Directed by:
Sergio LeoneComposer:
Ennio MorriconeCast:
Clint Eastwood, Marianne Koch, Gian Maria Volonté, Wolfgang Lukschy, Sieghardt Rupp, Josef Egger, Antonio Prieto, José Calvo, Margarita Lozano, Daniel Martín (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
A mysterious gunman (Eastwood) has just arrived in San Miguel, a grim, dusty border town where two rival bands of smugglers are terrorizing the impoverished citizens. A master of the "quick-draw," the stranger soon receives offers of employment from each gang. But his loyalty cannot be bought; he accepts both jobs...and sets in motion a plan to destroy both groups of criminals, pitting one against the other in a series of brilliantly orchestrated setups, showdowns and deadly confrontations. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (1)
Reviews (8)
I was shocked at how well a nearly sixty-year-old film worked for me. I don't have a problem with Westerns as such; my problem is that their plot tends to be too simple and, therefore, easily predictable. And spaghetti westerns are no exception in this regard. If I wanted to defend my original four-star rating to myself, I had to look for reasons elsewhere. And I found them. 1) Clint Eastwood was great in the role of a gunslinger (the best as far as I'm concerned), 2) Ennio Morricone was an undisputed musical genius, 3) I enjoyed most of the Italian portrayals of the Wild West more than the authentic American originals (except for a few exceptions). And even though the film has been around for a while now, I can't say that the action scenes were half bad. Sure, you can tell it's an old film, but despite certain reservations, I will rewatch it at some point, which cannot be said about many current movies. So, I really enjoyed the story of a man in the middle who didn't mind whose fire he cooked his beans over. Just the Gatling gun was kind of weird. / Lessons learned: It might come as a shock to the younger generation, but no one in the film uses a mobile phone.
()
A beautiful example of how a rigid genre can be pushed somewhere simply by being ignorant of its rules. Many of Leone's trademarks came about practically only by the fact that nobody on set (except Eastwood, who again didn't speak Italian, so he couldn't tell them much) realized that this is simply not how you make a western. A Fistful of Dollars isn't the first Spaghetti Western (there were 20-30 of them at the time), but it's the first one that didn't copy Western techniques. It messed with everyone's head at the time, and the early reviews were pretty fierce, for example, but I totally understand the unique experience it gave rise to in its day and why it was such a hit with audiences. The palpable heat, the sweat, the ugliness, the dust, the thirst, and the sleeping with one eye open. The familiar stuffiness of a forgotten frontier in a time when one could get lost over the horizon. An adventure that does not surrender its naturalistic aspects. Except for the blood, which was probably done by the catering girls.
()
Out of sentiment for the material and respect for the legend of Sergio Leone, it's hardly three stars. In A Fistful of Dollars it is clear that the cult trilogy is still in its infancy. The budget is lacking and the technical side is all over the place, but the foundation stones have been successfully laid. Clint Eastwood with his growl, a unique Ennio Morricone and a surprisingly well-written story that at times feels like a spaghetti Bolognese commercial.
()
This cult Western was practically created at the same time as one of my favorite films, Lemonade Joe, which programmatically opposes exactly what Leone did here. That means emphasizing genre clichés, the naivety of the plot, and an unrealistic view of historical events and actions. In the case of Leone's film, nostalgia doesn't work for me at all, which influences, in some cases, more than just my assessment of films, as I didn't see this film during my adolescence. Of course, A Fistful of Dollars is the beginning of the subgenre of spaghetti Westerns, it is a recognized classic, and naturally, I easily find within it practically everything that led to Leone's success. Excellent camera work, scenes designed to maximize the most fundamental human emotions, a sharp contrast between positive and negative characters, cuts to sweaty, bearded faces, and wild gleam in the eyes, a great sense of film detail, and superb casting, which, among other things, helped Clint Eastwood rise to stardom. However, I have a very lukewarm relationship with westerns, as I've mentioned in my reviews several times, so I can't overlook many of the film's unfinished aspects. Leone was still finding himself in this filmmaking genre and honing his directing style. While I forgive genre clichés much more readily in other entertaining genres that I like more, I am unforgiving here. For example, key scenes such as the attack on the military convoy or the destruction of Baxter's hideout are poorly shot and practically cry out for parody. Notice the dozens of male characters, who, after being shot in the chest, tense up, grab their heart, and slowly stagger to the ground with a typical motion. Overall, the script is naive, and a person simply has to turn off their brain. In his later films, Leone added much greater depth of thought, and new motifs, and even Morricone delivered much more emotional performances. When it comes to westerns, I prefer a more realistic style, for example, as demonstrated by the Coen brothers in their new film True Grit. This film lacks much of what I appreciate in cinema, such as realism, rawness, and the internal logic of the story. On the other hand, there are plenty of aspects that repel me from this genre. Overall impression: 40%.
()
This is where it all began. For westerns, for Eastwood and also maybe for Leone. The day when a gunslinger arrived in a small town. The story is simple, but nice, the same as the characters in it. And Clint straining snappy lines through his perpetual cheroot is just delicious. When a man's got money in his pocket he begins to appreciate peace.
()
Ads