Western Retrospective: The Man with No Name Trilogy

Hi, this is John Delancey and you are listening

to the Geek Cast Radio Network. Hello and welcome

to episode 239 of the Cinema Geeks. I am one

of your Cinema Geeks Optimist Solo and joining

me as usual is the Comic Concierge. Hello Dan.

Hello. We are back at it again. Going deeper

into our Western retrospective, you did hear

a review of a modern movie too along the way,

so we did take a quick break to talk about Project

Hail Mary, but we are going to be back talking

about more Western films now. So you've heard

us cover a trilogy of John Wayne and John Ford

films, and then today we're going to go in a

different direction here. So Dan, what are we

starting and what are we talking about in today's

episode before we get to the facts? Yeah, so

the way we're doing a retrospective for Westerns

is that we have like different blocks. We started

with our John Ford block with Stagecoach, The

Searchers, and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

And now we're entering our Spaghetti Western

block. And what better way to start that than

the Man With No Name trilogy, the Dollars trilogy.

I think it's the only trilogy I know of that

has multiple names, but whatever you want to

call it. So we're going to be talking about...

each film uh today uh well and then we're going

to be talking about uh for after this we're getting

into django now django uh unchained and obviously

the quentin tarantino but the original django

which of course was also hugely influential and

then we'll come back and we'll circle back with

surgery sergio leone uh for one more time with

uh once upon a time in the west to finish off

the spaghetti western before we get into our

next block which will be the remakes first the

original and we'll talk about some uh original

and remake westerns so we're just getting into

spaghetti westerns and looking forward to seeing

like how these differ compared to the john ford

films we just talked about so dan what's your

experience with the it's interesting because

it's a trilogy with two names but it's about

a man with no name so what's what's your experience

uh with this trilogy So I've only seen the first

film. So that was my only experience with it.

I remember going back and like seeing, you know,

watching, knowing obviously about the good, the

bad and the ugly. And I went to go watch it.

And I'm like, I don't know. I feel like I need

to watch the first one first. So I did that.

And for whatever reason, I never went back to

watch the original, the other two. I think they

weren't streaming or I forget, but whatever have

you, what have you. this was the first time i

was able to kind of go and go back and watch

the first one for the first time in over a decade

or so and then finally finish it off and the

good the bad and the ugly has been like one of

the biggest films on my uh list of shame as as

it were you know because considering how you

know it's one of the most popular movie names

of all time and stuff like that so happy to finally

give the opportunity to watch it so that was

very limited experience going into it and limited

experience with spaghetti westerns in general

i think it's really the only one i've seen outside

of the once upon a time in the west which we'll

get to obviously in a little bit as well so how

about yourself is i believe this is the first

time watch all all around for you right correct

yeah i mean obviously i knew the good the bad

and the ugly and you know i knew it was a thing

and it was always kind of on my list of things

to eventually watch but for whatever reason other

stuff was just in the way or other stuff took

priority or whatever the case may be so this

was a good excuse for us doing this western uh

one of the reasons for doing the western retrospective

to get a chance to finally watch some of these

westerns that have always been on my list but

for some reason i've just never watched even

though like i talked about in one of the other

episodes i was always a huge fan of like westerns

when it came to like tv westerns and things of

that nature growing up but i just never had branched

out into the the cinema version of Western, like

classic Western. So I've seen a few modern ones,

obviously, but I had never seen any of these

at all. So it was the first time watch for me

for all of them. And I think it's going to be

an interesting conversation. But before we get

into the conversation, just how we're going to

do this, we're going to talk about each one individually,

and then we'll come back at the end to kind of

talk about the trilogy as a whole. So before

we talk about the first one, which is titled.

A fistful of dollars. Dan's going to lay some

background information for us and kind of set

the stage. So, Dan, take it away. I hope you're

hungry as we enter the spaghetti western section

of our western retrospective. First, taking a

look at A Fistful of Dollars from 1964, directed

by Sergio Leone, starring Clint Eastwood. In

the film, a nameless drifter, played by Eastwood,

rides into a dusty border town. torn apart by

two rival families, the Rojo brothers and the

Baxters, who are locked in a violent struggle

for control. Seeing an opportunity, he cleverly

plays both sides against each other, selling

information and provoking conflict to profit

from their mutual distrust. Despite his cynical

approach, he reveals a streak of compassion by

rescuing a captive woman and returning her to

her family, an act that exposes his double dealing.

Captured and brutally beaten by the Rojos, he

narrowly survives and recovers in hiding while

the Rojos wipe out the Baxors entirely. Returning

for a final reckoning, the stranger confronts

the remaining gang in a calculated showdown,

killing their leader Raymond and dismantling

the last grip of power that they have. both factions

destroyed, he quietly leaves, restoring a fragile

peace. It is an unofficial remake of Yojimbo

by Akira Kurosawa. In fact, Kurosawa successfully

sued the filmmakers and received a share of the

profits. Sergio Leone did later acknowledge it

was an inspiration for the movie. It had a very

tight budget of $200 ,000, but was a major hit.

making over $15 million worldwide. Its success

helped launch the spaghetti western Boom, which

were nicknames given to westerns made in Italy

that were later dubbed over. They were grittier,

more stylized, and morally ambiguous. This was

a huge surprise hit. Many major actors were actually

offered Eastwood's role and turned it down. At

this time, Eastwood was best known for his role

on the TV show Rawhide. and this made him into

a star. He even contributed heavily to the character's

iconic look. The poncho was his idea. He even

wore the same outfit across the trilogy without

washing it to keep up the worn look. Composer

Ennio Morricone created a groundbreaking score

using unusual sounds, whistling, gunshots, and

electric guitar, which helped define what the

spaghetti western style and sound looked like.

He only wanted a more visual storytelling style,

so the film relies heavily on Looks, pauses,

and tensions, rather than long speeches, something

that became a signature of his direction. When

the film first premiered in Italy, it was a huge

commercial success, and audiences loved it with

its gritty tone and violence. cool anti -hero,

it quickly gained popularity across Europe and

helped kick off the spaghetti western boom. Critics,

however, were mixed at first. Some found it overly

violent and cheap. Others had issues with it,

loosely borrowing from Yojimbo. Over time, its

reputation has grown and many consider it one

of the best westerns of all time. So where do

Kevin and I stand? Are we in agreement with those

early critics or do we find this has aged well?

Back to Kevin and myself to discuss. All right.

So now that we have all of that information and

the table set, Dan, this is the one that you

had seen before. How was it on a rewatch watching

a fistful of dollars and kind of getting it back

into the spaghetti Western motif? Yeah, so going

back into this, I realized I remembered very

little of this. And I think the reason I ended

up watching this was actually because I saw Ujimbo,

which this remake, of course, is famously a remake

of Ujimbo Unauthorized, which is a whole other

story we can maybe talk about. which is funny.

But it's interesting watching this after going

into the John Ford films, and it's going to be

a weird comparison, but like many things in life,

you can kind of compare it to professional wrestling,

where John Ford is like the Federation years,

the Hulk Hogan years, where you have John Wayne

playing the very white hat. It's very good guy,

bad guy, for the most part. You can kind of tell

who's who. It's simplified in that manner. Where

now we're kind of entering into the Attitude

Era a little bit, right? Where characters are

more in the gray. Heroes aren't necessarily heroes.

They're more altruistic when it comes to their

methods. You know, Clint Eastwood's character

here, he's not necessarily out here to save the

day or anything like that. He's here to be motivated

by money and sometimes cause chaos. Like, you

know, he's a little bit of a Stone Cold Steve

Austin kind of guy. cause chaos and leave and

watch everyone else kind of just go insane so

it was interesting just you know seeing this

genre evolve as as all genres do in that way

but it just it just struck me as a very interesting

comparison with professional much like we're

like the attitude era here um and of course like

with the attitude era we have a lot of great

music which we can certainly talk about as well.

I do think it takes a little bit to settle in

with this because, you know, this is Sergio Leone's

kind of, I think he's kind of discovering film

in some ways, where if you're not used to the,

like, dubbing, for example, it can be very awkward.

You know, it's like, it reminds you of, like,

watching a bad Godzilla movie with how bad the

language can match up. So it can seem a bit...

odd in that way, but, and it's very, I think,

rough around the edges in that it's dirty, it's

grimy, especially compared to, like, the Ford

films, which are so kind of clean and pristine,

this is not that in any way, so it's very different,

but I definitely still rather enjoyed it a good

deal, it, there's, I think, a lot, what I think

I love about Leone in the way he makes his films,

he has such a visual style. And I think it's

because like when he's making his films, there

is no sound, like everything, all sound is added

later. So he's all thinking, always thinking

about the visuals. He loves his wide screens.

He loves faces. He shoots faces like no other.

And when you have someone like a Clint Eastwood

who can grimace, like, you know, anyone can grimace.

It makes a lot of sense, but you know, I generally

enjoyed it. It's like I said, it takes a little

bit to get into the mold. of this world and kind

of figure out what's going on here. There are

some elements where some of his schemes don't

seem all that ingenious, and I'm kind of wondering

how they didn't see through them. For example,

there's a scene where he puts these characters

into a graveyard, and I'm trying to figure out

how exactly was everyone so tricked by this,

but what have you. Ultimately, I generally enjoyed

it. I think the characters, even though they're

morally a little bit more complex. They're still

kind of cartoonish and very larger -than -life

type of characters. But it's certainly not my

favorite in the trilogy. We'll get to that as

we go on. But I certainly enjoyed it. I'm curious,

this being obviously your first time watching

this, very different than the Ford films like

I mentioned, but what was your overall enjoyment

or experience like with this? Well, before I

get to that, I can't get past my... All of a

sudden need that I didn't know I had to like

write a dissertation comparing this to professional

wrestling now, because now I'm seeing it in like

so many different levels and it's just like all

like making total sense. I would say that instead

of the WWE side of the attitude era, though,

I would probably say this is closer to the WCW

NWO side of that because, yeah, because the NWO

was supposedly. stole the New World Order from

All Japan or New Japan. So Toho can play New

Japan or All Japan and Kurosawa and we can steal

their thing and then we made it our own. I definitely

think Hogan works for the John Wayne comparison.

John Wayne says like three lines in all of his

movies. Hogan has like three moves in all of

his matches. I think this works, Dan. We can

do this like in a lot of different ways. I didn't

know I needed this, but I need it in my life

now. So this was interesting, right? Like this

is the introduction to the Spaghetti Westerns,

to Sergio Leone and to this part of Clint Eastwood's

career. Like I've seen later Clint Eastwood stuff.

I haven't seen a lot of early Clint Eastwood

stuff. So like this is an introduction on a lot

of different levels. And I totally agree with

a lot of what you're saying. It is the grittier

version of what we got before, right? It's not

going to be as clean. I do question sometimes...

I know that this is known for kind of creating

a different type of Western that is dirtier,

that is more of the anti -hero, that is not the

white hat, not the clean good guy, bad guy. I

would say, though, I do see a lot of gray in

a lot of John Wayne's characters that we saw

in those other three movies, though. Yeah, it's

a good point. I know he's the good guy, but he's

a little bit in the middle. He's not doing everything

as a quote -unquote hero would. I'm not going

to say he's an anti -hero to the version of Clint

Eastwood in these films, but I do see... an essence

of an anti -hero that like could have been explored

if if you wanted to in some of those John Wayne

characters but I do think this takes it to a

different level obviously um I do appreciate

like the different style like obviously John

Ford's doing a lot more landscapes whereas Leone

is doing a lot more you know like you said up

close and um you know that the the face aspect

of it with that as well as like he definitely

loves his drawn out like duels or gunfights or

whatever it might be and it's like i don't know

what it reminds me of but it's just like one

of those things where like i feel like this is

where cliffhangers came from even though i know

cliffhangers existed before this but like like

the tv version where it's like you know like

the award shows or the reality shows or different

things where they're like gonna announce a result

and then they're like oh right after the break

like i feel like that's like what we get with

these like showdowns it's like we're gonna have

a showdown but we're gonna take a commercial

break but instead of going to commercial we're

just gonna like keep panning to these two individuals

and let the music do all the work for us so that's

definitely something that we saw more in these

films than we we did in the john ford film so

like i get that i do think it does take some

getting used to with the dubbing and that type

of thing like absolutely and i don't think i

think some younger audiences or more modern day

folks would have a problem with that like it

may be a barrier to entry for them um unless

they grew up like watching a lot of anime and

things of that nature where they're just used

to all the dubbing and stuff like that but the

the dubbing in this one in particular is for

some reason worse than the other two um like

i it's weird because these films i know we're

not talking about all of them together they're

made in different years but they're all released

in the same year which has that ever happened

have we ever had like a trilogy that were made

separately but then the studios released them

in the united states like back to back to back

is that what happened with these i i think that's

what i read yeah well um released in u .s around

the same time the only one i could think of was

be also the three colors trilogy that happened

in 1994 where they were they were made in separate

years but they were they all um that was the

blue white red um they all were released three

separate years but when they came over to the

u .s they all kind of came over the u .s and

in 1994 is like in within that year so the only

reason i know that is because i was watching

old episodes of movies with um roger ebert and

uh um ebert and uh why am i getting and they're

doing their favorite you know movies of the year

and ebert's was the three colors trilogy and

he's like i'm cheating but they all came out

this year so that's the reason i knew that uh

because they all came out that year so but those

all came out separate years because they like

won the they won um three colors blue won the

palm door two colors white won the palm door

and people thought it was going to be like a

three -year sweep but then fiction won it the

in 1994 so like it stopped it from happening

but then when they came over to the u .s so it's

probably the only one else i can think of that

was similar where they technically were made

different years but came over to the united states

altogether like in like different months right

it makes it hard to like place the the difference

in when they're made I guess because they're

all released at the same time and I have to go

back into finding how much time... I didn't do

the research to figure out the difference between

when they were actually made and filmed or why

it seems like there's such a difference in the

dubbing from this one to the other two. Or maybe

I just got used to it. Maybe I was just used

to it by the second and the third one, but I

just felt like they were doing a better job of

it in those other ones. i don't know like the

behind the scenes part of that but that was definitely

something that in during this specific one a

fistful of dollars was was very noticeable and

it didn't necessarily ruin the film for me or

anything like that but it was like uh oh i gotta

get used to this like in a different way like

even i know john ford's films like that it takes

some getting used to some of that too right like

the first film we watched that they're like hooting

and hollering at these horses like nobody's business

and they're they're shooting without aiming and

and you know all of that type of stuff where

it's like oh i just got to get used to that and

like this set of films takes a different type

of getting used to like it's just yeah for someone

that's not exposed to it i guess but i felt like

there was some issues with laying the foundation

for this story and for the character motivations

in this film a little bit where i feel like we

just kind of jump in and you're not totally understanding

why everybody, especially Clint Eastwood's character,

what is the purpose, why is he doing what he's

doing, and kind of that type of thing, where

I think once you've seen all of the films, that

becomes more evident, and it gets into a conversation

we can have at the end, but I just felt like

if you're just watching this as a standalone

film, I feel like there are some issues with

the film not doing a good enough job of setting

the stage or laying the foundation for... some

of the character motivations um so i did find

that to be a little bit um something i struggled

with towards the first half of this film i do

appreciate the uh the performances and the characters

and and things of that nature like the the biggest

standout for me from this film was the music

and that is not that is not something that i

usually say like typically I mean, I grew up

with music, right? Like, I was in band and in

choir and doing all the things. Like, I was involved

with music for, like, my entire childhood and,

you know, teenage years. And I'm not anti -music,

but for some reason when it comes to film, like,

it's the last thing I notice typically. Like,

I'm just way more paying attention, I guess,

to the dialogue and the performances and things

of that nature where I usually only notice music

if it's, like, exceptionally bad and taking me

out of the film or in, like, this case where

it's just, like, so good. And like this to me

was like all of the sounds that you hear in every

Western that has come since I feel like is, is

taking some type of cue from this film or these,

this trilogy. Like, it's just like all of the

classic Western sounds. I'm like, Oh, that's

where this came from. Oh, that's where that came

from. Like, it's all right here. So like the

music alone makes this film. influential on that

stage and then i think you know like we talked

about there is other influential uh aspects of

it that come from the the anti -hero and the

things of that nature and some of the way that

it's shot i just think as a movie itself if i'm

just judging it by itself as a standalone i probably

have more issues with this one than what we'll

talk about you know in the in the next two films

that we talk about but um i don't know what are

your thoughts on any of that dan Yeah, I guess

I didn't have that. I think the issue maybe with

his motivations is that they're very minor in

the sense that they're very simple. They're literally,

seems to be mostly just money in that way. But

I could see the sense of why he's going through

all this, or what his ultimate goal is. It isn't

as spelled out. What is he trying to achieve?

isn't necessarily super clear and then perhaps

it's the desire to just like I said to hopefully

benefit himself and then when you know he ends

up being caught and dealing with that and if

it you know changes into the idea of revenge

but I do fully agree like when it comes to recording

score it's it is so you know Purposely like it's

it brings us to another level. It's akin to like

what John Williams score does to Star Wars It's

like, you know without that who knows if Star

Wars is what it is Without that score is this

movie is you know, does it make it? The movie

it is maybe not like even you know Giro the only

mention that like he would keeps scenes going

on longer simply because he loved the score so

much so a lot of the pacing a lot of the way

things play out like the slower you know the

uh the the way he would just like allow scenes

to kind of go on all all because of that score

um but i do agree in the sense of it's like i

mentioned it does feel like he's kind of finding

his way in a lot of way like i it's interesting

because you know uh eastwood doesn't speak english

he doesn't speak uh and or sorry eastwood doesn't

speak italian uh caesar leone doesn't speak any

english so like they're all communicating through

like interpreters and i and i wondered if like

how much that impacts like what you're doing

is i think it happens it had had to be very simplified

in that manner um but i think what's on screen

i think the visual language is what makes it

work and where it excels the most and even like

how it works against a lot of the tropes of the

time or even just the techniques of the time

without even maybe doing it purposely like breaking

code without realizing it even more so with the

next film but like you know you would never be

able to show the the hero shooting his gun like

you get a lot of shots like the first time we

see cleat is cleat well cleat eastwood use his

gun it's from that side shot and he's like mowing

them down really really one by one and that's

not necessarily something you would ever see

like usually when you saw john wayne shoot you'd

see him shoot the gun and then it would cut and

then you would see the impact he wouldn't technically

see it all happen so it was like those types

of things that really helped push the genre forward

and like change things and i don't it wasn't

even clear if it was necessarily a conscious

choice in the sense of he was doing things that

weren't necessarily allowed because you know

the they didn't have the haze code um with this

being made and you know outside the country but

i think that freedom certainly helped right and

and also just like something we didn't talk about

but within this whole trilogy As I'm watching

this, I'm like, what do these sets look like?

Because obviously they're making these out in

probably the desert. And these towns that they're

building, that I found rather impressive. This

town in this one, though, it looks depraved in

who wants to live there type of thing. One question,

though, I mentioned going into this, there was

going to be a reference that even though you

hadn't seen it, you're probably going to recognize

it considering you've seen Back to the Future.

I'm guessing when that moment happened, you remembered

it. Oh, I must not have because I might have

been just like fully immersed to try to figure

out like what was going on and whatnot. With

the Back to the Future 3, do you know when he

puts the... Oh, that's my least favorite Back

to the Future movie. That's probably why. Well,

yeah. In Back to the Future 3, he uses the same

thing in this, where he puts the metal under

the cloak. I was trying to think of the... I

was trying to make more wrestling references

to... I think Bret Hart at one point put a metal

piece under his shirt. For Goldberg, yeah. Now

I know what you're talking about, though. Yeah,

totally get it. And I think the other thing that

makes us more like professional wrestling in

the Attitude Era or the NWO is that's when they

showed more blood in wrestling, it felt like,

and they got a little bit more violent, maybe

ECW style, and they definitely do that. The amount

of shots that they're showing torture. and and

things of that nature within this trilogy is

something that i felt like you we didn't get

any of that in the other ones um the earlier

western films for sure definitely no when no

no one dying and then like opening their eyes

and then closing them or anything like that but

yeah i think when it came to just to clarify

like i i understand eastwood's motivations once

he's involved in the story like once he's there

and he's playing the two sides off of each other

like that all i'm fine with i think my problem

is really just more with like the very very beginning

of the film because it's like i don't know why

he's at this town i don't know why what motivation

he has for being there and why he decides to

get involved i guess that was where i was confused

whereas if i had seen the other films like it

kind of goes to a question that i would ask at

the end If you watch these in a different order,

I think this one works better. Because I think

it's more established in the other films who

Clint Eastwood is and what his motivations are.

Where I wouldn't have that hiccup at the beginning

of this film being like, what is the purpose

and why on God's green earth is he going to stick

around? Once he's involved in the story, I get

all of his motivations from that standpoint.

It was just more the introduction of his character

where I was like, I don't know. I get part of

it's mysterious. Part of it, he's like this unnamed

nomad or stranger. But at the same time, if I'm

trying to be able to relate from the human side,

I'm like, what compelling interest does he have

in stopping at this town and then deciding to

stay before he kind of gets more involved, I

guess. It was kind of where I was. Where I think

if they just introduced him as a... I just lost

my whole train of thought. like a mercenary or

a bounty hunter like if they just introduced

him somehow like they do in the other films I

feel like it becomes much more smooth of a transition

and I would have totally understood it but like

it's like we're picking up without that setup

whereas they set that up in the both the second

and the third film we get more of that right

like the third film we have the back and forth

where he's running the the the trick with having

the guy strung up and getting the money and shooting

him down like we see that he's kind of doing

this all for money in the second film they're

totally introducing multiple characters as bounty

hunters in this film they don't do any of that

at the beginning so i was lost for like the first

20 minutes trying to figure out like how did

we get here i guess was my issue okay yeah and

i guess the way i took it was more so like it

certainly was a mystery but i was more it felt

like that was who the character was and it seemed

like it just was like okay clearly this is the

guy who this is his life he goes into a situation

and he seems how can i make this how can i take

advantage of the situation i'm going into and

going from there and i think it probably helps

having the context of yojimbo as well and perhaps

and that might have given me a better understanding

because i know where that story is coming from

and Which is a... Like, Dan, if you find yourself

in a strange Mexican city or a Spanish city,

and there's two gangster families that are feuding,

are you sticking around? Probably no to all of

that, personally. But, yeah. That's where I was

like, I don't... Maybe it's just me looking it

through modern eyes, I guess. I was like, okay,

I get you're the cool dude, but it wasn't introduced

in the beginning that he's doing it for money.

or that he's doing it for i get like you have

a slight motivation because you see the little

kid or something of that and you're like oh that's

wrong but is that enough to be like okay now

i'm gonna put my life on the line for this and

like to try to restructure this whole town which

is probably going to end in like the entire town

being slaughtered in a ghost town like i don't

like i you know what i mean like it's like oh

i don't i don't know if i went from step a to

step b as fast as the movie was going um was

my issue for this one but what are any other

thoughts you have for this first chapter um no

i don't think i don't really have anything else

to say i think we can kind of save it for the

next film so you want to get into for a few dollars

more yeah absolutely let's let you uh set the

stage for us for for a few dollars more and then

we'll get into our thoughts after uh the first

time watch for both of us And another one. And

for a few dollars more, the iconic stranger,

the man with no name, played by Clint Eastwood,

crosses paths with the ruthless and methodical

bounty hunter, Colonel Mortimer, played by Lee

Van Cleef, as both pursue the same target. The

sadistic outlaw, El Indio. Initially, they're

rivals. The two men form in an easy partnership

to track down his gang, infiltrating their ranks

and waiting for the right moment to strike. As

the story unfolds, it becomes clear Mortimer

has a personal vendetta. Indio was responsible

for the death of his sister, and a haunting pocket

watch, Melody, ties directly to that trauma.

The plan culminates in a tense, drawn -out showdown,

where Mortimer finally confronts Indio in a duel

shaped by revenge. man with no name ensures the

gang is eliminated. After collecting the bounties,

the two men part ways. The temporary alliance

dissolved once justice, personal and financial,

has been served. For this, Van Cleef mostly played

minor villain roles in Hollywood. His performance

as Colonel Mortimer turned him into a major international

star and a defining face of the spaghetti westerns.

He was not the first choice for the role, however.

Henry Fonder, Charles Bronson, Lee Marvin were

offered the role but turned it down. Macho, the

name of Clint Eastwood's character is officially

not the same character as Joe in Fistful of Dollars.

This was a finding of an Italian court that adjudicated

the lawsuit brought by Jolly Films, a producer

of A Fistful of Dollars. After the release of

that film, writer -director Sergio Leone had

a falling out with the producers and made this

movie with a different one. Jolly Films sued,

claiming ownership of the Joe character. But

lost when the court decided that the Western's

gunfighter persona, characterized by the costume

and mannerisms, belonged to the public domain's

folklore. Writer and director Sergio Leone broke

from many 1960 Hollywood rules with this movie,

although he did not know them at the time, amongst

them showing the shooter and the victim in the

same shot, a horse being gunned down, marijuana

use, and a scene of sexual assault. When it was

released in Europe, For a Few Dollars More was

a major commercial hit and generally better received

than A Fistful of Dollars by fans and critics.

But where do Kevin and I stand? Back to us to

discuss. a fistful of dollars first for the second

time what was your experience with the first

time watch of for a few dollars more it was interesting

because at first i was trying to like determine

because we see some many of the same actors but

clearly playing different characters maybe maybe

not so that was like that was where i was trying

to get my bearings a little bit where it's like

at first i thought we could just do oh, we can

just watch, just do good to the bad and the ugly,

but I'm like, wait, maybe we can, because maybe

these are more connected. But ultimately, it

doesn't really necessarily matter if they're

the same characters or not. But again, going

through this, as I mentioned with the first film,

it's kind of Sergio Leone kind of learning the

language of Westerns. You see him, obviously

the influences of someone like... Kira Kurosawa

and him adding his own flavor to it and this

feels even a bit more polished and then bringing

in someone like Lee Van Cleef who again another

veteran actor and having him play against Clint

Eastwood and this you mentioned motivations for

you know this makes a far more sense of it's

maybe a bit more conventional when it's plot

with its plot line you have obviously, rather

evil individual. Again, we talked about black

and white. In this case, I think, you know, the

bad guy is clearly the bad guy. But I love how,

even with all these, like, people are so distinct,

have, like, all these little trinkets you can

just identify them by. With El Nido, it's obviously

his... I don't know what you would call it exactly.

And then, of course, Lee Van Cleef and Clint

Eastwood. I talked about how Clint Eastwood has

this face that loves to snarl. Lee Van Cleef

has one as well. I honestly don't know. He's

in a lot of films, but I haven't seen him in

a lot. I have not seen a lot of his movies. At

least what he's best known for, of course, he

was in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. But

not in a huge part. This clearly, you get to

see far more of him. He plays such a good role.

And I think in some ways, his character is the

main character here, really. I feel like he has

much more of a journey. His character has much

more of a story to say, where Clint Eastwood's,

his character, Monaco, or whatever you want to

call it in this movie, the man with no name once

again, he's pretty consistent. He doesn't really

change. That's his gimmick. where, you know,

Colonel Douglas here, like, there's more to him.

He has a bit of a past, obviously. So I think

I enjoyed this even more. I definitely feel like

it is taking what worked with the first one,

moving upon it, having an even stronger cast,

having a narrative that is a bit more complete.

It's rough to watch at times, but mostly because

without... dark and it can be again with talk

about violence very violent but i think very

um with some great shootouts some great climactic

moments like it it can be a bit slow paced but

i feel like even when it's taking its time it

that score makes it work and it's it's magical

in that way uh what was your thoughts on this

so watching the first one that's full of dollars

as the introduction into a a set of three films

which have a combined runtime of i don't know

we'll call it like 19 hours i don't i don't know

like how long the three films are once you put

them all together but but having watched that

first one and knowing that it was like the first

of like at least i don't know at least nine hours

of watching i was worried like i was like i don't

know if this is going to be for me like i was

a little on the fence about you know fistful

of dollars i liked some parts of it other parts

seemed a little rough and i was like oh this

might not be great this movie like completely

put me back in a good spot and put me at ease

like i like i just feel like it's like you use

the word polished like when i was thinking about

this kind of coming into the record i i felt

like i was going to make a statement of something

along the lines of like to me this is the most

put together film like this is the most complete

film From beginning to end. That is made properly.

And just works. I'm not saying any of them are

made improperly. I don't mean that. But it just

feels like. I felt like more of the I's are dotted.

More of the T's are crossed. Not that it's just

nice and neat. Because there's a lot of grit

to it still. There's a lot of grit in all of

these films. Clearly. That's why they're known

for what they are. And there's a lot of dark

side. The dark side of westerns. I guess you

could call it. It still has all of that, but

I just felt like it was more complete. There

was not as many gaps for me in following. I didn't

have any gaps as far as character motivation,

background, none of that. And I just really loved

the playing off of Clint Eastwood and Lee Van

Cleef. Those two going off of each other. And

honestly, the other gentleman that plays El Indio

is not bad either. Yes, he's slimy, and yes,

he's bad like he's supposed to be, but he's...

doing a pretty good job playing off of these

other two individuals as well so i just liked

like yes we have a large cast i guess you could

call it but they do it in a way where you really

kind of get to know each individual for the most

part i mean there's a few gang members that you

don't really get to know but for the there's

quite a few that you get to at least get a glimpse

of who they are and i thought that it did a good

job of giving some of them individual moments

and having some more like one -on -one time for

whether it be clint eastwood and you know gang

member number two or whatever i don't know all

their names but like groggy and cachillo and

nino i don't know there was a lot to be i think

was one of them i remember that so like they

do enough of giving them some moments where it's

like it doesn't just feel like a bunch of foot

soldiers that are unnamed it feels like you know

they each have a little bit of a personality

that you can kind of follow. So I enjoyed that.

The music is, is on point. It's the same, a lot

of the same stuff that we, uh, same foundation

that we got from the first film, just expanded

in different ways. So like that does wonders

as well. And I think he actually gets credit

for this film. I don't think he got credited

in the first one. Um, if I remember correctly,

when you, when you view the movie, at least through

the streaming service I did, he's not, he's under

like a pseudonym or something in the first film.

whereas he's actually got his real name i think

on the second one or something there there has

to be some type of backstory to that but i didn't

dig into it but so obviously that's that's good

as well um it was interesting with the like if

you view these three films and the the actors

that are present but playing different characters

and and all of this that and the other like is

this a trilogy is this not a trilogy i guess

it goes into that question but I don't think

it's important one way or the other. Like I think

you can watch them regardless. And if you want

to make some cool, like little connections that

some of them are the same characters and cool,

have fun with that and like do some fan fiction

with how those are connected, I guess. But like,

I don't think it's important necessarily overall.

But I just, I just thought it was interesting

because you do have, you know, you're in a Western,

right? So one thing about Westerns is you. learn

early on if you're watching anything in this

genre that nobody can be trusted right like yeah

you know like no matter who's presented as a

good guy or bad guy or friends or whatever colleagues

or on the same side that at any second somebody

could be turning on somebody somebody could be

backstabbing somebody shooting somebody in the

back like you never know what the the ultimate

motivations are and i think that works in the

the situation where you have like two different

bounty hunters that are teaming up But are they

teaming up? And how is that dynamic going to

work? Who's going to turn on who? How is that

going to work? It just adds a good amount of

tension. I know you said at times it may be slow

or taking its time with stuff. I never felt that

necessarily because I was so invested in the

tension that was built between these individuals.

There was a moment where it felt like at one

point they were going to... follow the exact

same beat for beat moments that we got in the

other film like it's not the same film i i'm

not saying that and there's different characters

with different motivations but there was certain

things where it's like oh i remember when they

did this exact thing in the last film like for

example clint eastwood's character manco or the

man with no name in this one goes off ahead or

goes into a different part of the area that you

know he's not connected with the whole group

And then he has to apparently take a horseback

ride through shortcuts to get to somewhere that

he shouldn't be ahead of him. He does that in

both films. There was a few times where it was

like, oh, we're doing that again. But even though

that happened, I felt like they didn't dwell

on it too much. So it was very easy to get past

that and just go back into the story. But overall,

I really... enjoyed this one a lot more than

i thought i was going to so i'm positive on this

one for sure other thoughts on on this one dan

yeah well also another consistency with all the

movies in this they love shooting hats there's

always there's so much hat shots so so many shooting

of hats in this yeah i think one thing this has

is there's certainly probably the most emotional

journey within this, obviously, you know, El

Nido, like in the El Nido, or I can't say his

name correctly. Indio. Indio, like his, you see,

he certainly is, you know, this vicious individual.

And it's also like, it's intriguing, like looking

into this history, it's like one of the first

times where it. a movie with evils you know since

like the 30s showing like sexual assault in the

way this did and the way that that scene kind

of goes back to that scene and you're not really

sure you know what happened and how it plays

out and then but also when you learn more about

the history of the van cleave's character like

you said it is the most complete in the sense

of like this has the most layers to it like in

the This has the most depth to it when it comes

to who these characters are and what's driving

them and how they're connected to the story.

There's a lot here to it. And one other thing

I think probably even rewards rewatching, because

once you have that back knowledge and seeing

how these pieces go together, it makes even more

sense. But also kind of the cat and mouse game

they're playing. Again, making another weird

comparison, how like, you know. El Nino. I'm

never going to get that right. Like, how they're

trying to play off that, like, oh, I'm joining

your gang as a mercenary, but he knows he's not

really part of it, but they know he knows. It

reminded me of that episode of Friends where

it's like, we know we know, or we know we know

we know, and it's like one of those things where

he knows, but we know he knows. Right. But just

how they kept trying to one -up each other. But

it was never done to the point where it got a

little bit overly ridiculous. But overall, it

was... I think another thing that you kind of

touched on here is this almost has a Hitchcockian

feel when it comes to the supporting cast. I

feel like there's some time and attention given

to them. I know I was kind of already talking

about it, but I had forgotten to mention a couple

characters. But just thinking of in the first

film, his quote -unquote friend that he's living

with. I'm not going to try to get all the names

right, but there's like an individual that's

kind of like putting him up and like, he's staying

at his house and that's a guy that gets tortured.

And then there's also the, the, the, you know

what you want to call it? The coffin maker, the,

I don't know what his technical job is. I'm not

skilled in that part of the world, I guess, but,

but whoever's like building the coffins for everybody,

like the way that they like. make those so interesting

characters with so little to do that you're almost

like can i just like follow like is there another

movie of his backstory and like they do that

for um and this one as well with the what do

they call them like the old prophet and like

there's just these like little side characters

that could be just throwaway characters for a

lot of directors that leonie or the screenwriters

or whatever are putting just enough essence into

those characters that makes you want to see more

of them or really enjoy their time on screen

and and i think that just helps build like this

whole picture it's like world building or ensemble

building when it comes to this cast where like

i feel like we've seen it so many times in other

action films or other westerns or other whatever

modern films where it's just like they're just

cannon fodder or they're just like moving the

plot from point a to point b whereas in in these

films i feel like they're they're given a heart

like they're given a heart and soul to these

some of these characters which is weird because

none of them are using you know they're all being

dubbed over and different stuff like that but

like it's not like it's not like ai where you're

looking at like somebody that you know like isn't

there it like some way they they instill this

like realness into these characters and that's

something that i really appreciated so far in

both of these films yeah like he's able to i

think convey a lot in a little bit of space similar

to hitchcock where like he can give you a lot

of information or like he'll make a character

very distinct very quickly so when they come

back again you'll be able to recognize them in

some way so definitely yeah anything else on

this second chapter or should we move into the

i guess in the most notable name of the three

that everybody knows the good the bad and the

ugly whether they've seen it or not are you ready

to move on to that one yeah let's go ahead and

finish off the trilogy all right so why don't

you set the stage for the good the bad and the

ugly and then we'll give you our thoughts it

is the end It is the end, my friend, of the Dollars

Trilogy with the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

Set during the American Civil War, three morally

ambiguous gunslingers, the Good, Blondie, the

Bad Angel Eyes, and the Ugly, race across a war

-torn landscape in search of a buried cache of

Confederate gold. Blondie and Tuco form a shaky,

exploitive partnership, repeatedly double -crossing

each other while using a hanging scam to make

money until they're drawn into a larger hunt

after Tuco learns the name of a cemetery holding

the treasure, and Blondie learns the grave itself.

Meanwhile, the ruthless Angel Eyes pursues the

same prize, eliminating anyone in his way. Their

intersecting paths lead them through the desert,

prison camps, and battlefields, culminating in

a tense three -way standoff at Sam Hill until

Blondie gets the upper hand, allowing him and

Tuco to capture the prize. Although the last

film in the trilogy, most consider it a prequel

explaining how Clint Eastwood's man with no name

gets his iconic poncho. The massive Sand Hill

Cemetery wasn't a real location. It was constructed

by the Spanish army in rural Spain with thousands

of hand -placed stones arranged in a perfect

spiral. It's since been restored by fans and

actually can be visited to this day. Once again,

the only one at Charles Bronson and Henry Fonda

to play major roles, but that did not occur.

More on that when we cover Once Upon a Time in

the West. Safety standards were not... top -notch

with this movie. The actor who played Toko nearly

died multiple times. He was accidentally exposed

to poison, almost decapitated by a passing train,

and had a close call with a few explosives. Leone

used the American Civil War setting to emphasize

the absurdity and brutality of war, contrasting

the characters' greed with a massive and senseless

conflict around them. When The Good, the Bad,

and the Ugly first came out, the reception was

mixed, especially in the U .S. Many American

critics thought it was too long, too violent,

and morally cynical compared to traditional movies.

Westerns. Reviewers weren't used to Leone's stylized

direction, exaggerated characters, and operatic

pacing, so it felt excessive to them at the time.

That said, it did well with audiences and performed

strongly at the box office, helping cement Clint

Eastwood as a major star. In Europe, it was generally

better received right away, where Leone's style

was more appreciated. Of course, over time, the

film's reputation has completely flipped. Critics

and filmmakers began to recognize its influence,

especially its editing, cinematography, and Indium

and Acorni's iconic score. Today, it's widely

considered one of the greatest movies, not just

Westerns, ever made, and often appears on best

-of -all -time lists, including IMDb and Letterboxd.

But where do Kevin and I stand? Where do we think

it fits among the trilogy? Back to us to discuss.

All right, thank you for that. Another first

-time watch for both of us, even though that

seems hard to believe. neither one of us had

seen this one going into this one so uh but now

we have so so we had a mix for me so far we had

like the first one which was maybe a little bit

lower for me and then the second one which i

was very high on i know you were maybe the gap

between the two wasn't as big for you but it

felt like you were a little more positive on

the second one than the first one when it comes

to the wrap -up of this thing the good the bad

and the ugly where did you land in Yeah, and,

like, it's tough with a movie like The Good,

The Bad, The Ugly because you always try to go

in the movie, like, I try to go into any movie

with, like, you know, trying to set your expectations

and not trying to, like, overhype yourself because

you're almost guaranteed to, you know, be disappointed.

But when you have a movie like The Good, The

Bad, and The Ugly that is obviously so well regarded,

it's known as, like, one of the greatest restrooms

of all time, you know, how do you... i just live

up to that hype and it's almost almost sometimes

guaranteed to disappoint in some ways but i think

it's helpful obviously having the background

of what came before being able to you know go

into it and honestly going in like watching it

it was not necessarily what i expected at all,

obviously. I didn't realize it would be set during

the Civil War, which it's not something we've,

with all the Westerns we've done so far, not

something we've seen. We've seen much more post

-Civil War than taking place during the Civil

War. You see a lot of similarities in the sense,

like you said, a lot of repeated elements in

the sense of these characters going into town.

In this way, What their objectives are are very

clear in the sense of how they're trying to get

money. Again, you have very specific characters.

Now we, of course, get Lee Van Cleef back again,

but he's playing, obviously, Angel Eyes. Now

he's in the villain role, and then getting Tuco

as playing the ugly. I was actually taken back

at first because we're watching this. And the

good one is his biggest actions at first was,

you know, they have this scheme they're going

through where they fake trying to kill with the

hanging. They let him and then they figure out

a way to get free and they collect the money

and go from there. And then like he's like, OK,

well, we're done now. So I'm going to. You stay

tied up in the middle of the desert and I'll

go on with my day. I'm like, well, that's kind

of a crummy thing to do. Like you're the good

guy and you're like, that doesn't, that seems

kind of. The bar is low. Yeah. I mean, like I'm

kind of on his side here and, but seeing how

it like, in a way, how it has to win you back,

like how I have to get back on his side by like

basically seeing him be tortured. and go through

that. So obviously this is the longest of the

three. It's over three hours or so. And I don't

know, like, oh no, it's almost three hours. Sorry.

It's not over three hours. It's almost three

hours. And it has all those harmonics. It has

all those elements of what we came before. Is

it the best of all the three? I don't, I don't

know. To me, it's not as clear cut as it's made

out to be personally, because there's certainly

a lot of greatness here. A lot of what worked.

are here as well, like, Leone is a master, like

I said, when it comes to his visual style, the

epicness of this is incredible, but I think,

like you mentioned with, or we talked about with

the second film, like, the characters here, I

think they're interesting, they're entertaining,

but I don't think we have as much in the sense

of that emotional connection. It's not here as

much. Obviously, it's more so because they're

just after riches. That's the goal here. And

it's not necessarily a bad goal, but I think

it limits the general impact in the sense of

how much the story can... I think it... It doesn't

have that emotional connection that the second

one did for me. So I don't know. It's certainly,

obviously, deserving of its place for a lot of

reasons. I'm glad I watched it. But I'm curious

what you thought of it compared to everything

that came before. I think for me, it's interesting.

This is almost the least Western out of all of

them. In some ways it is. You know what I mean?

There's a lot of desert. yeah like the setting

is western i guess but like it's almost more

of an epic like maybe not epic but like it's

like got the war stuff going on which they're

like it's like forrest gump -esque like they're

just like getting thrown into random like parts

of american history and like somehow playing

a part in like major things that are happening

in this war but like nobody knows it like So

it's interesting. You have that war background.

You have a lot more where it's just them going

after money. You lose a little bit of the Western

aspect of what you get in some of the ones we've

seen that are just more, I guess, classic, classic

to me Western, where this is Western on the fringes,

but then there's a whole lot of other stuff going

on that's not Western. And I think it serves

a purpose in making it stand out and be a little

different than the other two that we have just

watched. in some ways but in other ways you do

have to like i don't know suspend some disbelief

or like you have to be able to be willing to

just like roll with what's going on here like

we have two sides of a civil war that are having

a battle with a very strategically important

bridge or river or whatever we're trying to like

set that up as and these folks are able to just

like walk to the bridge and blow it up or whatever

you know what i mean like like no like i don't

know if that happens in real life you know what

i mean like i feel like the the two sides are

going to be like keeping a closer eye on anybody

that's coming near that so like there's some

issues like that where it's like yeah okay i'll

just go with it it didn't take me out of the

film but it's just like okay i'm just gonna like

not think too hard about those aspects and we're

gonna go on i think the interesting thing here

is though is the the big time inclusion of a

third To me, I know one is labeled the good,

one is labeled the bad, and one is labeled the

ugly. But it's almost as if you get... I guess

you can't make that argument for Angel Eyes being

an anti -hero. But you get three characters that,

to me, have more shades of gray than what we

got in the other films. Before... I don't know.

It felt like a different dynamic. So I feel like

by putting Tuco in here... the quote -unquote

ugly one i guess um it takes away from their

ability to elevate some of the other supporting

cast because we have to spend a lot more time

with these three main guys right and i know there

was three guys that we're talking about with

indio and eastwood character and lee van cleef's

character in the other film but it's a different

dynamic i feel like because it was two working

against one whereas in this one you get Three

individuals that are. Yes at times they're working

together. But you still get the feel. That they're

all three separate. And so I feel like you had

to. You pay. You had to invest a lot more into

that. So like yes we do get like the drunk. A

union captain. And we do get like. Some of these

other folks. But. There's not a lot to them right.

Like they're a little more one note. Than what

we get with the other supporting cast. In the

other films. At least that's how I kind of felt.

I still think this one. works like I think the

second one and the third one work more as like

both within each other as like this trilogy but

I think they both also work as individual films

by themselves and I think that's for me where

the first one almost needs these two for me to

be as a better film so I still enjoy this one

it i felt a lot more of the the run time in this

one obviously than the other ones granted it

is longer so you're gonna feel it in in some

ways but i think there was some like you mentioned

it in the last one where like there were some

slow aspects i didn't pick up on that as much

in the middle one but on this one for sure i'm

like okay like i get it but let's get there in

a couple situations like uh where it came i do

like like some of the clever ways they they do

some callbacks to the beginning with like the

the shooting of the the rope. Cause at first

I was like, Oh, he's, he's just going to leave

this guy here. Yeah. He's about to die. I don't

know why I didn't pick up like, Oh, he's just

getting far enough away where he can like do

what he did at the beginning. Like, it's like,

Oh, that's a perfect way to like come full circle

on that. I don't know why that caught me off

guard, but like, so I think there's a lot to

like on this one. I'm a little torn on if I,

if all of it works quite as much as like, let's

say the second one did for me. I do think it's

good. I think it's better than good. I understand

why it's known. I understand why it's got the

reputation it does and where some of the influential

aspects come from it. I think if you're doing

a deep dive into each one of these films, though,

I don't think it's as clear -cut as which one

has the most name recognition compared to, for

me, which one was the best movie. Yeah, I was

considering the overall like perception of all

these like it you know would think it was going

my overall impression would be clear and it's

not necessarily like i i think my overall like

i like them almost equally very close to one

another like the first one i think is on a filmmaking

standpoint probably the the least well -made

film but in a lot of ways i kind of appreciate

just the ambition of it because it's you know

it's just the achievement of getting that made

um like the fact that it's going out and getting

it done and clearly just trying to probably learn

as you go and like that like the fact that it

works as well as it does it's a bit of a miracle

um but like i still think i don't have anyone

like any issues and i think the good and bad

the ugly too is one i think if i saw it again

i probably would enjoy it even more and being

able to probably pick up on things that I missed.

But certainly you see a lot of what Leone's doing

here in the sense of what he's trying to say,

playing it against the Civil War, and what he's

utilizing these characters, and obviously, like,

with, you know, placing them against this North

and the South, and as we see these elements,

and these North and the South, Southerners, and

none of them are idyllic individuals by any means,

stretch of the imagination, but also seeing the

Northern prison camp and how that goes. I think

it's certainly saying, even though it's not made

in America, it's certainly saying a lot about

the development of America and how the country

moves on from this point. But I think when I

look at overall the complexity of the characters

and how the structure of it and how it plays

out and how we learn more about who these individuals

are as people, I feel like the second film does

it in a more intriguing way. And I've had a bit

more surprises with that. Where the third film,

it's more of the epicness. more the scale where

like the movie kind of um impresses you because

like there are these gigantic battle sequences

and it's and i think what's kind of fun about

it is that like the forest gump is a good comparison

because you're not the purpose of the movie isn't

the battle it's just hitting it around the battle

because it's it's it's that's more of a obstacle

than it is the purpose so that's kind of cool

like just just being amongst just the chaos of

that moment but uh but yeah because i think a

lot of times with history we look back at like

those events and like you think like that's how

you define an era or that's how you define a

certain span of years and you forget like there's

all kinds of other people living around that

right like there's all kinds of other stories

happening like kitty corner or adjacent to these

big huge events and it's always weird when you

see it especially portrayed in like a film like

this like or like forrest gump where it's like

oh there's there's just other other people that

are maybe not like control to that big conflict

or that big epic moment in our history but like

that's reality is that like there was a lot of

other folks alive at that time in the areas and

stuff like that so it's like it but then you're

also like do i do i buy into the closeness of

the events to the people and things of that nature

which i get i i think part of it for me too is

like maybe i'm just a big lee van cleef fan based

on these two films but like the fact that he's

involved in the second and the third film and

he's absent from the first one like it almost

makes me like lean towards those other two a

little bit more like oh i'm missing some lee

van cleef in that first film and granted like

you talk about like there's like 12 or 13 actors

that that portray different characters in at

least two of the three films but like he's clearly

one of the big ones from the the second and third

film that that is not in the first one so it's

like oh yeah um Which I find interesting as well.

But I have two questions for you. Number one,

and this is kind of more thinking of the trilogy

and stuff like that. Do you feel like this is,

in fact, a trilogy? Or are these films that just

have some similarities, but they totally stand

by themselves? I think they certainly stand by

themselves in the sense of you can watch... like

if you were just to watch the good, bad and the

ugly by itself, you would be able to do so. But

I think it's trilogy in the sense of like, they

all share similar makeup. They all share similar

ideas. It's more of a thematic trilogy than it

is a narrative one. Something like the vengeance

trilogy comes to mind, like the old boy lady

vengeance trilogy, or, you know, so like something.

So I think it does. qualify as a trilogy but

in a different sense than like the classic like

back to the future trilogy or lord of the will

lord of the rings trilogy and then my other question

is like we watch these in in order of when they

were made right like technically one was made

in 64 the other was made in 65 the other was

made in 66 they all get released in 67 in the

u .s um so we watched them in that order do you

think if you were like introducing somebody to

this trilogy Would you suggest they watch them

in the same order, or would you switch the order

up? I still would say the same order, because

I... Because I think... I'm on the other side.

Yeah. I say the released order, because I feel

like going from... So what order would you go

from second to first? There's a lot of interesting

stuff. There's a lot of interesting theories

online, because... The way that we see them is

not chronological. Because the good, the bad,

and the ugly is in the Civil War era, it completely

dates that as technically happening first. Because

there's other things that we see in the other

two films that date them after that. So I feel

like, to me, I go back and forth on the order

of the first two. I feel like you watch A Fistful

of Dollars last. because i think by that point

if you watch for a few dollars more or the good

and the bad and the ugly first to me you don't

have any hiccups at the beginning of fistful

of dollars you understand who this character

is he's later on in life and he's done the things

that he's done and like i totally feel like it

works better with that coming last i don't know

whether you say the good the bad and the ugly

then for a few dollars more or vice versa for

a few dollars more introduces him as a bounty

hunter and then the good bad and the ugly we

clearly see he's running a scheme i feel like

those two are interchangeable there is like a

some fun videos that you can go and find online

like whether you go through youtube or whatever

because there's different little things that

people will like none of this was planned by

sergio leone i don't think any of it necessarily

holds weight but there's like things that you

can see that are kind of cool little like easter

eggs like the the hat that gets shot up in the

air like a million times in the one film if you

watch one of the other films his hat from the

first scene has those holes in it um i don't

know if that like at least that's the theory

online i didn't like go back to like re -watch

the films to say like oh that that is the case

or whatever but i think there's some fun like

little things that you could do with this but

like yeah for me i'm torn on which one you watch

first but i would actually watch a fistful of

dollars last My thought with watching him in

order just is more so like, because the first

one I got a filmmaking standpoint is, is a little

bit rougher. Like, I don't know if that would

be like, Oh wow. It's like watching, it's like

watching a TV show and then like you watch the

pilot and it's like, Oh, and it's like, Oh, the

show wasn't nearly as good and good yet. Like,

right. But, but at the same time, like I said,

I don't think the, it's like the quality is that

huge of a drop off, but I could certainly see.

I think I could see the logic in saying it would

allow for a different narrative experience, like

you mentioned, because now you do have that character

later on in life, and you have a better understanding

of who he is, so maybe those actions have more

context. So it'd be interesting for sure. But

none of them technically work like that, because

he gets a bunch of money in multiple movies,

and then you just have to, I guess, accept the

fact that he loses it all in between movies.

Apparently every time there's... He made some

bad investments. He's not a good investor. He

gets the money. He doesn't know what to do with

it once he gets it, for sure. But it's definitely

interesting. And then there's some interesting

theories about Lee Van Cleef's character and

how those could be connected and actually the

same character even though there's really no

way they could be. But it's fun. It's fun reading

up on people's theories on what they can do with

these three films. I would definitely from a...

I think... for me like i enjoyed for a few dollars

more the most like i think i would put that like

on the top of this trilogy um and then i think

the good and the bad and the ugly for me is just

just slightly below it not very far just like

the slightest of edges and then like i said a

fistful of dollars i probably need to re -watch

after watching those other two to like get more

appreciation for but currently it's kind of at

the bottom of the three um but i can still see

like what we started off with like you get why

these are known you get what impact these had

on westerns overall which I think was harder

to see with the John Ford films. I do get the

influence that the John Ford films had and John

Wayne's character and some of that stuff. I don't

deny that that influence is there, but I feel

like this set had even more tangible things.

You can't watch these films and not see Tarantino.

Or other modern westerns. You can tell, not just

westerns, but modern movies that are totally

grabbing some of this, whether it be the anti

-hero, whether it be the violence factor, whether

it be the close -ups and the extended showdowns,

and all of that type of stuff. I feel like there's

so much coming from these three films that...

Like, their influence is undeniable, regardless

of where you land on each individual film. Especially

the score, like you mentioned. It is, like, every

score is... Every, like, I feel like Western

score after this is kind of trying to just emulate

what comes here. It's interesting, because, like,

you have John Ford, and John Ford influences

Akira Kurosawa in a lot of ways. And then Akira

Kurosawa influences Leone, and then, like, so

it's like... And then, of course, Tarantino and

Spielberg and everyone after that. So it's just

interesting, like, the connections there, because

it's like, you know, you have the Western, which

influences a samurai film, and the samurai film

influences the Western and that cyclical nature

of influence. So, but yeah, there is certainly

more of a direct line, because obviously, when

you... see like a lot of references to like shootouts

and like the the the gunplay and stuff like that

it's much more like this in this trilogy than

it is like the john ford films which are more

like the high and stunts like more like big punches

and you know more like almost like the type of

action you would see like in a play character

like what we get here no i totally agree and

and and just so We're completely clear. It seems

like there is absolutely no consensus on which

films are better than others in this trilogy.

Oh, really? If you go to Metacritic, Good and

Bad and the Ugly is a 90. And then you go to

For a Few Dollars More is a 74. And then For

a Fistful of Dollars is 65. If you go to Rotten

Tomatoes, A Fistful of Dollars is 98. Good and

Bad and the Ugly is 97. And For a Few Dollars

More is down to 92. Which surprises me. that

there's that much of a gap and for a few dollars

more is that much lower on rotten tomatoes so

i feel like every source you go to is going to

tell you a different version of what order these

go in i think it's fun to watch them all together

though i think that's like a good experience

like if you haven't like i would much more suggest

somebody watching all three of them versus just

like one as a one -off yeah it's just because

like looking at like the best of lists like the

on imdb like The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

is number 10. Letterboxd is up there as well,

where A Few Dollars More is up there, too, when

it's in the 30s, 40s. I think when it looks just

in general. It might be the more forgotten one,

because A Fistful of Dollars is the first one,

right? You always get more credit for being the

first one. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is

the most known one, right? It's got the most

name recognition. But I feel like For a Few Dollars

More is the hidden gem in the middle. Yeah, I

do think it probably is the title I forget the

most. It is like the middle child syndrome. But

I think personally, like you said, I think we're

in agreement in the sense of looking at which

one I walk away thinking, which one do I rate

the highest? It would probably be a few dollars

more. But I do think watching them in tandem

is the best way to do it. And then maybe if I

were ever to rewatch them again, I would try

a different, I'd go a different way. Maybe it

would start with, go backwards, start with, you

know, Badly Ugly. See how it works that way.

Like if you did it like back to back, like what

kind of impact it has on like how you view the

story, it would be kind of interesting. It's

like, what's those movies like? It's like the

vantage point thing, right? Like you gotta come

from a different perspective and see things.

So like you talked about in the beginning, Dan,

we have one more Sergio Leone film that we're

gonna cover. But we're going to do something

else in between that. I just now realized that

I have seen one Sergio Leone film, but it's 1984's

Once Upon a Time in America. Okay, yeah. That

I have seen, but I have not seen Once Upon a

Time in the West. But what are we doing next

before that? Before that, we're going to go to,

speaking of Tarantino, one of... Films that he

talks about as a huge influence and one that

he kind of, a film that kind of starts his own

type of genre within the genre. And that being

the original Django from 1966 from Sergio Kabashi

starring Franco Nino. Nero, again, I am bad.

saying words out loud. Um, but, uh, yeah, we're

going to go, I've never seen Django. Um, so it'll

be the first time watch for me. Um, but it's

currently streaming on a number of different

platforms, including canopy. So if your library

uses that, you can check it out there, but it'll

be a first. This came out in 1966. So obviously

around the same time, um, obviously as, as this

did where that spaghetti Westerners really starting

to establish itself, um, as, um, as its own version

of the western so curious to see how much of

what happened what happened with the dollar trilogy

influences that film and you know how much differs

and things like that because i really know very

little about it beyond just you know the poster

and some some scenes i've seen here and there

yeah it's going to be a first time watch for

me another interesting thing the only thing i

know about this film was just the fact that i

saw that it was also supposed to be loosely connected

to or influenced by yojimbo yojimbo um so i don't

know we'll have to see like i feel like we watched

this one and then we're gonna have to go back

and see kurosawa's film and like do our our whole

talk about which one does the topic the best

but i'm definitely intrigued to see this one

and then to you know go back to once upon a time

in the west as well i think it's gonna be an

interesting way to kind of close out this spaghetti

western block and kind of excited to see how

they all fall and what my reaction is to them

because i know nobody involved in this film like

the cast wise i've never i don't think i've seen

any of them in anything Well, if you've seen

Django, you've seen Franco, because he had a

cameo in Django. Oh, okay. But he was in the

one bar when they were fighting. But that's about

it. Okay. I did forget to mention, too, that

that Tuco character, the Eli Wallach from The

Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, I did recognize

his credit from The Godfather Part 3, I think

it is. or one of the godfathers he he plays uh

don altobello um who's one of the main antagonists

i think in the third film in that series so it's

interesting that he kind of was involved with

a another different type of trilogy 20 some 25

years later so um but yeah so We'll be covering

Django from 1966 next. If you want to keep in

touch or keep in contact with anything Dan or

myself is doing, you can search Dan out at the

Comet Concierge or follow him on Letterboxd.

We should eventually probably put the link in

one of our show notes or something, make it easier

on people. I did find out that my Letterboxd

is actually, I think, my first name in the year

1981. I don't think it's my first and last name.

I think it's just Kevin1981. Now you know how

old I am. But you can follow me on that or you

can search out Optimus Solo or you can look at

the Cinema Geeks. You can search us out on different

social media or thegeekcastradio .com. So that

does it for this episode. Tune in next time for

another chance to listen to more of the Cinema

Geeks.