Thursday, April 3, 2014
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Review: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Participants: Shane, Bryan, Jon, Drew, Sean, Bobby
Initiator: Shane
First of all, a thousand apologies for picking a 3 hour movie. I might not have picked it had I known it was so long. Though, it really didn’t feel like it was that different in length from The Sea Inside.
To begin, I’ve always enjoyed Westerns. It’s definitely one of my favorite genres. Maybe it’s an inherent bias since I was named after a Western-based book. Just wanted to let you know where I’m coming from.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly feels like an incredibly familiar movie. The sounds, the music, the themes and the style have obviously been replicated since its release. I think it’s a testament to how much of an influence this movie had on film-makers that we know today. I had multiple scenes where I felt like I was watching Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction (though the dialogue is quite different). Speaking of familiarity, good God, I’m way less impressed with the creation of Wolverine now. Basically they just took Blondie and gave him claws.
So, first theme I noticed, and it’s one we’ve talked about a bit so far is there’s really no good guy here. Just three flawed guys, almost superhero level, who, to me, represent our base instincts of survival and survival is basically the name of the game in the West.
Blondie might be the closest thing we have to a noble-survivor here. He is good looking and charismatic, but we don’t know anything about him nor does he do anything that is particularly admirable. Hell, he screws over Tuco, kills bandits with no care and ruins everyone’s hats. It isn’t until he blows that bridge up that we see something relatable, and even then he’s doing it mostly so he can get across the river. In the midst of this, though, he does have a line about never seeing such a waste of lives in reference to the war around him. He really only commits to kind acts: (1) Giving the handsome soldier a smoke before he dies and (2) Letting Tuco live with his half of the money, though he did torture him first. This isn’t to say I found him one-dimensional. While we don’t know about his past, with the way his character acts, I think we can learn enough. He’s a sociopath, no doubt. But he still has some humanity left. He doesn’t seem to kill when he doesn’t need it, he has a soft-spot for soldiers, but he’s also dead emotionally. Money and survival are his only motivators, but he’s not willing to achieve those things by totally abandoning integrity.
Tuco actually might be the most likable overall. Like Blondie, he’s a sociopath. Unlike Blondie, dude is pretty funny. Knowing nothing else, you’d think that Tuco was actually the main character. He’s the only guy we get to know as we meet his brother as they hash out some family issues. While we’ve mostly found Tuco despicable up until this point, we do see that he cared about his family and it gives us something to relate to. Tuco, in actions and mannerisms, is like a rat. It’s the voice in our head that is most desperate. He’ll do or say anything to survive. He rambles, he curses, he jokes. While he doesn’t seem so dangerous from looking at him with his random jewelry and his odd way of moving about, he proves that he’s just as dangerous as anyone else in the movie. He’s the ugly because he is the complete lack of dignity or integrity. Tuco is actually the main person in my favorite scene of the movie: Where he has found the cemetery and that badass music comes and we get a dizzying ride with him looking for the right gravestone. I love that he once again is so focused on the money that he loses track of Blondie. There are two types of bad guys: Those who pay attention to Blondie and those who don’t.
Angel Eyes is our third main character and the one we know the least. Again, he’s a sociopath. However, unlike Blondie, he enjoys killing. Like Blondie, though, he has integrity and a code. He’s similar to Tuco in in his sadism when it comes to killing (they both have some intense violence and torture scenes). But unlike Tuco, there’s nothing to like about Angel Eyes outside of his impressive will that he imposes on everybody and his quiet, calm resolve. Really, it isn’t until the 3-way shoot-out that we see even the smallest hint of questioning or worry. He’s just a damn smooth operator. Speaking of, that’s definitely up there for my favorite scene of the movie.
Part of what made some of these scenes so enjoyable was the intense score accompanying them. Oh man. I loved the score. It’s rare that a score can ruin a movie, but a score done so well as this easily increases enjoyment. I could listen to some of those tracks without a movie involved.
Certainly, you can see some differences in what they’re able to do with technology then as compared to now. I loved in the opening scene with the coyote howl that was clearly recorded at night because when it’s played, you can hear the crickets. Or the sounds effects of a hat flying off of a head. I’m willing to give them a pass on some of these things due to the era. Also, it’s amazing how much smoother modern day editing has made movies. One impressive feat that we’d never see today was the battle scene. Those were all legit extras. That’s a ton of people.
Before I get to the flaws, I do want to mention the camera work. There were a lot of interesting angles going on. The down the hallway, man in black in the doorway was a good set-up. The zooming out to catch the entire setting when they were outside gave us some depth to the area. The zooming in on eyes, the POV glimpses, etc. This had to have been a ton of work with the technology they were working with. From what I’ve read about director Sergio Leone, he was a demanding perfectionist, which also reminds me of many modern day directors.
I do have a few issues. There are some incredibly convenient things in the plot. They need explosives, oh hey, we’re sitting next to explosives. Two guys are stalking them in the thoroughfare, boom, random cannon explosion (which actually happened twice in the film). I just found those plot-points a bit too convenient. Also, some scenes did last a bit too long. I know editing was more of a challenge, but some of those were excessive. Also, some of the voice dub overs were distractingly bad. Though, this might be a technology thing, so largely I’ll give it a pass.
Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. I think the main characters and most of the side characters were well-acted. The plot was enjoyable, though not overly sophisticated. I loved the Blondie/Tuco relationship. Mostly, I enjoyed a lot of the individual scenes, the accompanying score and the intense feeling of the film. This movie is a classic for a reason: A-
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Spent 30 minutes this morning wrapping up the movie marathon from last night. Fair warning, we're going from the most verbose reviewer to possibly the least.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad my dad told me this was a "Spaghetti Western" before I started watching or I would have been fiddling with my speakers and Internet connection wondering why in the world the syncing was off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_Western
I do like westerns and the lines from them or which evolve from them. I have a Pre-Algebra lessons titled, "Protractors, we don't need no stinkin' protractors." Yes, I crack myself up. No, my students don't think I'm funny. I'm probably going to use a "There's two kinds of people ..." line later this quarter.
I absolutely loved Tuco's character - he carried the movie for me. I enjoyed all of his scenes. I never knew exactly what was going to happen with him. Blondie and Angel Eyes were good characters, but not as developed or funny as Tuco. I never found myself rooting for them.
The plot was interesting, but nothing spectacular. I was genuinely intrigued as to what would happen next - but often bored by the last minute of each insanely long scene. If this movie was made today the last scene would have been a bloodbath and terribly sad. I appreciate a movie where there is at least one relatively decent human being. This movie was a happy musical compared to the last few we've seen. Let's keep it up!
Nothing spectacular, but it was intriguing. B from me.
subscribe
ReplyDeleteI first want to talk about Tarantino in the context of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. This is his favorite film of all time, and its influence is clear in Tarantino’s movies. The only criticism of Tarantino that I buy is that he blatantly steals from other directors, cutting pieces out of movies he likes and pasting them together to make something of his. I consider that a strength, but it’s a hard point to argue, and for me, it keeps him in permanent second-place behind Paul Thomas Anderson, a director who also started off ‘stealing’ but has moved on into wholly original work, where Tarantino has made the same (amazing) movie four times in a row now.
ReplyDeleteAs far as stolen bits from The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, the soundtracks of his movies from Kill Bill on all heavily rely on Ennio Morricone, the same composer of the score here. The piece that plays in The Bad’s first scene, where he goes to that farm to get Bill Carver’s name, is transported into Kill Bill Volume 2, where the Bride meets Bill at her wedding. I can’t remember exactly where he uses the finale’s pieces in his movies, but I know I’ve heard them both before in one of QT’s revenge films. He also uses some of Leone’s shots, like the zoom-in on faces/objects, or framing a character’s head in a noose. There’s also the Mexican standoff, which exist in pretty much all of QT’s movies. I can’t decide if my recognizing so many things added anything to Good, Bad, Ugly, but it did add another layer to the enjoyment of it.
To the film in question, this completed Leone’s Dollars Trilogy for me. I’d seen A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More last year. This one is barely my favorite. It has the most memorable scenes, particularly the finale, which basically saved the whole film for me. Goddamn, those last couple of scenes. Ugly running through the graveyard has to be in the all-time great scene pantheon. Bad beating up Ugly while the Confederate prisoners are forced to sing over it was also strong, and reminded me a lot of A Clockwork Orange, such that the people in control are using something beautiful for nefarious purposes. I’ll likely remember more of this film than the other two Dollars movies, which I honestly don’t remember much of at all.
Briefly on the score, Morricone crushes it here, particularly with the near-closing number, The Ecstasy of Gold. Again, that’s an all-time great piece to accompany an all-time great scene. In the other Dollars movies as well as here, Morricone puts in these signatures touches for Clint Eastwood whenever he does something cool. Here, it’s the iconic wah-wah-wah sound, where in Fistful of Dollars, I think it was a short whistle. Incorporating the score into the film at that level is something I really love, and not enough movies do it.
On differentiating the three main characters, I had something really tidy and neat for it, and then Good shot through Ugly’s noose and blew my reasoning, so I have to amend it. Bad’s introduction establishes him as a killer for hire, but still a man with a code, as Shane says. On the Dungeons and Dragons alignment (look it up), I think he’s Lawful Evil, such that his code is fundamentally negative. He takes advantage of and hides behind big organizations, like the Union army, for his nefarious purposes, striking his victims from a seat of real power.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, Good is shown as more of a trickster. I don’t think Bad would ever shoot someone’s hat off. Good is someone who takes advantage of the law while being outside it. He’s introduced as killing for his own purposes, but his purposes are ostensibly lawful. He might drive bounties up, but because the people he works with are criminals, he ultimately turns them in. I think Good is labeled good only because he’s not explicitly malicious or cruel, unlike Bad or Ugly, who are both shown torturing people over the course of the movie. Shane, I view Good putting Ugly in the noose more benignly, as I think it was more a way for Good to get a head start and not be robbed, as Ugly inevitably would have tried. Good has found a loophole that he exploits, but at least no one’s getting killed.
Then, there’s Ugly, who is introduced killing in self-defense. He’s the most interesting character, with all his eccentricities, like the pink parasol and his constant “there’s two kinds..” way of speaking. He exists outside of not just the law, but outside established custom, like not rifling through a dead man’s pockets. Like Shane says, he is a survivor, who places his life above his honor or his pride. Why is that Ugly? I think Leone labels his as such because Ugly is the closest to how Leone feels about the West specifically and humanity broadly; without rough ancestors willing to do ugly things to survive, there is no safety or comfort for modern people like us to watch a three-hour movie.
I’ve been really positive so far, but if not for the strength of the finale, we’d be deep in C territory. This movie is way too long. The three main characters don’t set out on the same path until the 70 minute mark. I don’t fundamentally have a problem with long movies (greater than 140 minutes), but they have a serious hurdle to get over; keep me interested. This only succeeds here probably 75% of the time. An asshole editor could probably trim 45 minutes, and not much would be lost. Leone also really likes close-ups on the faces of rough, sweaty men. Could’ve used a few more feet of buffer. The dubbing is a disaster. My understanding of spaghetti Westerns is that they’re filmed in Europe, so the non-English speaking actors give their lines in their native languages. Then, they’re dubbed into English, which is done poorly here, so much so, that it’s a distraction.
I keep coming back to the finale, which I can’t speak highly enough of. It bumps The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly up an entire letter grade, to a B. Glad I watched, but that was an ordeal.
I like how Jon goes out of his way to mention Tarantino. Really? What original thought has that man ever had? Even Kill Bill's main theme is based off G.B. & U's. Dude is a plagiarist and Jon thinks he's great. Ugh...
ReplyDeleteAlso, Shane, it's interesting you say that about Wolverine and Blondie. While the X-Men first appeared in 1963, Wolverine's first appearance is not until a 1974 Incredible Hulk comic. While Stan Lee and Len Wein never outright admitted it, it is very possible Blondie influenced them to create Wolverine. There are striking resemblances between them nonetheless.
Anyway, The G. B. & U. is a classic. The characters are interesting and the plot, well, took some time for me to understand. There's revenge - Tuco with Blondie in the desert - bounties - Angel Eyes chasing Jackson - aka Bill Carson - who reminded me of the show Have Gun Will Travel - greed - chasing after the gold. Intriguing stuff. Was also funny to see Clint Eastwood march. That is something we fail to see often.
The torture scene was pretty sadistic and ahead of its time. There are many movies that follow that kind of torture and I'm sure G.B.& U. is their influence. Pretty good stuff.
A great line from the film: "Six...the perfect number." As he holds up his gun.
What I found the most interesting was the beginning credits. You may wonder why that is but the MPAA required the credits to be shown at the beginning of the movie. That all changed with Lucas and Star Wars but to see the old movies with the beginning credits is interesting how the way things used to be.
I agree with Jon about how the poorly done overdubs were a distraction. Kind of felt like a Bruce Lee movie but it being a spaghetti western, I understood it. I didn't, though, have to like it.
All in all, the ending was good. Sad to see Angel Eyes die and Tuco live. Wished Blondie would have shot him but Tuco's survival speaks to his character and improves the movie.
People say you don't watch Boogie Nights, you experience it. People should say that about G.B. & U. instead of Boogie Nights. This is clearly a three hour experience and while there is no naked Heather Graham, G.B.& U. is a much better film.
This is a classic and glad I watched it. Grade: B+
Let’s get my grade out of the way before I start complaining. Probably a B+ movie but with enough absurdity to push it down to a B- for me. What do I mean by absurdity? Glad you asked I planned on sharing whether you asked or not.
ReplyDeleteI'll start semi-positive. How long would that movie feel without the score? I'm Mr. music does not make a movie but damn this movie would be lost without it.
Most of the time I find myself distracted by the look of an older movie. This movie doesn't look like it was made in 1966- it doesn't look like it was made in 2006 either but the movie doesn't suffer from its looks.
I wasn’t all that distracted by the dubbing because I have seen the spaghetti westerns before. Had I not been aware it could’ve been more of a problem.
Westerns- when men were men. John Wayne would roll over in his grave seeing all the nancified stuff passing as manliness these days. I don’t like westerns. They’re mostly all the same movie with bad acting and worse special effects. My most hated part of every western is the scene where somebody starts roughing up some lady with ridiculous backhands that 1980s wrestlers would laugh at. And if John Wayne were alive today he would have screen tested and failed to land the part of Hodor because he was a lifeless corpse even when he was making 300 or so movies, alright Duke, this time really sad? Hodor, hmm I guess try excited? Hodor, well shit, can you do scared? Hodor. That said Leone’s Spaghetti Westerns are far and away the winners of the genre for me and are not only watchable but can be enjoyable too, if only they weren’t so damn long.
Ready for the absurdity? Ok.
Why the hell do people in westerns wear so many layers of clothing. Big hot fucking ponchos? Really. Let’s walk through the desert and never consider unbuttoning and untucking my shirt or making a Gypsy style headband out of my sleeve. Let’s be practical here.
Why does Tuco wear his gun on a necklace and haphazardly let the gun hang in a loose pocket. It’s a good thing Blondie took his bullets otherwise while he’s sprinting around searching for the gravestone he might accidentally discharge and shoot his dick off. Hey Tuco, you robbed the guy to get your gun why not take a holster too.
Blondie more likely inspired Bullseye than Wolverine, the guy is an amazing shot, too amazing. And when you shoot someones hat off their head it doesn’t go flying 10 feet in the air. Hey look at that I shot Angel Eyes into an open grave, let me shoot his hat and his gun in there with him while I’m casually walking toward Tuco. I’m no weapons expert but I do watch Top Shot on the history channel and I’m pretty sure nobody has ever been a better shot than Blondie.
I would argue that the only real sociopath is Blondie. Tuco, as has been mentioned, is a survivor, his motives aren’t to injure or harm others but only to further his chances of survival. He is ugly because he is a cockroach. Angel Eyes is just greedy and power hungry. If he were really a sociopath he would’ve tortured Blondie too both for fun and to weaken him before taking him to the cemetery, but he had made the determination that torture will not serve his purpose. Blondie on the other hand has no problem putting Tuco at the end of a noose repeatedly to collect bounty after bounty and later disarms Tuco before what he knows will soon be a showdown only to torture him again with another hanging. Why is it we’re supposed to think he is virtuous because he lets Tuco live? He’s “Good” because he’s good looking and gets to deliver the best lines? Either way the all have to live by their own Code. Too bad none of them seemed to eat any chickens.
ReplyDeleteThe final showdown as mentioned repeatedly is fantastic, but I have one problem with it that I hope Bryan shared. I know they did it for framing but, they’re standing on a big ass circle, 2 go to opposite points and one goes round a quarter circle between them. Is this elementary school gym class spread out and rotate around the circle make it fair for everybody.
Drew, Kissel’s favorite director- he calls him his second is Tarantino- who openly talks about how he was influenced by this movie. It’s totally fair to see the scenes play out and say aha- that’s where that came from. Also Boogie Nights is a much better movie.
The opening scene drew me in. The extreme close-ups, the sounds... I thought, "Okay, this won't feel like 3 hours if it's as good as the world would have us believe. So far so.... loooooong!" Like most of you, I really don't mind extended movies. If a film holds your attention and has reason to be a bit lengthy, fine. Most of the time you don't notice that you just spend 3 hours staring at the screen. As mentioned, this really could have used some trimming. As much as I liked the opening scene, I wasn't really for nearly every scene to have 10+ unnecessary shots. So many close-ups and so many back and forth intercuts.
ReplyDeleteNow, I did admire Leonne's clear desire for perfection. There were multiple moments during the movie that I felt some similarity to Kubrick, who is probably my favorite director. Just certain shots and the way scenes were set up, felt like they were meticulously created. I admired that. A Clockwork Orange definitely came to mind during the interrogation scene. That scene was one of my favorites and, by far, the stand out scene for me where the score is concerned.
Many of you seemed to absolutely love the score. It was hit and miss for me. There were times, like the aforementioned, that I felt it was spot on. But there were others where I actually was distracted by it. Most notably is the showdown finale. I think part of this is that I was beyond done with all the close-ups and drawn out tension added to a scene... and after so much of it, I knew we hadn't seen the last of them before the climax. It felt like overkill to keep seeing the guns, the varied shots and hear the over-dramatic music... the suspense was already there due to the shot choice and pace. The music took away from that, for me.
The two stand out scenes are something we mostly agree on. The torture scene and Tuco searching for the grave. I think the reason why these are the best scenes are because they are essentially the definition of their characters. Angel Eyes has the torture scene show us who he truly is while Tuco's focus on whatever singular thing he sets his mind to leaves him ignorant of everything else going on around him in the moment. That's also shown when he ignores the cannon fire, even though it was pointed out, when zoned into his revenge on Blondie.
Speaking of, I didn't feel that Blondie had any one large scene that did this to for character...but several moments such as giving the soldier a smoke, taking the bullets out, shooting Angel Eye's man and calling them out. I think this set him up as the most multi-dimensional character. He's tough and attentive, doesn't have a problem with killing, but doesn't make a point of it, and even shows moments of compassion. He was always looking out for himself, but clearly wasn't too greedy and actually seemed fair and deliberate in his actions.
A lot of that also comes from Eastwood's performance. He absolutely dominates the screen whenever he's on. We all know he's a great actor who's been around for decades... but seeing him in this left me pretty impressed with his work.
I think if this movie was trimmed down and the overuse of close-ups and repetitive shot choice, this movie would be in the running for an A grade. There is a lot to like about it, more than not at least, but it just really felt like a chore to get through some parts and it felt like I was watching for more than 3 hours. I'm going with a B grade.
Also, I believe Shane actually mentioned Tarantino when he chose the movie, and most of us are pretty fond of his work in general... so I expected to read a thing or two about it having heard it was his favorite movie and biggest influence. It's definitely interesting to finally see it.
Now that we're in free-for-all, it's worth pointing out again that Shane mentioned Tarantino when he announced this pick, so that's one lens I viewed this movie through. I obviously don't watch all movies the same way. It never occurred to me to wonder why Javier Bardem wasn't willing himself out of paralysis like the Bride, or to ask when the gimp was going to get brought out in Only God Forgives.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to erupt into a full-throated defense of Tarantino, because that would be off-topic, but it's not like my opinion is so strange. The guy's won two Oscars, his films are critical and commercial successes, and Pulp Fiction is universally regarded as one of the best movies ever made.