Review of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) by Cameron J — 16 May 2012

Okay, so dollars are "good", but they can cause "bad" and make people "ugly", or at least that's my attempt at a stretch to associate this title with the "Dollars Trilogy". I don't know where the "Dollars" in this film's title went or, well, where they fit all that prominently in these films' plots to begin with, so I guess this title is, ironically, the first one that actually fits, because that title promises good, bad and ugly, and you get than with Lee Van Cleef alone, as he went from playing a good character in "For a Few Dollars" more to playing an absolute dirtbag in this film, yet he's at least been consistent in definately not being the prettiest person in this saga. Getting back to my discussion on the titles, I can't believe that they didn't make the "Dollars Trilogy" the secondary name and bring to full prominence the "Man with No Name Trilogy" name. I can't see how it couldn't be, because that's exactly what all these films are about: this charming, yet rather unpredictable protagonist of no name who we've seen battle courageously with insomnia until Lee Van Cleef came along spouting a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about rebelling against the conformist society. Oh wait, I'm thinking of Edward Norton's nameless protagonist from "Fight Club", but hey, I'm sure you can see how I got confused, because none of these installments in the "Dolla-I mean "Man with No Name Trilogy" were shy of pulling out the stops and getting pretty hardcore and unapologetically audacious, much like "Fight Club", even though none of these films are quite as gutsy as "Fight Club", partially because a scarce amound of films of any kind are as gutsy (*cough*or*cough*as*cough*amazing*cough*) as "Fight Club". Still, that doesn't mean that these "Dollars" films (Fine, I'm getting tired of having to type out "Man with...-oh, you get the point) didn't have guts for their time and don't have guts now, because all of these films knew grit, and this little number is no exception. Still, while this film never falls to being bad, let alone ugly, the good in it still takes quite a few undeniable blows.

I "joked" that the actual story behind "For a Few Dollars More" was really about as long as "A Fistful", only it just made itself almost 40 minutes longer by padding itself out with scenes of total nothingness, but really, Leone was just getting warmed up with "For a Few", because this film, which is close to an hour-and-a-half longer than "A Fistful" might very well be the shortest story of the entire trilogy, running at about 30 minutes, while about two-and-a-half chronological hours of nothingness and about five felt hours of nothingness splits the difference in this mammoth mamma-jamma. Okay, now that is most certainly a joking exaggeration, but the fact of the matter is that this film is quite likely the slowest of the bunch, with a limp dryness exacerabating the dull sting of long periods in which nothing all that much really happens. The film is shockingly uneventful for a very layered and perhaps too episodic-feeling storyline of this length and scope, which isn't to say that the film is as do-nothing as a Terrence Malick film or - so help me - "Eyes Wide Shut", but for an epic, this film stands to be looser in story structure and tighter in editing. Now, it's not like the story is unworthy of its being regarded as an epic, as the film is still with much sweep and many a pick-up, yet the film limps to its points too often, and those right there are the true markings of an inferior sequel. Of course, an inferior sequel is most certainly not what you get, for although this film, like "For a Few", has upped the limpness, it evens things out by upping the story, and perhaps further than "For a Few" upped things up. Sure, that story goes spotty in execution and is often more underwhelming than it should be, yet for every trip made by the film, there are quite a deal of kicks to bring the film back into gear. What the film does better than ever, it does a considerably better job of, while what it does just as well is as sharp as it's ever been.

Ennio Morricone's score for these films have always been fabulous and unique with each installment, while playing a part in the picture in such a defining fashion, and Morricone's work for this film, even with its being easily the most particularly noted, isn't quite as defining to the film, partially because it's relatively underused in this mostly quiet close-to three hour sit, yet when the score does come into play, it fits like a glove and hits as hard as ever, because where the previous scores had their own slightly different styles, this film marries those two styles, while adding much of its own uniquness, creating a musical product that comes out as cool, dynamic and sweeping, setting the tone about as thoroughly as Sergio Leone does as storyteller, though not as frequently. Sure, Leone often fails his own ambitious story by weighing it down with such nothingness, but when he does wake up - an event that remains fairly frequent -, he delivers on sweep and resonance, as well as some entertainment value through all of the quiet limpness, whether when it comes to giving us a sense of adventure and comradery among our characters or setting pure tension. These films have always been gutsy, and while there's no baby killing, rape victim suicide or gunning down men and women as they emerge from a burning building, Leone still sets the tone more often than he drops the ball on it, and does so with much subtlety at points that really cuts deep and gives you enough investment to keep you sticking with the film through all of its own good, bad and ugly. Speaking of the titular roles, what needs to mentioned is that the performances in all of these films have been and with a fair degree of subtlety, but is better than ever with this film, and our character selection is even more scarce, which of course makes the performances we do get to see that much more impressive, as it shows that the leads don't need supplementary characters to carry things. Lee Van Cleef plays "The Bad" character like a champ, emitting a slow-burn type of chilling charisma that makes every point in which he's about to snap gut-churningly tense, and every moment where he appears to have calmed down compellingly offputting, as he's just too unpredictable to either trust or turn away from. I found myself particularly impressed with Eli Wallach as "The Ugly", as he nails the fluffier moments of faulty competence as a dangerously but goofy criminal with fiery charm, but when unexpected depth and danger falls upon the Tuco character, Wallach incorporates humanly raw and heavy, yet still subtle emotion into a presence of both vulnerability and strength, making him an enthralling lead who makes his perhaps overdone prominence. Still, while Clint Eastwood's "Good" nameless character feels a smidge underused compared to the preceding films, that doesn't make him any less compellingly mysterious, bursting with Eastwood's powerful presence of charm and unpredictable grit that owns the spotlight when it focuses upon him and steals it when its supposed to be especially shining on someone in his presence.

Bottom line, the faults in the film are perhaps as problematic as they ever have been, with a good deal of storytelling trips and a bad slew of slow spots making more ugly the underwhelmingness spawned from many long periods of loose nothingness in the sometimes uneven storyline, yet the film is raised, not simply to the level of its predecessors, but above, as it delivers on style that's just as sharp as ever, while Sergio Leone provides a good deal of moments in which he considerably augments the depth, resonance and even some of the entertainment value, and has a triad of strong lead performances by Lee Van Cleef, Eli Wallach and, of course, Clint Eastwood to thank for complimenting that resonance and helping in making "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" an ultimately satisfying capper to Leone's "Man with No Name Trilogy" and a thoroughly enjoyable adventure on its own.

3/5 - Good.