The Big Lebowski imo).

Riding along the three across the vast landscape is done quite well and a bit reminiscent of old adventure movies. It was done well enough to wake my sense of nostalgia so it is pretty good in my opinion.

Nevertheless I don't get quite warm with the movie, but why is that?

First thing are the dynamics between the characters. Damon and Bridges are constantly arguing throughout the film with Haillie trying to appease them. Damon and Bridges have a bit of history and their relationship isn't the best. Don't get me wrong all this stuff is well acted but it leads to a lot of dialogue which I think, doesn't quite fit the genre. People speak all the time, the music is just a mere supporting tool in the background. All this isn't a problem per se but I think it is a quite drastic break with genre conventions.

My next point is the payoff itself. It is very Hollywood cliche ridden. Laboeuf left the group of Mattie and Rooster before but of course he comes back in the exact right moment to save the day. Very cliche and another break with genre conventions, the classical western antihero wouldn't have come back. And to put the cherry on top of that it is the little girl who gets rid off the villain in the end. Come on, are you serious?

Overall look is pretty clean again, we get no shots of sweaty faces, LaBoeuf is shaved well and everybody has clean clothes. I don't know man, this just takes away from the immersion and the athmosphere. They are riding through vast areas and look like they just put on another set of fresh clothes straight out of the closet. I don't know whether this look gets preferred in Hollywood and if so, why. What I do know is that I like the gritty looks of the 60's genre classics better.

What is the conclusion to all that? True Grit is not a bad movie, it is acted and directed well (cast, pacing, build up and payoff are all executed well) but it suffers if you compare it to the genre classics I reviewed above because it lacks central stylistic methods which made them great. If that makes sense True Grit is a pretty good movie but a not so good western imo. I would still recommend the movie to people interested in movies, if somebody told me he is a western fan I would tell him to go and watch it but he shouldn't have high expextations.

Pros: directing, pacing, cast
Cons: music too much in the background, no real grit, cliches

7 out of 10 points

Django Unchained

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Cast: Jamie Foxx (Django), Christoph Waltz (Dr. King Schultz), Leonardo DiCaprio (Calvin Candie), Samuel L. Jackson (Stephen), Kerry Washington (Broomhilda)
165 Min, Western

So the last one to review. Let me start like this: I think Django Unchained is one of Tarantino's weaker movies. I will compare it with the genre classics from above and with Kill Bill. Why with Kill Bill you ask? Well Kill Bill was made as a hommage to the old Eastern movies, I watched a lot of them like all Jacky Chan movies, the old stuff from Jet Li, Bruce Lee movies like Way of the Dragon or Enter The Dragon, the 36th Chamber of Shaolin, the old Lone Wolf and Cub series and a lot of other, more obscure stuff. Django Unchained was made as a hommage to the old western movies, the most important of them I reviewed above. So I think it is just fair to compare how well of a job both movies did as hommages.

First let's start with the positive part. The first parts are filled with hilarious dialogues, trivial conversations which are pretty funny, just like we know it from Tarantino movies. Especially Dr. King Schultz is played very well and comes across as an engaging character, despite being a bounty hunter. He gets topped by Samuel L. Jackson's performance. He play's the evil uncle Tom n*gger perfectly. He would have fitted perfectly in one of those 60 movies. You can see the emotion in his face even without close up shots, his part in the final scene is straight up awesome. In my opinion the best performance acting wise in the movie. Rest of the cast is also good, the only weakness I see comes in the dynamic between King Schultz and Django, but I will expand on that later in the weaker-points section.

Next strong point is the last shootout. Boy, iwas it brutal, gritty and quite shocking, a very good hommage to the old 60 movies who had the same characteristics in their time and with their methods, well done!

So we have very good acting and hilarious dialogue in the first roughly 1 1/2 - 2 hours of the film, after that it gets weaker in my opinion until the very last scene. Why? Towards the end of the movie the scenes drag out too long without being engaging, it gets lengthy and you catch yourself looking on the clock. This gets worse late in the film as Django needs to carry it alone. The dynamics with Dr. King Schultz were funny, once he was alone on the screen, the movie lost quality. His emotional and facial expression fell flat compared to the other actors with him having much screen time, this is quite problematic for the film as a whole, in my opinion atleast.

My biggest gripe with the movie is another point though. It just doesn't work well as hommage to the western genre and this is where the Kill Bill comparison comes into play. Kill Bill functioned very well as Eastern hommage because it succeded in putting many classic stylistic methods into a modern context. The lengthy dialogue between opponents during a fight (Dragon Ball lol, now I get you with my Hanzo sword and my ridicolous technique xy), the straight angle shots during training sequences, the sound when somebody gets hit, the beheading scene with Lucy Liu looked like straight out of a 70's martial arts film. Kill Bill was a great hommage and succesfully implemented a lot of stuff we've seen in Eastern classics in a modern movie.

Django Unchained fails in that category. Dr. king Schultz isn't silent, he talks a lot, is very eloquent, well dressed and comes across as a bit of an aristocrat. This is basically the antithesis to the antihero of the 60's. I feel like Jamie Foxx should have played that part, but his performance is just too weak. In their scenes Waltz is dominating the screen, he is the focus of their scenes.

It also fails to impletent the overall aesthetics. Nothing is dirty, characters wear good and clean clothes, there are no shots off the characters riding through dusty desert wastelands. Schultz helps Django for emotional reasons. All this stuff collides with genre conventions. There is no gritty optic, no silent, cynical main character, no face shots. the only scene where this gritty feeling is achieved is the last brutal shootout in the mansion. Apart from that scene it falls short badly to implement classical elements in a new movie.

Overall I would recommend the movie to fans of Tarantino only. People who just go to the cinema here and there could choose better movies. The failure to deliver as a hommage is just relevant for big western fans or movie buffs, for the casual movie watcher the lengths in the film, the subpar Jamie Foxx and the loss of overall quality in the second half of the movie until the last scene are bigger arguments to not watch it.

Pros: good dialogue in the first 2/3 of the flick, good Christoph Waltz and great Samuel L. Jackson
Cons: Failed to deliver as hommage, lengths, subpar Jamie Foxx

6.5 out of 10 points